http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070426/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=AvpHXQnoYXm8fq_p.ugEuXqMwfIE


Senate expected to pass troop exit bill By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated
Press Writer
2 hours, 1 minute ago



The Senate is expected to pass a bill today that would order the
withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to begin this fall. Last night, the
House voted 218-208 to pass the $124.2 billion supplemental spending
measure containing the provision.

President Bush is expected to receive the bill next week, and swiftly
veto it.

The legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats
have managed to execute since they took control of both houses of
Congress in January.

"The sacrifices borne by our troops and their families demand more than
the blank checks the president is asking for, for a war without end,"
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said.

Democrats said the bill was on track to arrive on the president's desk
on Tuesday, the anniversary of Bush's announcement aboard the deck of
the USS Abraham Lincoln that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on
Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on," Bush said on May 1, 2003, in front
of a huge "Mission Accomplished" banner.

Bush since has acknowledged that the war campaign has not progressed as
he had hoped. After the November elections in which Democrats swept up
enough seats to take the majority, Bush announced a new strategy that
involved sending additional forces to Iraq.

"Last November, the American people voted for a change in strategy in
Iraq — and the president listened," White House spokesman Dana Perino
said in a statement Wednesday. "Tonight, the House of Representatives
voted for failure in Iraq — and the president will veto its bill."

Republicans labeled the timetable a "surrender date."

"Al-Qaida will view this as the day the House of Representatives threw
in the towel," said Rep. Jerry Lewis (news, bio, voting record) of
California, ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee.

The huge bill would fund the war, among other things, but demand troop
withdrawals begin on Oct. 1 or sooner if the Iraqi government does not
meet certain benchmarks. The bill sets a nonbinding goal of completing
the troop pullout by April 1, 2008, allowing for forces conducting
certain noncombat missions, such as attacking terrorist networks or
training Iraqi forces, to remain.

Two Republicans — Reps. Wayne Gilchrest (news, bio, voting record) of
Maryland and Walter Jones (news, bio, voting record) of North Carolina —
joined 216 Democrats in passing the bill. Voting no were 195 Republicans
and 13 Democrats.

While Bush was confident the bill ultimately would fail because
Democrats lacked the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto, he
kept up pressure on lawmakers. On the same day as the House vote, the
president dispatched his Iraq commander, Gen. David Petraeus, and other
senior defense officials to Capitol Hill to make his case: Additional
forces recently sent to Iraq were yielding mixed results and the
strategy needed more time to work.

Petraeus told reporters that sectarian killings in Baghdad were only a
third of what they were in January, before Bush began sending in
additional U.S. forces. But "the ability of al-Qaida to conduct
horrific, sensational attacks obviously has represented a setback and is
an area in which we're focusing considerable attention," Petraeus said.

Republicans and Democrats alike emerged from a private briefing with
Petraeus to say he had only confirmed their positions.

Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., said Democrats were
still considering their next step. He said after Bush's veto, one option
would be funding the war through September as Bush wants but setting
benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet.

"I think everything that passes will have some sort of condition
(placed) on it," he said. Ultimately, Murtha added, the 2008 military
budget considered by Congress in June "is where you'll see the real
battle," he said.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has said the Army has
enough bookkeeping flexibility to pay for operations in Iraq well into
July. Lawmakers and Capitol Hill staff aides view mid- to late May as
the deadline for completing the war spending bill to avoid hardships.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (news, bio, voting record) told reporters
Wednesday that Republicans would be open to legislation that would
condition foreign aid for Iraq on the government's ability to meet
certain standards, such as reaching a political compromise on sharing
oil revenues.

"I think that discussion is the discussion we need to have. ... We have
for months now favored that kind of inclusion in a bill that may be very
important at resolving this impasse that we're in," Blunt said.

Even if you agree we should pull out of Iraq it is idiocy to give the
enemy your timetable.

not gonna happen......bush will veto it...as he should. Why?

As GaMail50 said....


common sence.....for crying out loud.

That was off of yahoo earlier..

See the URL at top..

My first thought was...YYYYAAYYYYY!!!

Our Boys will be coming home!!

That won't work thou.

The best way to loose friends is to start talking politics.

now, I agree with putting restrictions/conditions on all bills detailing
the need for Iraq to take over on its own step by step. I also agree
with removal ofthe troops up to a certain point.

however!!!: GET THIS THROUGH THE STUFFED AND SELF-THINKING HEADS!!!!!
We CAN NOT withdraw all of our troops, nor can we do so in less than one
years time without causing irreparrable damage and harm. I agree not to
send in more trops (increasing the numbers). however startegy speaks
very clearly that what we need to do is use what we have out there to
consolidate and fortify. In other words go on the defense. There is
nothing shameful of a ggod defense and all the more honorable to have it
in place. Once you are consolidated and fortified, then you move out
ONE STEP and fortify there as well. the you move out another step and
fortify. keep doing this one step (resaonable steps too dont act like
your kid playing mama may I and take a step so big you cut yourself off
in the middle grounds) at a time and you WILL win with fewer losses.

Come on now people common sense!!! You do not even have to be a
tactician to know this.

well i think a dead line is just saying wait x amount of time and you
can do what ya want

i think that u s should baton down

fortify their position

train continuosly the iraqee forces and send them out to
capture those that want to disrupt the formation of their govt

and if they do not have the intiative to do this for their
country then why should we

if they refuse to take the iniative then i say pull out

its just a stupid game..the dems are doing this so for the next election
cycle
they can say they were trying to end the war..in the meantime it goes on
& on..
we are building how many PERMANENT BASES in Iraq?...I think the number
is
over 5 or 6..that doesnt sound like we plan on leaving anytime soon does
it?..

Bush has said in speeches that this battle or war will go on for
"generations"...
yep...generations...they plan to keep this goin like the energizer
bunny...
Dont think for a minute that any democrat will change a thing if they
get
elected...here is the only sure thing you can do:

at your next family reunion have all the kids and grandkids stand in a
line..
and then pull out the 10-15% that you can live without...those will be
the ones
that you allow these bastards to murder in the future..in the name of
something
called terrorism...see the madness?...really..think about it...see the
faces of
your children..