Somebody wheel Country Joe and the Fish on stage and give the dusty old farts a celebratory kazoo:
U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.
“I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold’s important legislation,†Reid said. “I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period.â€Â
“I am delighted to be working with the Majority Leader to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to an end,†Feingold said. “Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq.â€Â
The language of the legislation reads:
(a) Transition of Mission – The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).
(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq – The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds – No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.
(d) Exception for Limited Purposes – The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:
(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.
(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.
(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.
[my emphasis]
Well, at least they’ve fashioned the language so that the US military can conduct targeted operations against neocon terrorists.
Oh. And just for the record, here’s Harry Reid in 2005, speaking at the National Press Club:
“As far as setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that’s not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don’t want us there, and it doesn’t work well to do that.”
Until, of course, it does.
I believe the “reality-based” community calls that kind of complete 180 nuance.
So. Who will play Pol Pot this time around, do you think? And do you suppose Nancy Pelosi’s upcoming meeting with Assad has as part of its mission to negotiate a path to the sea through Syria for those Iraqis who supported the US? Because you can’t really have boat people without water…
Via Gateway Pundit.
(h/t CJ Burch)
Smart Iraqis will be a) leaving Iraq b) hedging their bets(read: lives) with terrorists/Iranians.
I cannot begin to describe the shame I feel. Our Democrat “leaders” will burn in hell some day for putting politics ahead of humanity.
Expect lots and lots of Islamic folks to be moving in to your neighborhood soon. Personally, I love Little Saigon and Koreatown, but am a bit worried about having a local “Little Bagdad” nearby. ^_^’’’
Richard Nixon pulled our troops outta Vietnam.
Congress just cut back on the amount of pork we were sending our corrupt puppets in South Vietnam.
So, not really just like Vietnam.
We may soon learn what a civil war looks like in Iraq. Of course, it will all be Bush’s fault.
So the American people can’t be trusted to donate their own money to political campaigns, watch unregulated political ads, manage their own retirement, manage their own healthcare, manage their own dietary intake or have control of their childrens education- but we should let them determine our foreign policy in a place the majority of them can’t find on a fucking map.
Do I have that about right, then?
Translated: “We don’t need no steenking Constitution.”
Because you can’t really have boat people without water…
There’s always the Shatt-al-Arab, if you stay out of the Iranian side.
Transition is not a verb.
Our “corrupt sockpuppets” as compared to the Communist North Vietnamese that slaughtered the South Vietnamese by the thousands when we abandoned them?
hon·or:[on-er]–noun
1. honesty, fairness, or integrity in one’s beliefs and actions: a man of honor.
2. Principled uprightness of character; personal integrity.
3. A code of integrity, dignity, and pride, chiefly among men, that was maintained in some societies, as in feudal Europe, by force of arms.
History is just something that happened to other people for you, isn’t it, alphie?
So Democrats want to limit the duration and scope of our operations against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations?
Brilliant. Can’t vote on this one too soon I say.
Why did we attack our former ally Saddam Hussein then, Zoomie?
Why are we mad at out former ally Osama, for that matter?
Alphie,
Do you have any evidence to support your assertions about being allied with either individual?
Second, can you demonstrate any cases in the history of international affairs in which your assertion has any point or relevance whatsoever?
BRD
Zoomie, please do not engage the talking telephone pole.
That is all.
Jeff, although the content contained within your post sickens me to no end, thank you for reminding me why I CAN’T vote for most democrats right now.
If the stakes weren’t so serious, I’d suggest this to the President in light of the current War, which, if I’m to believe the most common refrain from Democratic lawmakers, apparently the majority of the country sees as a failed venture:
Bush and Cheney both go on live TV and resign. They tell the nation that their first and primary goal of their administration was to win the War in Iraq with all the tools available to them in the executive office. However, their was a loud message that the American people have elected to office leadership who clearly will not support any further measures to win this war (even if most of the military commanders on the ground speak differently).
Then, Pelosi, as CINC, and the Left can manage the 120-day pullout themselves on their own watch. The world will witness the biggest disaster and affront to freedom that will occur when America turns to its radical Left and gives up on the most important war of its generation merely to settle political scores. Because, as Jeff said, of the hypocrisy!
aphid, has anyone told you, oh, over the last 24 hours that you are an ignorant, treasonous twat?
This @#$!head is lucky PW isn’t my blog. If it were, that comment would have gotten him banned so hard his fourth cousins twice removed would lose their internet access.
I’ve kinda sorta lost patience with al’@#$!head, can you tell?
Can I please feed the troll?
Because I am delighted to see the reappearance of the old canard that Osama was our ally. Because, you know, he had to be. Hadn’t seen that one in awhile.
That one’s rarer than the dead-but-too-dumb-to-lie-down meme that Saddam was our bestest buddy in the whole world. Soviet client state? Who cares? Rumsfeld shook his hand! (While personally delivering him chemical weapons, but here I think I’m conflating alphie with markg8.)
BRD,
Consider that when Saddam fired two French missiles into the USS. Stark, we accepted his “My Bad” and didn’t respond in any way.
Yet a year later, when the USS Samuel Roberts hit an Iranian (maybe) mine, we shelled Iran, sank some of their ships and even shot down one of their airliners full of civilians in response.
I’d say that’s proof we allied with Saddam after he invaded Iran.
Zoomie, as usual jihadi boy is full of shit. What that time’s congress said was remarkably similar what todays congress wants to do in Iraq. Timed withdrawal, no ground support allowed after the fact, and no air support except by exemptions that were not applied. The NVA forces in place in the south could not be engaged during the withdrawal. So they reinforced and waited until the last US combat units were pulled, then launched a full court press from the north while in country NVA forces cut SVA units off from supporting Saigon.
It had nothing to do with pork. US aid to the south was not cut off, but when Saigon fell, end of story.
Democrats, dirty rotten Copperheads.
Let me just state for the record that I am categorically against giving any kind of farts kazoos.
One day, people will visit this blog and it won’t be about an obtuse contrarian nitwit.
What a breath of fresh air that will be.
alphie is starting to make Rosie O’Donnell look intelligent.
Well, that and the fact that pork goes home with a Congressman and it isn’t spent abroad. But debunking that little turdlet is like pointing out a grain of sand in a desert.
This looks to me only like an escalation in the posturing. This bill will get vetoed and congress won’t have the votes to overturn the veto. I suspect there is more than a handful of Democrats who will support this only because they know that to be true.
US aid to the south was not cut off…
Should have said that only US military support to the south was cut off, not aid in the form of military supplies and the usual foreign aid packages.
And al’phuckhead continues to push the envelope.
Which side Harrison? I think the Iraqi side is currently being ceded. So, no it’ll have to be to the north.
This is certainly a putrid tack, and I second the feeling of shame burrhog.
And how sad is that, when you stop to think about it.
I, too, am ashamed.
Time for a Not In Our Name campaign, maybe?
That would certainly turn the tables, wouldn’t it?
Push? I think he ripped it in two. He clearly implies, above, that the Us intentionally shot down an Iranian airliner.
Again, if the TTP were an enemy agent or a traitor, how would he act differently?
It’s completely putrid.
But at the end of the day, when the alternative is having those Dems be honestly committed to supremely destructive policies, I find it perversely comforting to assume that they’re “merely” dishonest demagogues.
Seems like just last week, the right was saying the House Dems were just voting for a bill with a timetable in it because there was no way the Senate would pass a bill with a timetable in it, too.
Maybe someone made that argument, but I never heard it. In either case, if you’re suggesting that the congressional dems are voting on principle, you may be right, although I doubt it. If you’re suggesting that this bill won’t get vetoed, or that the veto will be overturned, you’re destined to be disappointed.
I’m suggesting that the Dems might just offer The Decider one and only one bill to fund his surge.
Maybe George “No Plan B” Bush should think twice before unsheathing his little-used veto pen.
Possible. Although several of them – most recently Obama – have already indicated they won’t do that, so it appears unlikely. It also supports the dishonest demagoguery view, as opposed to the principled vote view.
I submit every postmodern liberal and whole lot of garden-variety Democrats, were they given two buttons that controlled the outcome of Iraq, one for complete success, the other for total failure, would universally choose FAILURE.
And I further submit that any asshat who uses terms like ”his surge,” would choose FAILURE.
About right, Alphie?
Nope. They can’t just offer one bill like jihadi boy says. Once it’s vetoed, they get one shot to to get the necessary votes to override the veto, they have to go back to square one in the House and try again. And again, And again. They have no choice. It’s a legal request from the executive branch for emergency military funding. And each time it has to go to the vote of the whole House, and then to the Senate. Jihadi boy doesn’t know what he’s talking about again. And again, And again.
You sure about that JPT? Because I believe that, after failing to overturn the veto, the congress could decline to send another bill up. They won’t, but they hypothetically could.
What a waste of time, energy, and money. What a sqandering of the reluctant good will these morons were extended. Yes, the American people may have installed a new regime because of a variety of grievances, the handling of the Iraq situation in particular. But I sure as hell didn’t flush the toilet only to have it overflow all over the bathroom floor.
I can’t decide what’s more pathetic, the further politicization of a war, in an effort to regain the Executive Branch, when American troops are in harm’s way, or the huge boner it gives little “a” & the left.
This must be another one of those brave, important moral victories that dKOS is so found of & marky mark thinks is so worthy of respect – mind you, not the helping of the victims of over 35 years repession gain & manitain their freedom, but the submitting of a bill that will never, ever become law.
That’s it. I no longer consider America to be a great country. 50-60% of it’s people are great, but certainly not the whole country.
This is because of the demosntraby left-wing media, which has swayed public opinion in a way that makes these Senators cater to it. So much for leadership.
It’s not leadership anymore Thomas, rather they’re acting as placeholders for pork.
The tragic thing is they seem to think that their feckless behavior can go on indefinitely, providing them with a fat retirement and their annointed replacements with another 50 year turn at the trough.
The country won’t survive it this time around.
Here is a letter co-drafted in 2002 by Biden and Hagel. They state that to turn Iraq into a stable democracy will take at least 10 years. I think every asshole in the world wishes they could go back on their word as well as these two assholes have:
http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=189649&&
The pivot on which all of this cynical politicking turns today is the Democrats’ fervent and obsessive desire not to have Iraq or even terrorism on the national agenda come November 2008. Their greatest fear is that their penchant for cutting and running at the first whiff of cordite will cause sensible Americans to banish them to the minority yet again or, failing that, to have Iraq collapse into anarchy on their watch and because of their feckless leadership.
No, they want Iraq to collapse, and they want it to do so on Chimpy’s watch. Never mind that it is their rhetoric that emboldens the Islamist shitheels, they’ll have a bloody shirt to wave.
PMain,
It’s the people pushing the costly and pointless government program that are generally considered to be the Leftists.
In this case, that’s the pro war crowd.
From what I’ve read, if Bush does veto the money he needs to keep the surge doing, er, whatever it’s supposed to be doing, Congress may start passing bills to fund it on a month-by-month basis.
No, it is a legal request from the president and has to be addressed. The veto returns the bill for consideration for override and then back to the floor it that fails. The House has to take up a funding request from the president even if it languishes in committee. The legislature can’t say ‘Well, the rules say we can only force the bill as written with 2/3 majority, but if we can’t force it we just won’t send another’. They have to address it. Nothing says they can’t keep sending the identical bill back up, but like I said, it has to go to the floor again for vote, and then to the senate for vote again.
The House can only refuse to send another bill up by denying the funding request outright, and that has to be by open vote too. I guess I left out that scenario as I couldn’t imagine stupidity of that magnitude.
Bingo. That is Pelosi’s overriding consideration and placed before any question of what is best for the country in my estimation. A huge gamble for the Democrats that will either wreck the party or give them House, Senate, and Oval Office for 8 years minimum.
That’s the alternative scenario, and that’s exactly why I say it won’t happen. They’ll fund without caveats because they know their political lives will depend on it.
We need Jack Bauer to take care of Congress for us.
This, in fact, represents progress. Last time, we had to remind alfi that it was the Democrats who started the Vietnam War (I believe he referred to it as “Nixon’s War”) and not the Republicans, who ended it.
Nah, furriskey, it’s not progress. It’s just that the talking points he works off of shifted to attack Fred Thompson. The Man With No Worldview also has no memory (or no honesty), and doesn’t remember what exactly his position was last week.
Progress in the sense that an amoeba may be said to progress across a bit of pond weed.
Having Googled Fred Thompson I finally see a convincing candidate.
Plus to have a President called Fred would be cool as a mountain stream.
“surge doing, er, whatever it’s supposed to be doing”
So the liar’s back?
No understanding of history, politics, current events or Congressional votes.
You are puporting to not understand what the surge is, and “what it’s supposed to be doing”. You’ve amply demonstrated that you are far too stupid to understand it, and would hate it if it worked, because it would mean a defeat for terrorism, rather than a continuation of misery.
Aside from that, what’s your point? Thus far you’ve lied about the nature, scope and intent of the conflict, repeatedly tried to imply that there was no UN resolution regarding Iraq, no Congressional vote regarding Iraq, and now you’re lying about what happened in 1975. If you think that your bizarro version of history is apt, please cite a source.
It must be really bad to wake up every morning to face a new day knowing you’re still Alfie Alpho, or is Alfie just Alpho after it passed through the dog? Someone sell him a clue, he’s too stupid to accept the free ones.
Why isn’t Alphie playing on the KOS or HuffPuff sites? Won’t they let another brain dead zombie join? Try Bagdad Rosie, she has about the same brain power, 0 watts.
They apparently didn’t need this amendment:
4) Change the Department of Defense to the Department of Defenselessness.
per alphie —
Pork – ammo, food, fuel to an ally by treaty who had fought an armored invasion of their country to a standstill for nearly two years without us.
There is no ally that Alphie’s crowd wouldn’t sell up the river to gain some modicum of domestic political points.
Poland, I’d start getting nervous if Putin starts talking about “living room”
If by ‘domestic political points’ you mean ‘dollars from the lunatic leftist base’, I agree.
It must be really bad to wake up every morning to face a new day knowing you’re still Alfie Alpho, or is Alfie just Alpho after it passed through the dog? Someone sell him a clue, he’s too stupid to accept the free ones.
Posted by Scrapiron
He’s under the impression that he’s clever. If you don’t play into his extremely narcissic ego trip, he’ll take his misconceptions and go home.