The US House of Representatives passed its much-anticipated bill on Wednesday which provides $124 billion in funding for US troops in Iraq, while also setting a non-binding goal to bring all the troops home from Iraq by March 31, 2008.
The bill calls for troop withdrawal to begin in October 2007 at the latest.
“This terrible chapter in our history must come to an end ... enough is enough,” said Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.).
On the other side of the chamber, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) argued, “Every generation of Americans have had their obligation to stand up and protect their country, not just for today but for tomorrow and the next generation. We have a solemn obligation to the American people to finish the job we started.”
The House vote of 218-208 passed mainly along partisan lines, with a Senate vote expected on the bill on Thursday.
The bill sets strict standards for resting, training and equipping US troops, but gives President Bush discretionary powers to waive these standards provided he publicly justifies them. There are also benchmarks set for the Iraqi government to disarm militias, reduce sectarian violence, roll back de-Baathification measures and share oil revenue equally among the regions in Iraq.
If the benchmarks are not being met by July 1, the US would begin to withdraw troops immediately and would bring all soldiers home by the end of the year. However, if the Iraqi government demonstrates that it is meeting the benchmarks, US troop withdrawal would not begin until October, but would still be completed by March 31, 2008.
President Bush has vowed to veto the legislation, having repeatedly rejected calls to set timelines for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said after the vote, “Tonight, the House of Representatives voted for failure in Iraq, and the President will veto its bill.”
The Democrats do not have enough votes in either the House of Representatives or the Senate to override a Presidential veto, and it is unclear what their strategy will be in the event of a veto – apart from proposing a new bill that provides interim funding for the troops, whose funding runs out mid-year. They have ruled out cutting off funding for existing troops in Iraq.
In January, Mr Bush announced a surge of 21,500 US troops to try to reduce the sectarian violence in Iraq. The full contingent of additional troops has not yet hit the ground in Iraq.
Some war-weary Republicans acknowledged that there is a need to see some progress soon from the troop surge. “We need to get some better results from Iraq, both politically, economically and militarily in the foreseeable future,” said House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who voted against the bill.
“How many more suicide bombs must kill American soldiers before this President offers a timeline for our troops to come home?” asked Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), an Iraq war veteran. “How many more military leaders must declare the war will not be won militarily before this president demands that the Iraqis stand up and fight for their country? How many more terrorists will President Bush’s foreign policy breed before he focuses a new strategy, a real strategy? This bill says enough is enough.”
Paul, I'm sorry if I got you upset. But T-Dub is right. Your military experience (and perhaps open/closed mindedness (no offense, just hear me out)) has not allowed you to see America from an outsider perspective. Listen, if I FOUGHT for America, I would WANT to believe in what I was fighting for! I would make myself see that what we are doing is for the greater good, but usually, Paul, it is not. You have to ask yourself, "What is so inherently bad about Communism, socialism, or anything in Granada?!" Just try to step outside the box for a minute. Our leaders bow to the almighty dollar first and foremost -- EVERY time. I AM an American, and I love our country, but I am afraid of the Bush administration and everything they stand for. In the most friendly of recommendations, I have two books for you: "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn, and "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James Lowen. Paul, I didn't serve in the military and I never will, so I cannot feel the way you do. Read one or two of these books, and you may begin to understand where I, TW, and other "idiot liberals" are coming from.
Written by Nick
on 4/30/2007
OK, not EVERY time. The US Gov't does do some good things, of course. Sorry. We help Tsunami victims. We have Peace Corps. We DO help -- sometimes. It's just hard to see past 100,000 dead Iraqis and 7 million Afghans at risk of starvation because of U.S.-imposed sanctions. It's hard to see past 10 million killed in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, etc, because their economic model didn't mesh with ours... Catch my drift?
Written by Nick
on 4/30/2007
Paul, I absolutely agree with you that it is critical that we give military personnel good pay and benefits. If what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt you), it is criminal that some of our fighting men and women are living below poverty level. What astounds me, though, is that you and so many military people support the Republican Party, whose record with regard to doing right by our military personnel is, in a word, abysmal. When Republicans increase military spending it is almost always for pet projects that their buddies in the aerospace industry want - not for increasing military pay. They tried to reduce survivors' benefits just last year, for goodness' sake! The Republican Party's whole mission is to keep pay as low as possible for working people (including enlisted military personnel) and maximize the pay of the top executives and the wealthiest 1%. I personally think that the Democratic Party is a poor excuse for an opposition party, having rolled over so many times to the demands of the rightards, but it is a demonstrable FACT that average workers do better under Democratic administrations. Period. The economy tends to do better under Democratic administrations, as well, because the Democratic Party puts its emphasis on helping the middle class - not relying on Reaganistic "trickle-down" economics, where all the tax breaks, etc., go to the elites.
Written by TW
on 4/27/2007
TW, First you assume that my time overseas was totally with the Military, first mistake.
Second, In all the years that I lived overseas, I never lived on a military installation except in war zones, and that time was interrupted with those silly field operations (majority of the time.
As to socialized medical care, etc. TW when I joined the military I new several things, one that I would be placing my life on the line when I did my job, another that I would do this without question and a major fact would be that I would do this recieving very little in the way of pay. Medical care, Dental care, and the other services supplied to myself and other military personnel is the Goverments way to ensure that its' military personnel or physically capable to preform and secure the folks at home. If you think it is such a great benefit talk to any young married military family out there who are below the proverty level in some cases and living check to check in most.
But you know even with the above situation being very true, I would still do it again and now if I could. Not for the BENEFITS as you see them but for the honor of serving my country and to work side by side with the best people the world has to offer.
TW, Errors in spelling may mean a lack of advance writing skills but does not indicate ignorance. I may not be right on all I say but it is all based on my opinions developed through years of interaction with cultures and people from around the world. I don't know your background but can you say the same, or are you basing your statements on the news of the day.
Written by Paul H
on 4/27/2007
Please don't "incite" anything, Paul! And I tell you, living in military bases around the world apparently does not give one insight into geopolitics. At least you had socialized medical care and socialized commissaries, etc., while you were over there.
Written by TW
on 4/27/2007
Nick,
I would love to read a History of the War in Vietnam (excuss me the POLICE ACTION)but since I spent two (2) tours there I think that I might have an incite into soom of the actions done.
I have lived in many areas of the world in my 56 years. Europe, Africa, South and Central America, Asia, Middle East and so on.When I hear about all the terrible things that we the all mighty Americans do and have done I choke.
Americans have over the years given everything including their LIVES for the rights of people they didn't know to live free and without fear.
Americans spend countless dollars to help rebuild and develope countries and nations that have been destroyed by others and due to natural and medical desaster.
Americans stand by and enforce rules and regulations established by the world goverments in dealing with each other, even when no one else does.
In all my travels I have learn to expect only on thing, EVERY COUNTRY AND NATION HATES THE UNITED STATES. This is for everyone, our so call friends as well. WHY, is not as hard to understand as the world would like it to seem.
Nick like you it is the standard to say how America is destroying the wold with our greed and arrogance, but , and I do not know where you live and what your background is, take it from someone who has had to fight the fight in other areas, both with weapons and with talk, the reason we are hated is not what we do but WHAT WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED!!!!!
We represent the opposite of what most of the other Socialistic, Communistic, and every other istic out there stands for. We have proven that a strong believe in individual freedom and choice will lead to a level of properity like no other.
The hate around the world is the result of two factors:
ENVY BECAUSE WE HAVE SUCESS
AND
FEAR, BECAUSE WE ILLUSTRATE THE INEVITABLE FAILURE OF THEIR PLANS.
You indicated that you have left to find peace, sorry to hear that any American would feel the need to escape. But if you did then it is for the best. We are faced now and will be for many years to come with a battle for our very existence. The so called silent Majority will have to, and we are, speak up both in voice and action, to protect the lives of all. If you and others like you think that America is the cause of all the worlds pains then we do not need you here to hamper us. We will fight to keep America great and we will not forget the great achievments we have made around the world as the only totally free nation.
I know that this may be a ramble but after Vietnam, Samolia, Desert Storm, Desert Sheild, Hersogaviania, Granda, and Iraq I get upset when Americans make statements that make us the ememy.
Written by Paul H
on 4/27/2007
Sharon, no one "deserves" anything like 9/11. But your question: "What have we done...?" What have we done? We've done a whole lot of harm to every country that stands in the way of our elite leaders from making money. That's what we've done. I can also tell what you have not done, which is read a decent history book about the United States of America. No offense, but seriously. Paul, you definitely need to get yourself a copy too. Oh, and Paul, I moved from the United States. I live in peace elsewhere. Peace be with you all.
Written by Nick Foster
on 4/26/2007
Written by PAUL H
on 4/26/2007
Nick,I've heard these great words before, it was however in another place "VIETNAM".
In Vietnam, as they are trying to do again, the democrates undermined and betrayed the military. Everytime a leader makes statements that undermine US policy or efforts they give our enemies a little shot of determination.
You can sit heree in the state and praise the great leadership of the democratic party, but when you and they realize that this time our enemy is not content in us leaving the area but has only one goal THE TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF OUR COUNTRY and will take the battle to us (remember 9/11)it will be to late for many of our loved ones here.
Let the military do their job. They are not a policy force, good will party or anything in the relm of Political appisment. The ruling politicans, including Bush, have forgotten this.
I know that lives lost are never a good thing, but I also know that I would rather have the lost somewhere else then in my backyard.
I served from 1970 - 2003and would be there now if I could.
Our people are doing a great job and will not only succeed in their duties but will, in all cases, exceed the goal, if we let them.
Stop given aid to the enemy. In stead of the current situation we should be screaming what do you need now and in the future to get the job done.
Written by Paul H
on 4/26/2007
Well said, Paul. It was not our military that lost in Vietnam. It was our politicians and the media that handed our enemies a victory they did not deserve. Once again this is happening. It is harder for me this time since I have a son who is scheduled for his second tour. This enemy has one goal. Our complete distruction. Their terms. Convert or die. Seems to me some in Washington refuse to believe that they cannot talk their way to peace with these people. Since Senator Reid says the war is lost, perhaps he can tell us who won and what were their terms of surrender. That would be something worth hearing.
Written by Sharon
on 4/26/2007
I cannot disagree more with Paul and Sharon. This war CANNOT be won, period. The stakes are too asymmetrical. The Iraqis are fighting a guerilla war for their homeland; our troops are just trying to stay alive and come home in one piece. This was also true of Vietnam, and it was true when the British fought those wonderfully liberal rebels in the American Revolution. General Washington realized fairly early on that he didn't have to win; all he had to do was avoid losing and protract it out long enough so that the British would leave. I also have grown tired of the "our enemies won't rest until we have all converted" rhetoric. The Jehovah's Witnesses won't rest until I convert, apparently, but it doesn't matter that much to me. Stop overstating the power of our enemies! These fundamentalist yahoos are not as dangerous as Nazi Germany or the Empire of Japan, and you do a disservice to reason when you state otherwise. Finally, we are making enemies faster than we can kill them. Hate grows exponentially - everyone we kill has brothers, cousins, uncles and aunts, sons and daughters who now hate us. In order to fight "terrorism" we need as many friends as possible. That is the only way to win... conventional warfare is not the answer! We have made enough enemies. And for the last time, prior to the war Iraq had NO TIES TO AL QAEDA - stop conflating the two!
Written by TW
on 4/26/2007
TW, your comments really scare me especially considering that there are more people like you that feel the same way in spite of overwhelming facts that dispute your arguments. This enemy is worse than the Nazi threat whether you believe it or not. If we retreat like the spineless Democratic leaders want us to, it will only be a matter of time before they are attacking innocent American citizens on our shores again. Losing is not an option and surrender/retreat is not an option in my opinion.
Written by Sid
on 4/26/2007
This is the best news I've heard in a while: Dems standing tall -- even taller since the last bill -- in the face of an imminent veto. Bush's veto will make his approval rating sink to the ground. But what then? Do we all just sit back and watch the prez go wild, exacerbating everything in Iraq and the entire Middle East?
Written by Nick Foster
on 4/26/2007
TW what had we done to deserve 9-11, The USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, the 2 embassy bombings, the first World Trade Center Bombing, etc,etc.? What is it going to take to make you understand that these people hate of because we do not believe as they do and not for what we do? This Bill has given them what they wanted to hear. It sends up the white flag. We have (through our elected leaders) stated what they have believed since Vietnam (WWII) actually. We the American People do not have the willpower for a long fight. This did not begin in 2001. It has been going on for decades. Each time getting a little bolder until 9-11. It is frightening to think that anyone who witnessed 9-11 can actually believe that they are not dangerous and will just go away if only we leave Iraq and the Middle East. Our founders were willing to do whatever it took to build this country. Many gave their treasures and live for what they believed. They were willing to fight for every inch of this beloved land. Sad that we are willing now to give it up in order to avoid any inconveniences or hardships.
Written by Sharon
on 4/26/2007
Sharon, as I have pointed out to you before, "they" do not hate us because of our liberal values (the irony that "they" would consider you to be a liberal is not lost on me, btw) "They" hate us because in the Middle East, for over fifty years now, our government has had a history of supporting oppressive regimes, overthrowing democratically elected governments, and supporting Israel, no matter what, no questions asked - all of which, with the exception of the latter, are due to our addiction to oil. I am not excusing what happened on 9/11 or before at Kobe Towers, etc. I am merely placing it in historical context. If we had worked on alternative energy (both Democratic and Republican administrations) - if we didn't have big oil controlling both the legislative and executive branches of our government - we could have long ago sent those guys back to their sheep-herding days. The biggest tragedy is that through our support of Saudi Arabia, and our thirst for their oil, we are the ones bankrolling Al Qaeda. As much as you might want to do it, Sharon, we cannot kill them all and be done with it. The best way to fight Al Qaeda is to have as many friends willing to inform on them as possible, to have good intelligence, and to stay focused on whom we're fighting. Iraq has diverted our attention and resources from the real enemy. Meanwhile, outside of Kabul, Afghanistan has descended into chaos. And while I argue that Al Qaeda are less dangerous than Germany or Japan in the 1930s/1940s, I acknowledge that they are dangerous. But Iraq has been one long recruiting poster for them - it has made us less, not more safe. And we are not pinning them down there. They will try to attack us here whether we're in Iraq or not.
Written by TW
on 4/26/2007
Sid, what's stopping them from attacking us now? Honestly? Do you really think that by "tying them down in Iraq" that somehow we're keeping them from attacking us here? They attacked in Madrid and they attacked in London while we were in Iraq. They'll attack us whether we are in Iraq or not - I think you'd agree with me on that one - I know Sharon does. So what, exactly, is it that we're accomplishing in Iraq, other than losing American lives, spending money faster than sh*t goes through a goose, and losing the global opinion battle?
To
Buzz Right Back on this article