All the Democrats have to do to end the war now is...nothing.

Bush vetos bill. Bush gets no new bill to fund the war. War over.

Smith's vote, I understand; he's from Oregon. (How ANY Republican gets ANY votes in Oregon is a mystery to me.) Hagel? From Nebraska? Son, just who do you think your constituency is? Good luck in your next re-election, you'll need it.

As for passing it: FUBAR.

The Democrat Party has shown that they hate President Bush more than they love this country.

Harry Reid has surrendered, apparently after Nancy Pelosi negotiated the surrender in Syria. I expect Harry to be the first to line up for the beheading or handing the protection tax to the mullahs.
I am disgusted at these surrender-crats.

Thank you Joe Lieberman for understanding that when your enemy says they want you dead you should believe them. Harry and Nancy seem to think it is just rhetoric, they don't care that Iran and other Islamic extremists have said they want to wipe Israel off the map and bring America to her knees.

Harry Reid is a disgrace to the Senate. Sadly two traitors that were elected Republicans also joined him. This vote should go down in a list that will be used to censure these cowards.

The withdraw provisions are non binding, so what is the problem?

Bush is going to defund the war over non binding time tables?

Peter F.

I'm from and currently living in Nebraska. Believe me when I say Hagel will NOT get re-elected, due mostly to this idiocy.

have complained that the President has not done enough to inform the American people on the war.

Jeez-were talking about an American public a majority of which can't name the Vice President-but by gawd they know who Sanjaya is-

Game over.

I agree with most of Update III. If would be great if Bush could inform the American public about the war. I think most people are getting sick of hearing rhetroric about Iraq and would appreciate some candid answers from the CinC.

I agree with most of Update III. If would be great if Bush could inform the American public about the war.

Who's stopping him? We've heard him talk about the war many, many times. He's should always tell us what he's thinking.

I don't think Bush is shy; if he has something to say, he will.

Blue Neposnet-

You think that Bush can cut through the fog of the Liberal MSM 24/7 cable news cycle? The Hollywood elitest narcissistic stars on every talk show morning, noon and night?

I bet-given the MSM picadillos you could name three mass murderers or three boyfriends of Anna Nicole Smith before you could name three ACTIVE DUTY Generals currently conducting the war.

After the Gulf War the MSM combined decided not to give the military direct access to the American public-for supposedly "ethical" reasons and the military briefings this time were no longer highlighted or void of talking head interpretations from the likes of Matthews and Olbermann. [ who get more direct access to the public's living rooms than the President.]

The media said they were not going to "create" another "hero" a la Colin Powell or Schwartzkopf and they've been successful at that.

Hell I'm willing to bet that even the terrorist propaganda and tapes get played more by the MSM than the President's speeches.

Hard to compete with the graphic violence and threats of the terrorists and Hollywood starlets.

I think it is a binding withdrawl if their mandates are not met. Then, even if they are met, we withdraw anyway, only a little bit later. Except, of course, to leave a few victims behind to fight Al Queda. But only them. If an insurgent is standing next to the Al Queda guy, we can only shoot at the Al Queda guy but have to miss the insurgent. The Democrats in Congress are lunatics!!

-Schwarzkopf

You think that Bush can cut through the fog of the Liberal MSM 24/7 cable news cycle?

Do I think Bush could do it? No, I am confident Reagan or Clinton could do it, but not Bush. I still think he should try though.

"You think that Bush can cut through the fog of the Liberal MSM 24/7 cable news cycle?"

He can give a speech and get coverage any time, without interruption. Whether or not his speech is well-received is up to the listener.

I'm sorry, but I'm still laughing that Cheney's approval rating is higher than Reid. TOO FUNNY.

Clinton was a Democrat-media darling.

Reagan did not have to contend with the same media cycles or conduct a major war-which are never really "popular".

btw-

You didn't even try to name two current Generals-ask yourself why that is.

Why don't you know their names when you could probably name three terrorists?

I think it is a binding withdrawl.. bio mom

Nope, it is non binding. That's correct, the the Righties are blowing a gasket over non binding provisions. Bush is playing politics with the lives of our armed forces.

From CNN:
"The House originally had called for a binding deadline of removing combat troops by August 2008, but the Senate passed a nonbinding bill setting out a goal of withdrawing combat troops from Iraq no later than March 2008.

House leaders agreed to adopt the Senate's language to get the bill through Congress and to Bush's desk."

BarneyG2000:

Nope, it is non binding. That's correct, the the Righties are blowing a gasket over non binding provisions. Bush is playing politics with the lives of our armed forces.

From the L.A. Times:

Democratic-controlled Senate passes legislation that would require the start of troop withdrawals by Oct. 1.

Whether it was binding or not, it still sends the wrong message to the jihadis by telling them if they can just kill enough American troops we'll cut and run. Reid and Pelosi are contributing to American deaths in Iraq just as surely as Kerry and Fonda did in Viet Nam. May they all four suffer the eternal fate they richly deserve.

Whether it was binding or not, it still sends the wrong message to the jihadis by telling them if they can just kill enough American troops we'll cut and run. Reid and Pelosi are contributing to American deaths in Iraq just as surely as Kerry and Fonda did in Viet Nam. May they all four suffer the eternal fate they richly deserve.

Blue Nep: " think most people are getting sick of hearing rhetroric about Iraq and would appreciate some candid answers from the CinC."

Publicus: "Whether or not his speech is well-received is up to the listener."

Harry Reid: "I don't believe Gen Petraeus"

Anyone see a pattern?

Bill: "Whether it was binding or not, it still sends the wrong message to the jihadis by telling them if they can just kill enough American troops we'll cut and run."

Bill, they know that.

They don't care.

They want power here, and they don't care which enemies of the US they have to empower to do it.

Just like leftist support for the Soviets, Castro, Kim il Sung (and now son), Chavez, etc.

If you are a totalitarian leftist dicatator who hates America, you too will receive rhetorical, morale, and often times financial support from leftists here and in Europe. Every time. Without exception.

Acchhh! moral, not morale!

(Stop "helping" me Microsoft!!)

Oh, my my my. How will we explain this? Or this?

Can't view the videos? Well, then guess who said this about our troops:

What's the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate orderly withdrawal. And if we don't do that, and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured, because we stayed too long, longer than necessary, then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States, and mandate that they [be] brought home [as] quickly and safely as possible.

Democrats are our homegrown enemy. The terrorists within. Or at least the terrorists PR machine. Nice.

The president does have choices. Veto the bill and let the surrender monkeys monkey with it for a few more months or sign it and immediately withdraw every American troop from the middle east. When I say withdraw I mean every troop from every country in the Middle East. Let the surrender monkeys drink the blood of millions who will be slaughtered. Then watch then squirm when gas goes to $20 a gallon, and it will, and millions of now well off Americans (most too stupid ,all democrats, to know how well off they are) spend next winter without heat and elect. Employment is really now at 100%, let the middle east go nuts and the unemployment will be 25-50% within months.
I think the destruction of America to satisfy their chief financier (Soros)is what the democrats are really after.

I love the idea of sending white surrender feathers to all of the democrat party (traitors) failed leaders. Looking for some now. My feather dusters are all colored but I'll find a white one and mail each of the idiots a surrender letter and a feather.
Watching the educated elitest fail at everything they try is fun. They can run a circus called congress but they can't run the country.

Damn, _Mike_, ya beat me to it. Barney is wrong as usual. Troop withdrawl would be required.

Bush vetos bill. Bush gets no new bill to fund the war. War over.

No, the Pentagon takes money from other resources and projects to fund it. War not over. Just severely hampered and, as Leiberman estutely pointed out, that without our financial help and the ability to equip and help protect them, the Iraqis will have an incredibly difficult time meeting any deadlines.

Bush needs to go down to Fr Bragg, where he just was, and veto the damn bill on the base, in front of hundreds of soldiers.

Then he needs to DEMAND that Reid and Pelosi come to Ft Bragg and explain, in person, why they are undercutting our troops and putting us in danger.

Perhaps Bush should call for TV time, but after he's on the air, bring in Petraus to tell and American people what's actually happening on the ground.

I dare the broadcast nets to pull the plug on that.

In addition, military commanders should be encouraged to go on Fox News and give direct, clear reports to the viewers about what's happening. Those commanders will never get on the nets or CNN, so skip them. Go to the audience that will listen and vote accordingly.

Two parties can play chicken. If the MSM won't put the truth out, then bypass them and give Fox and Rush, if necessary, exclusive access to commanders and people like Michael Yon.

The nets and CNN can scream all they want. They have no right to coverage, and they distort what they get already.

Enough.

I also hope for a primetime speech on the veto. I wrote the speech I think Bush should give:

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/004707.html

We hear that there are tumults and riots in Rome, and that voices are raised concerning the army and the quality of our soldiers. Make haste to reassure us that you love and support us as we love and support you, for if we find that we have left our bones to bleach in these sands in vain, then beware the fury of the legions.

- Centurion Marcus Flavinius, Second Cohort, Augusta Legion

Having just walked away from the "debate" among the sorry group of dem candidates (I could take no more), I have decided that I think that Bush should NOT veto the bill.

He should sign the damn thing, bowing to the "overwhelming sentiment" of the American people , and then we can watch the whole damn lot of unprincipled cowards run for cover as the world watches the region descend into a killing field the likes of which will make Cambodia seem like a playground fight.

"Troop withdrawl would be required." Peter F

No it does not. The provision says that if the benchmarks are not met then some troop reduction would be required by Oct, but full withdrawal is a non binding goal.

Even Republicans have stated that we will know before the end of summer if the surge is working or not, and we can not continue these surge levels of deployment, so some withdrawal will happen by fall whether this bill is singed or not.

Brian:

Oh, my my my. How will we explain this? Or this?

So! What's to explain?

Does that mean you believe nothing in world politics or world threats and how different nations react to it never changes?

And BTW McCain was wrong then just as the leader of the pull out then...Rep[rehensible] Murtha was.

So again, what's your point? Other than some sad attempt at playing the gotcha game normally played on a fifth grade school yard.

If 2/3 are not available for override, every day
at Noon Reid should put this issue up for vote until it is crystal clear to the American People just WHO is denying funds for the troops.

"WASHINGTON -- A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war." (emphasis mine)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268699,00.html

Barney lies again.

Even Grumpy Old Caveman knows the blockhead in the Oval Office is just too pig-headed for the average troglodyte.

Barney, go to the front page of the NY Times, WaPo, LA Times, Drudge, wherever, you'll find this in the first paragraph of the NY Times:

"The vote will send the measure to President Bush, who has vowed to veto it because it would require American troops to begin withdrawing by Oct. 1."

Slight withdraw, full-withdrawl, it makes not a whit of fucking difference. It's STILL admitting defeat to our enemies.

And explain this all liberal nitwits: If we've officially "lost" in a Iraq, then there MUST be a winner. So who is it?

Barney, you and your fellow trolls should sue Media Matters just for the fact that their talking points you spew in here make you look like a fool.

Semanticleo, you are a pig for disrespecting the President of the United States. I'll bet you cannot equal any of his accomplishments, in any phase of his life. Got a MBA from Harvard do ya?

Does that mean you believe nothing in world politics or world threats and how different nations react to it never changes?

Ah, the old "changing the argument" game. If that were all the right had claimed, you might have a point. But with all the calls from the right at how the Democrats are "undermining" Bush, and how you always respect a sitting president, and how what the president says goes even if you disagree... well, this just makes you look all the more the desperate fools, liars, and hypocrites.

So again, what's your point?

Go listen to McCain again. Figure it out.

brainy, peter and jo I speak only the truth. The full withdrawal is non binding. The start of withdrawal only kicks in if the benchmarks are not met, and from the President to the Generals to Boehner all said:
-By the end of the summer we will know if the surge is working
-We can not sustain the current level of deployment

Either way the drawdown will begin this fall.

Brian:

Go listen to McCain again. Figure it out.

What's to figure out?

McCain is taking the same position then as the Dems are taking now and Murtha did then.

Secondly, the comment was directed at YOU, however rather than answer my question to (again) you, a sorry attempt was made to assign something to me that isn't true, i.e. "how you always respect a sitting president, and how what the president says goes even if you disagree."

Now if you care to find any comment here or posts on my political blog that comes close to that sentiment free free to waste your time.

Now back to the original point, your ignorant link to McCain are nothing more than fifth grade school house level, as already stated.

It's the same stupidity shown by those that point at Rumsfeld images shaking Saddams hand.

The mental midgets that do MUST believe the world never changes, priorities of countries and strategic alliances never change everything is static forevermore.

OR... they're just stupid and have zero capacity to carry on a coherent debate so they point and yell SEEEEEEE.

I think you've done a fine job of correctly labeling yourself.

Publicus said it best. This is perfect. Congress sends the decider a war funding bill. Decider decides he doesn't like it (because HE is America dammit). Decider vetoes said bill. Congress does nothing. In 3 months, sidetrack war is over and we can find Bin Laden where he's been the whole time, in AFGHANISTAN!!!!

Ryan do you understand what Commander in Chief means? Who won the last Presidential election? Was there any doubt in your mind what Bush would do if he were re-elected? Guess what, he was re-elected and he is doing what he said he would do. Congress and fund or not fund the war. That is all. They are not given oversight.

Decider vetoes said bill. Congress does nothing.

I think we are probably going to be seeing a serious of short-term funding bills for the foreseeable future. But Congress won't agree to give Bush the blank check he wants.

This debate is far from over. It's just beginning really.

Either way the drawdown will begin this fall.

So how is this non-binding, genius? If it was non-binding then why even threaten to veto it? To threaten to do so would be pointless. Just what part of the word "required" don't you get.

Or, are you just so convinced that the Iraqis cannot meet any or enough of the benchmarks that a "drawdown" (aka: defeat, admitting Al Qaeda has won, etc.) is inevitable.

What's to figure out?

McCain is taking the same position then as the Dems are taking now

Well, there's hope for you yet. Now figure out why that's noteworthy. Here's a hint... how many Republicans condemned McCain for that position. Both times?

Secondly, the comment was directed at YOU, however rather than answer my question to (again) you

Your quetion to ME was what was the point I was making with my post, which I then explained was that the right was engaged in exactly the behavior a few years ago that today they are calling treasonous. I'm sorry if you wanted me to comment something about your personal beliefs, but that is related neither to what I posted nor what you asked of me.

Now back to the original point, your ignorant link to McCain are nothing more than fifth grade school house level, as already stated.

Yes, you stated. Without explanation, though, it's just the equivalent of yelling "nyah nyah nyah".

The mental midgets that do MUST believe the world never changes, priorities of countries and strategic alliances never change everything is static forevermore.

The world changes. But I'm not aware that the US Constitution changed between 1993 and 2007. If not, then the Congress either has a role in withdrawing troops, or they don't. Which is it? This is not a trick question, and doesn't depend on changing worlds or strategic alliances.

OR... they're just stupid and have zero capacity to carry on a coherent debate so they point and yell SEEEEEEE.

Or, more accurately, they just ignore the content of the debate and go right to hand-waving away salient points with the "it's irrelevant because I say it is" agrument. Yes, I agree, these mental midgets of yours must be avoided.

Ryan:

In 3 months, sidetrack war is over and we can find Bin Laden where he's been the whole time, in AFGHANISTAN!!!!

And the end political result of that is a Congress that will be widely labeled on both sides of the aisle as a do nothing, ineffectual bunch of boobs who failed to do their job. Not that that is any different, just moreso if this scenario comes to pass.

And BTW, without reading the entire bill and relying on memory, part of the funding is directed at the reconstruction of Afghanistan to continue/supplement combat ops there.

You need to turn up the wattage, your "bulb" is shinning a bit too low.

Brian:

The world changes. But I'm not aware that the US Constitution changed between 1993 and 2007. If not, then the Congress either has a role in withdrawing troops, or they don't. Which is it? This is not a trick question, and doesn't depend on changing worlds or strategic alliances.

The only roll they have is to cut off funds, they did it in '93 they are attempting to do it now. An up to this point they have shown zero honesty or enough guts to do it.

"Nevertheless, the legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to send to Bush since they reclaimed control of both houses of Congress in January."
(emphasis mine)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070426/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Barney lies, then lies about how he lies.