White House hangs veto over pullout plan

[Thomas Veil]

WASHINGTON - House Democratic leaders vowed Thursday to pass legislation setting a deadline of Sept. 1, 2008, for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, a challenge to President Bush's war policy that drew a blunt veto threat in return.

"It would unnecessarily handcuff our generals on the ground, and it's safe to say it's a nonstarter for the president," said White House spokesman Dan Bartlett.

Little more than two months after Democrats took control of the House and Senate, Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said the bill would set "dates certain for the first time in the Congress for the redeployment of our troops out of Iraq."

Officials said the deadline would be accelerated - possibly to the end of 2007 - if the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki failed to meet commitments for taking over security operations, distributing oil revenue and opening his nation's constitution to amendments.

Pelosi said Democrats would add their war-related provisions to the administration's request for nearly $100 billion to pay for the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The plan is to bring the bill to a vote by the end of the month, making it the first major test of the Democrats' power since they rode a wave of anti-war voter sentiment to midterm election victories last fall.

Across the Capitol, Senate Democrats readied a less sweeping challenge to the commander in chief.

Their version would set a target date of March 31, 2008, for the withdrawal of combat troops - but no deadline. The measure says U.S. forces could stay beyond that date only to protect U.S. personnel, train and equip Iraqi forces and carry out counterterrorism operations. "We can't stay in Iraq forever," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Reid has considerably less leeway than Pelosi, since Senate rules give Republicans greater power than their counterparts have in the House.

Presidential politics also figure in his calculations. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, a candidate for the White House, told reporters the measure includes some of the key provisions of a bill he introduced earlier this year setting a March 31, 2008, target for withdrawal. "It expresses the central insight that we can't have our troops policing a civil war," he said.

Of the 141,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, roughly 60,000 are combat forces and the rest are support troops.

Bartlett attacked the House measure in comments to reporters aboard Air Force One as Bush flew to South America. "Obviously, the administration would vehemently oppose and ultimately veto any legislation that looked like what was described today," he said....

Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have struggled in recent days to devise an approach on the war that would satisfy liberals reluctant to vote for continued funding without driving away more moderate Democrats unwilling to be seen as tying the hands of military commanders.

Democratic aides said their greatest concern was persuading liberals to come aboard, and they were hoping anti-war organizations would come out in favor of the House measure.

Rep. Maxine Waters of California said she told Pelosi she intended to vote no, and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas said she "would have a very difficult time" supporting it.Examiner (http://www.examiner.com/a-608105~White_House_Hangs_Veto_Over_Pullout_Plan.html)

Frustrating, isn't it? Aside from Dubya threatening the veto, the Senate isn't on the same page as the House, and the same is true for liberal and moderate Democrats.

I do agree with tying a withdrawal deadline to funding for the war, though. If Bush vetoes it, he'll be the one who has to explain it to the troops, their families, and the rest of the country.

[mrkramer]

So how many of the Republicans would we have to get to vote for it to overturn Bush's veto?

[solvs]

I hope they try anyway. Makes them look good, finally standing up for what the 70% minority of the country has been calling for. They're going to get criticized for not supporting the troops anyway, though I notice those calls have quieted down recently with the Walter Reed scandal and all. Let him veto and the Republicans stand in the way. More fuel for the fire.

[Agathon]

You know, in the mid seventies, when you guys still had a functional government and political system, Bush would have been impeached long ago.

How low democracy has sunk....

[Thomas Veil]

I hope they try anyway. Makes them look good, finally standing up for what the 70% minority of the country has been calling for. Saw a guy on Countdown who put it very succinctly. I'm paraphrasing, but what he said was, "Some Democrats are afraid that legislating an end to the war will look like they are 'not supporting the troops'. Hello! The Democrats were resoundingly elected in November so that they could end the war. What do some of them need, a big flashing neon sign that says it's okay?"

You know, in the mid seventies, when you guys still had a functional government and political system, Bush would have been impeached long ago.

How low democracy has sunk....How sadly, pathetically true.

[mactastic]

So how many of the Republicans would we have to get to vote for it to overturn Bush's veto?
Too many. 15 in the Senate IIRC. And considering the Democrats can't even attract the 9 Senators it takes to bring non-binding resolutions condemning the troop increase that's opposed by a majority of Americans.

Of course, the "obstructionist" label could prove problematic for the fairly high number of GOP Senators who are up for re-election in '08. Unless this war turns a corner between now and summer '08, any Senator tied too closely to Bush and his reckless war policies will pay a price. Democrats may even be able to avenge the loss of Daschele by ousting McConnell if McConnell isn't careful about how he balances his dual roles as leader of the Senate and representative of his constituency.

"Obstructionist" was used pretty successfully by the GOP in recent years, and it could be a compelling reason to put more Democrats in power if the GOP isn't careful now. "You want the war to end? We need 9 more Democratic Senators!" Those will be the ads.

[mrkramer]

They're going to get criticized for not supporting the troops anyway,

Why is wanting to keep the troops alive by bringing them home called not supporting them by the republicans, IMO it's the best way to support them, instead of having them sitting in Iraq getting killed.

[yg17]

You know, in the mid seventies, when you guys still had a functional government and political system, Bush would have been impeached long ago.

How low democracy has sunk....

Sad, but true :(


Nowadays, you can be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, but god forbid you should ever get a BJ from your intern :rolleyes:

[Rodimus Prime]

As much as I disagreed with the war in Iraq and as much as I hate to say it I agree with Bush Veto. I do not think the US should pull out until after we clean up the mess we help make. Pulling out 2 soon is just going to lead to a lot more civil unrest and it would not surprise me if a civil war broke out in the country after that and that would just lead to another person like Sadaim taking power. Lets face facts some one like Sadaim would just get to much military backing from other terrorist and several other countries. The US hands would be tied because our congress is a bunch of idiots. i really do not want to see this veto get over turned because it was the right move to make vetoing that bill because the US should not pull out until after they clean up there mess. They put a huge power void in Iraq and currently the US is the only filling in that power void and it has to be a slow transition for Iraq to take back full control.

[yg17]

As much as I disagreed with the war in Iraq and as much as I hate to say it I agree with Bush Veto. I do not think the US should pull out until after we clean up the mess we help make. Pulling out 2 soon is just going to lead to a lot more civil unrest and it would not surprise me if a civil war broke out in the country after that and that would just lead to another person like Sadaim taking power. Lets face facts some one like Sadaim would just get to much military backing from other terrorist and several other countries. The US hands would be tied because our congress is a bunch of idiots. i really do not want to see this veto get over turned because it was the right move to make vetoing that bill because the US should not pull out until after they clean up there mess. They put a huge power void in Iraq and currently the US is the only filling in that power void and it has to be a slow transition for Iraq to take back full control.

1. We've been trying to clean up that mess, and are failing miserably. The fact of the matter, is that we cannot control Iraq and make it stable. Not now. Not in 2 years. Not ever. How many more soldiers need to get killed before Bush realizes this?

2. A civil war broke out a long time ago. All we're doing is adding fuel to the fire.

3. So what if someone like Saddam gets into power? It's not our problem. If thats how they want to live, let them. If the Iraqis don't want another dictator, then they need to use their own resources and put their own lives on the line to prevent another dictator. Besides, the Iraqis are no better off now than they were under Saddam, in fact, they're probably worse off.

[Swarmlord]

You know, in the mid seventies, when you guys still had a functional government and political system, Bush would have been impeached long ago.

How low democracy has sunk....

Jimmah Carter and Tip O'Neal were a functional government? Bleh!

[obeygiant]

1. We've been trying to clean up that mess, and are failing miserably. The fact of the matter, is that we cannot control Iraq and make it stable. Not now. Not in 2 years. Not ever. How many more soldiers need to get killed before Bush realizes this?

2. A civil war broke out a long time ago. All we're doing is adding fuel to the fire.

3. So what if someone like Saddam gets into power? It's not our problem. If thats how they want to live, let them. If the Iraqis don't want another dictator, then they need to use their own resources and put their own lives on the line to prevent another dictator. Besides, the Iraqis are no better off now than they were under Saddam, in fact, they're probably worse off.


So whats the plan? Leave? If we left now wouldnt it get worse? Its pointless to talk about pre-war Iraq because you'll just end up where you started. Someone has got to come up a way to deal with situation and minimize the damage.

[Swarmlord]

So whats the plan? Leave? <snip>

The Dems haven't even worked out the pullout plan for Korea yet.

[yg17]

So whats the plan? Leave? If we left now wouldnt it get worse? Its pointless to talk about pre-war Iraq because you'll just end up where you started. Someone has got to come up a way to deal with situation and minimize the damage.

Yes, leave. Let it get worse, I could care less. If they want freedom, then they need to fight their own damn war.

[IJ Reilly]

So whats the plan? Leave? If we left now wouldnt it get worse? Its pointless to talk about pre-war Iraq because you'll just end up where you started. Someone has got to come up a way to deal with situation and minimize the damage.

If only we could end up where we started.

[Ugg]

So whats the plan? Leave? If we left now wouldnt it get worse? Its pointless to talk about pre-war Iraq because you'll just end up where you started. Someone has got to come up a way to deal with situation and minimize the damage.

That would take a million troops. It's financially, politically and logistically unfeasible.

There is no solution.

[miloblithe]

Someone has got to come up a way to deal with situation and minimize the damage.

True that. And that's the big question. How does one do that?

1) serious military solution. The US Army's manual on counterinsurgency recommends at least 20-25 counterinsurgents for every 1000 people in the country. http://usacac.army.mil/cac/repository/materials/coin-fm3-24.pdfFor Iraq, that would mean 535, 600 to 669,500 troops. It's pretty damning that our own military understands that this is a no-win situation.

2) recognize that we're not in a position to dictate. Make consessions, draw in players from the region. Put options on the table. Make clear that the status quo helps no one.

3) muddle on through, as in the last 4 years, letting the situation get worse and worse.

[Sayhey]

Tying this withdrawal to the supplemental is the smartest thing the Democrats have done yet. This will get through the House, and after a conference committee puts it into the final bill it will be on the backs of GOP Senators who are up for reelection to stop it. What are they to do? Filibuster the supplemental funds our troops need? If not, then unless every GOP Senator holds with Bush on the war, then this gets to Bush's desk for a veto and every person in this country knows who is the sole person responsible for continuing to place our troops in the shooting gallery that is the present day Iraq. I have no illusions that Bush will not veto the bill, but he will then have vetoed the funding as well as the rejected the plan for withdrawal. It puts the pressure on ending the war squarely where it has to be.

[mrkramer]

Someone has got to come up a way to deal with situation and minimize the damage.
The only way to minimize the damage is to pull out now, or else there will just be more of our troops sitting and dying for no reason. If we pull out then the Iraqis can just fight it out, and the country would stabilize much faster than if we stay there to fuel the civil war that is already going on.

[Thanatoast]

Okay, first White House hack Dan Bartlett says "It would unnecessarily handcuff our generals on the ground..." which is crap. It would actually give them a mission. I'm sure they'd rather give the orders "Prepare to leave" than the current orders, which are "Go outside and get shot at."

Second, the Senate leadership, for lack of a better term, needs to grow a pair. Reid says in the article "we can't stay there forever" and then introduces legislation that what? Allows us to stay there forever. I don't care how you mince it, the Senate plan will enable Bush to keep us there until after he's out of office.

Hey, maybe that's his plan? With the army in the ME it becomes easier for his private-contractor troops to "keep the peace" when he declares martial law in October of '08? The only military force capable of fighting off the power grab will be demoralized, exhausted and 12,000 miles away.

Third, whenver a epublican says "I support the troops" always end with "getting shot at".

I don't see what so hard about saying "I support the troops 100% and will vote for every dollar needed to bring them home. I do not support the war at all and will not vote for one dollar to continue the President's mad escapade."

If Bush was smart he'd let the Democrats pull out the troops. If everything went well he could leave office and take credit for what a great job he did. If it all goes to pot he can say it's the Dem's fault. It's a win-win to let them leave.

[Motley]

The Dems haven't even worked out the pullout plan for Korea yet.

Fortunately, in Korea our troops and a large number of civilians aren't being killed every day due to our poor planning.

[Dont Hurt Me]

If only we could end up where we started.Bingo, they make a 100&#37; mess out of it then want to blame the other guys for leaving? The blame is with the ones who took us into this, blame all those draft dodging SOBs who wouldnt fight when it was their chance yet made this mess by choice. 1 Party was in charge, not 2. Bush & Cheney and all those republican cowards. There is nothing in Iraq to win, and its not worth 1 American for some oil period. Its time for new energy and high mpg auto's. The mideast and can keep their oil & sand we dont need it.

[Rodimus Prime]

The only way to minimize the damage is to pull out now, or else there will just be more of our troops sitting and dying for no reason. If we pull out then the Iraqis can just fight it out, and the country would stabilize much faster than if we stay there to fuel the civil war that is already going on.

and this is an example of a thread where people do not look back at history. US did the pull out during the gulf war and well that plan backfired. So we know pulling out is more than likely going to mean another dictator.

Saying Iraqis should fight there own war goes against US ideals because we have a damn good idea the side that will win will not be the one we want in power. They are being funded by terrorist.

Also Terrorist are there because it is an easy target and you have other countries in the area that are waiting for the US to pull out so they can move in and take over. I believe Bush stated back 4 years ago that this was going to be a very long process and in 10 years or more.

Looking at history it dating back to World wars and hell even farther start looking at times when there was a huge power void made and look at the results. Normally a dictory or a war lord moved in and took over. For the US to pull out they need to do it slowly as in a few years and slowly move the power over the Iraq. We do not want to leave a gaping power void. But hey expecting American people to look at history just plan dumb. As a people American only give a damn about here and now which means they do not learn from history and well screw things up in the long run.

[MacNut]

What ever happened to the concept of let the people on the ground fight the war. It seems that CNN and Congress have more power then the generals. I guarantee if the media was left in the dark most of the time the enemy would not know the plan and we would of had this thing over with by now.

The problem is everyone thinks they have the right to decide how the war is going to go. If every person was in charge of a baseball team the team would never win. Let one person and one person only draw up the game plan.

If I remember correctly part of War is not tipping your hand to the enemy. When the media reports the next move guess what the enemy can be a step ahead.

Can you imagine if we had cable news on the ground during WWII.

[miloblithe]

I believe Bush stated back 4 years ago that this was going to be a very long process and in 10 years or more.

You can go ahead and believe it, but that doesn't make it true. I'll give you a million dollars if you can find that quote. It's recent history, but perhaps you'll learn something from the exercise.

[miloblithe]

I guarantee if the media was left in the dark most of the time the enemy would not know the plan and we would of had this thing over with by now.

Nonsense. This is a counterinsurgency. Troop movements are pretty irrelevant. What's the US going to do today? I bet they're going to go out on patrol...

[MacNut]

Nonsense. This is a counterinsurgency. Troop movements are pretty irrelevant. What's the US going to do today? I bet they're going to go out on patrol...Im talking about 4 years ago. The worst thing is when the media is embedded with the troops.

[miloblithe]

Well, I have to say I disagree. The military aspects of the initial invasion couldn't have gone much more smoothly. And the level of violence for the first six months after the invasion was (relatively) minimal. A serious effort to stabilize and rebuild the country then might have actually accomplished something, but the administration thought they'd "won," and was already licking their chops over the question of who to invade next, Iran or Syria?

[MacNut]

You can go ahead and believe it, but that doesn't make it true. I'll give you a million dollars if you can find that quote. It's recent history, but perhaps you'll learn something from the exercise.It was reported back then that there would be a need for some troops for at least 10 years.

[IJ Reilly]

It was reported back then that there would be a need for some troops for at least 10 years.

Not by the administration, it wasn't.

[MacNut]

Not by the administration, it wasn't.Well it was mentioned by somebody when the war started.

[miloblithe]

Well it was mentioned by somebody when the war started.

There are 300 million people in America. Yes, odds are someone did say that. I'm convinced.

[IJ Reilly]

Well it was mentioned by somebody when the war started.

That somebody must have been a critic, not a backer, of the war. The administration was advertising that the war would cost no more than $50 billion, probably less. It costs around $5 billion a week to keep our forces in Iraq. You do the math.

[solvs]

Why is wanting to keep the troops alive by bringing them home called not supporting them by the republicans, IMO it's the best way to support them, instead of having them sitting in Iraq getting killed.
You're looking for logic. It is supporting the troops to want them to be trained, rested, and equipped before shipping them out. Preferably with a plan. And an actual reason. Shoddy care when they get back is not. For some reason, some people don't see that.

Jimmah Carter and Tip O'Neal were a functional government? Bleh!
They were better than the current gov. Almost anyone is better than the current gov. If you're not pissed, you're not paying attention.

The Dems haven't even worked out the pullout plan for Korea yet.
What does that have to do with anything? Dems have offered several plans to get out of Iraq. Bush has said there's no plan B, but we don't even know what plan A is.

Also Terrorist are there
If you mean Al Qaida, only about 4-10&#37; of the insurgents are foreign (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html). Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so I don't know why people are still using the term "terrorist" when talking about the war there. Most reports are showing we're just making things worse, creating more terrorists than we get rid of. If we really wanted to go after "terrorists" we'd be focusing on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and others.

I don't know what the fix is, but what we're doing now isn't it.

What ever happened to the concept of let the people on the ground fight the war.
Have you been listening to the recently retired generals, because Bush didn't when they were telling him what to do.

I guarantee if the media was left in the dark most of the time the enemy would not know the plan and we would of had this thing over with by now.
What plan? The only person who gave anything away was Geraldo. In the beginning, the media cheered the war, but there was no plan to "give away". They're only just starting to really question it along with the rest of the country because it's still going on, 4 years later. The only "plan" was that we would be greeted with flowers and be out in a couple of weeks (not even months, according to Cheney and Rumsfeld) while we let looters take off with the weapons that were there because we were too busy guarding the oil fields.

If the media had done their jobs, we wouldn't be there right now. Because we wouldn't have gone. Most of what we know now, a lot of people knew then. No WMDs, no ties to Al Qaida, etc.

Can you imagine if we had cable news on the ground during WWII.
It's almost as disingenuous for you to compare this to WWII as it is to blame the media. Not even remotely the same. Thank God Bush wasn't President for that war though, because I'm sure he would have screwed it up too.

It was reported back then that there would be a need for some troops for at least 10 years.
That was recent. After the 2004 elections and again around the 2006 elections when the Dems were calling for us to pull out. In the beginning, they said it would be far less.

"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

[Dont Hurt Me]

You know, in the mid seventies, when you guys still had a functional government and political system, Bush would have been impeached long ago.

How low democracy has sunk....
We dont have a democracy, we have a republic with representitives doing corporate business, not the peoples business hence our problems.

[Sayhey]

We dont have a democracy, we have a republic with representitives doing corporate business, not the peoples business hence our problems.

DHM, this often repeated line of not having a democracy as opposed to a republic is total nonsense pushed by folks who disdain the democratic process. There is no contradiction between a representative democracy (which we are supposed to have) and a republic. It isn't one or the other, but rather both together. What we need is to reclaim our democratic system from those who would manipulate it and and eliminate our rights as a people to determine our nation's course. I would agree that reform of our system is needed to get back to where we should be, but that doesn't mean the attempts to rob the American people of their birthright of democracy are somehow in keeping with what were the core principles of our revolutionary heritage or the history of greater and greater democratic reform since 1776.

[Thomas Veil]

Meanwhile, back in Washington...

Pelosi Cautions Bush Not to Veto an Iraq Bill
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, March 10 — Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, challenged President Bush on Saturday over his threat to reject an Iraq spending bill if it calls for a troop withdrawal, even as the administration sought to shift money to pay for additional forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With a House committee set to consider the approximately $100 billion measure as early as Thursday, Ms. Pelosi said a veto would suggest to Iraqi leaders that the United States was not serious about making them more responsible for policing their own country.

“With his veto threat,” she said in a statement, “the president offers only an open-ended commitment to a war without end that dangerously ignores the repeated warnings of military leaders, including the commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, who declared in Baghdad this week that the conflict cannot be resolved militarily.” In his comments, Gen. David H. Petraeus spoke about the long-term challenges facing the troops in Iraq.

Traveling in Latin America, Mr. Bush sent the speaker a request Saturday to adjust the administration’s spending proposal by shifting $3.2 billion from “lower priority” programs to pay for about 4,400 troops to bolster the 21,500 increase already sought for Iraq. The added forces would be split between combat and support units.

The new request also seeks more than $500 million to send additional combat troops, linguists and military trainers to Afghanistan, according to the Office of Management and Budget, “in anticipation of increased combat operations against the resurgent Taliban.”

“This revised request would better align resources based on the assessment of military commanders to achieve the goal of establishing Iraq and Afghanistan as democratic and secure nations that are free of terrorism,” Mr. Bush said in his letter to Ms. Pelosi.

The request for additional troops is likely to figure into the coming debate over war spending. Nearly all Democrats oppose the buildup and some have complained that the White House did not factor the needed support forces into its initial call for 21,500 troops.

A spokesman for Mr. Bush said this week that the president would reject the legislation if Democrats followed through with their plan to require most American forces to be out of Iraq by September 2008, or earlier, if Iraq does not show progress in securing its territory.

Trying to build backing for the plan, Ms. Pelosi and her fellow leaders are drafting a proposal that can satisfy both moderate Democrats worried about a precipitous withdrawal and party members who want to spend money only on a pull-out. The emerging legislation will also have money for military health care and unrelated provisions that can attract votes.NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/washington/11cong.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin)

The only thing that boggles the mind more than the fact that Bush didn't ask for those troops in his original request (maybe he needs the 4400 for a TV show or something ;)) is the idea that he's willing to gamble the whole thing just to keep the Democrats from setting a withdrawal date.

He must think that if he vetoes this, Congress will reconsider and come back with a bill that does include the money with no strings attached.

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

[Motley]

Well, I have to say I disagree. The military aspects of the initial invasion couldn't have gone much more smoothly. And the level of violence for the first six months after the invasion was (relatively) minimal. A serious effort to stabilize and rebuild the country then might have actually accomplished something, but the administration thought they'd "won," and was already licking their chops over the question of who to invade next, Iran or Syria?

Yeah, just watch Iraq: The lost year (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/view/).