Article

2006-06-19 Home Front: Politix

Senate Democrats want vote on Iraq withdrawal plan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2006-06-19 00:00|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Setting a timetable "would be an absolute, unmitigated disaster, not merely for the people of Iraq, but the larger war on terror"

Precisely what they seek for purely political purposes. It is beginning to seem to me that we should either buy off the Dhimmis or go ahead and kill them. They are determined to take us all down.

Posted by Slatle Chomotle5631 2006-06-19 00:32|| 2006-06-19 00:32|| Front Page Top

#2 Of course we can't kill them, and I think President Bush was trying to buy them off by not fighting their spending legislation -- but either they didn't realized they'd been bought, or they never intended to stay bought.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-06-19 00:42|| 2006-06-19 00:42|| Front Page Top

#3 Not sure how this would differ than the decisive vote last week in the Senate against a year-end pullout.

The more the donks push this shit, the worse they look. While a majority of Americans are apprehensive about the war, cut-and-run is even less popular.

Posted by Captain America 2006-06-19 00:51|| 2006-06-19 00:51|| Front Page Top

#4 That answer won't work... cause it does nothing for our national security. So... anyone got an answer? And what is the precedent for this timetable? What other war have we participated in, that a timetable was established and to which we removed troops? Where is the history that backs up this solution?

Having graduated from a school system that demanded I learn and repeat, standing up, in front of my class in seventh grade, to recite the Gettysburg address as part of my grade, I didn't learn of any war in which a timetable was established for withdrawal.

So say you, Democrats? Is this a new strategy of how to win wars? This is our answer to those who no longer value life, and only desire to behead those of my country that have volunteered to protect me? To set a plan for withdrawal from their lands?

What is this timetable and what purpose does it serve? We set it, we meet this timetable. Terrorists settle in all over the globe. What have you gained?

Just needing some help here to understand this plan of an Iraq withdrawal plan.

Standing here, back in front of that seventh grade class, staring down at the floor, knowing my grade is up in the air... wondering, 50 years from now, what kids will be "reciting" as the reason for the "Great Withdrawal Plan from Iraq" that was so successful in the GWOT.

Seems to me -- Democrats were in charge for most of Vietnam. Democrats, according to Murtha are now taking credit for the removing of our troops from Mogadishu

Hummm -- Democrats -- what say you? To me, these are the only two "wars" that are perceived to have been lost by Americans. You want another notch in your belt? Okay... you remove the troops, then what? What is your plan for withdrawal, with an American victory

Any one out there have some directions for me? Cause I'm just a little confused by this vote on Iraq withdrawal plan.

Thanks

Posted by Sherry">Sherry 2006-06-19 01:52|| 2006-06-19 01:52|| Front Page Top

#5 The timing was perfect for them cause we are actually winning, just like vietnam. They just can't let US win, can they? I would say the blood of ALL of the Soldiers are on their hands for pulling this stunt THREE TIMES IN A ROW. Such EVIL.

Posted by newc">newc 2006-06-19 05:48|| 2006-06-19 05:48|| Front Page Top

#6 I think it's time to pull the troops out of South Korea. That democrat president's war has been over for 55 years now. The troops are gettin old over there, and what about Kosovo ? How long are we going to hold hands there ?
By the way, I know the democrat party is finished now because, 6 years ago they ran Sen. Lieberman for Vice-president, and now they are running someone against him in the primaries. They are also beginning to chew up Hillary Clinton, famous front runner for the 2008 race. After denial comes self-destruction.

Posted by wxjames 2006-06-19 07:44|| 2006-06-19 07:44|| Front Page Top

#7 newc - your close.

The Democrats have placed themselves in a position where the United States and the West *must* lose the WOT and lose big. To them the more dead americans the better for them. That is the only way they can claim *victory* and *save* america from the horrors of being a soverign(sp?) and free state. If they win you can bet there will soon be laws against speaking against Islam (but not Christianity or Judism) and we will find ourselves hogtied by laws and regulations and unable to defend ourselves or even think for ourseles much like europabia is now.

What kind of idiot would tell their enemy, "Ok, in 2 minutes I'll give up and let you have what you want!". Perhaps in this case not idiots - just traitors.

And if you think making a "We'll return if things get too bad" promise will work, you might want to consult with the South Vietmanese.

Posted by CrazyFool 2006-06-19 08:41|| 2006-06-19 08:41|| Front Page Top

#8 sovereign. ;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2006-06-19 11:58|| 2006-06-19 11:58|| Front Page Top

#9 I think it is time to shoot some democrats - that's what you do to traitors. They have no desire to allow the President to conduct this war, which is HIS duty, not that of the Senate or House. Once they authorize the use of force, everything falls into the hands of the President. Now they want to grab the reins, because it looks like we're winning. Shoot them. They are not working in the best interest of the United States, they are not "supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States, and bearing true faith and allegience to it". They are trying to keep the President from winning, which is aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States in time of war. Shoot about 30 of them, and watch how few democrats want to run in their place.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2006-06-19 15:20|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2006-06-19 15:20|| Front Page Top

#10 Question -- let's just say, the Senate does pass some ridiculous bill, stating something like out by the end of 2007. Does the President, as Commander-in-Chief have to do what they pass?

Mostly what I see, they keep doing this, and come November, voters will know where they stand.

Posted by Sherry 2006-06-19 17:05|| 2006-06-19 17:05|| Front Page Top

#11 Sherry, The president doesn't take orders from the Senate. The only thing the Senate can do is stop funding for the military, and the House would have to go along, or they could refuse to pass the spending bill which funds the military. Considering that military hardware is manufactured in every state, and almost in every Congressional district, and considering that shutting down the military could effectively shut down all ports and airports, it's not likely.

Posted by wxjames 2006-06-19 19:24|| 2006-06-19 19:24|| Front Page Top

15:27 Besoeker
07:59 wxjames
23:56 newc
23:52 Eric Jablow
23:51 Frank G
23:49 Frank G
23:41 phil_b
23:40 Oldspook
23:00 Glains Threrese9277
22:58 zazz
22:48 Frank G
22:48 Captain America
22:44 Chort Chomoth7972
22:35 Frank G
22:31 Oldspook
22:30 RD
22:21 RWV
22:18 Chuck Simmins
22:17 RWV
22:16 Barbara Skolaut
22:13 tu3031
22:11 Chort Chomoth7972
22:02 Frank G
21:35 Valentine