T
tabbott@intellex.com
Guest
Found at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042601190_pf.html
Senate Approves War Spending Bill
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 26, 2007; 2:06 PM
The Senate today gave final approval to a $124 billion war spending
bill that requires troop withdrawal from Iraq to begin by Oct. 1, with
a goal of ending U.S. combat operations there by next March.
President Bush has pledged to veto the bill, and White House
spokeswoman Dana Perino promised this morning he would act "very
soon."
The Senate approved the measure by a 51-46 vote, a day after the House
passed the bill by 218-208, brushing aside weeks of angry White House
rhetoric and veto threats.
"It is time to end the loss of American lives and to begin to bring
our soldiers home," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said on Senate
floor this morning.
{Bringing our troops home from Iraq will not end the loss of
American lives. Instead, this action will encourage fanatics to kill
more Americans. On Sept. 11, 2001, our enemies killed almost 3,000
Americans, and we had no American troops in Iraq. Claiming that
retreating from Iraq will end the loss of American lives is just a
delusion shared by appeasers such as Senator Kennedy.]
"For the sake of our troops we cannot repeat the mistakes of Vietnam
and allow this to drag on long after the American people know it's a
mistake."
[But the fact is Senator Kennedy is repeating the mistakes made
during the Vietnam war. As he did during the Vietnam war, Senator
Kennedy is advocating the premature removal of support for an ally.
Kennedy wants to pretend that pulling out of Iraq will save American
lives, but all this will do is postpone the inevitable and end up
costing the U.S. and its allies many more lives lost in the future. In
the case of cutting off support for South Vietnam, Kennedy could not
make the argument that it would save the lives of American troops
because there were no American troops in South Vietnam, having
returned home two years prior to the time the liberal appeaser,
Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress decided to cut off funding to South
Vietnam. Kennedy's "concern" for American troops is purely political.
He, like all appeasers, reject any involvement in confronting our
enemies, and they want no part of it, whether Amercan troops lives are
involved or not.]
Today's vote completes work on the rarest of bills: legislation to try
to end a major war as fighting still rages.
[Except that this bill will not end the war. It will just embolden
our enemies and help their recruitment of fellow fanatics. Appeasers
do not understand that these kinds of actions are counterproductive.
Running from a fight does not discourage a bully, it encourages him.]
Democrats hope to send the measure to the White House on Monday,
almost exactly four years after President Bush declared an end to
major combat in a speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. That would be
a particularly pungent political anniversary for Bush to deliver only
the second veto of his presidency.
[I notice this reporter was careful not to claim, as many other
liberals have falsely claimed, that President Bush "declared "Mission
Accomplished" on that day (Keith Olbermann, of MSNBC perpetrates this
lie every night at the end of the program he hosts.). President Bush
did declare the end to "major combat" (which I think this reporter
hopes is taken the same way as "Mission Accomplished"), but President
Bush also said in his speech that day that there was still a long way
to go in Iraq and that the American people should be prepared to make
further sacrifices. The liberals distorted the meaning of the
"Mission Accomplished" banner, attributing it to President Bush, when
in fact, it was the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln whose mission had
been accomplished. The liberals distorted the meaning to try to do
harm to President bush then, and they are still telling this lie to
try to harm him now. All one has to do is read the speech President
Bush gave that day to understand that he was in no way declaring
victory in Iraq or anywhere else, and that liberals who claim he was
declaring victory are damn liars.]
Last night's House vote came after a fiery, partisan debate that has
grown familiar after months of wrangling, first over a nonbinding
resolution opposing Bush's troop increase, then over the largest war
spending bill in U.S. history.
"How many more suicide bombs must kill American soldiers before this
president offers a timeline for our troops to come home?" asked Rep.
Patrick J. Murphy (D-Pa.), a freshman Iraq war veteran who lost nine
fellow paratroopers this week in one of the deadliest attacks of the
war. "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."
[Nine killed is relative: The Normandy landings of World War II saw
the death of 6,000 American troops in one day: practicing for the
D-Day landings in a storm caused the death of 1,200 American troops in
one day; In Vietnam, American deaths ranged from 150 to 450+ per
month (enemy death rates were ten times higher). It is a distortion
to say the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily. Those who made such
statements meant that the military could not force the Sunnis and the
Shia to love each other and get along. But a military victory is
certainly possible in Iraq, if we are determined to have one. Saddam
Insane was able to control Iraq with his military, and the U.S.
military is certainly more capable than Saddam's military. The U.S.
does not desire to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to make them
toe the line, as Saddam did, but we could if we wanted to do so. And
declaring defeat, as this bill does, is a much better breeder of
terrorists, than anything to do with President Bush's foreign policy.]
"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," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said.
"We have a solemn obligation to the American people to finish the job
we started."
[Liberal appeasers could not disagree more. They didn't want to
start the job in the first place, and will stop it just as soon as
they are able.]
Republicans stayed largely united, with only Reps. Wayne Gilchrest
(Md.) and Walter Jones (N.C.), voting for the bill and Rep. Jo Ann
Emerson (Mo.), voting present. Thirteen House Democrats -- seven
conservatives and six liberals -- opposed the bill.
[Duly noted.]
Perino fired off a statement saying, "Tonight, the House of
Representatives votes for failure in Iraq, and the President will veto
its bill."
[That's exactly what they did. Our enemies are rejoicing. And
preparing for the next blow against us.]
But even House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) acknowledged a growing
political strain as the bad news from Baghdad continues. "We need to
get some better results from Iraq, both politically, economically and
militarily in foreseeable future," he said.
[We will not be getting any good news from the liberal news media.
They are out to undermine the war in any way possible, and good news
just doesn't fit in with doing that.]
Indeed, the vote came before a backdrop of troubling news. The
administration dispatched Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S.
commander in Iraq, to plead for patience as he briefed House and
Senate lawmakers on efforts to quell sectarian and Islamic
fundamentalist violence with the influx of more than 28,000 additional
troops.
[Only about half of that number of troops have actually been
deployed. Yet Harry Reid has already declared the "surge" a failure,
even though it has not even been fully implemented.]
After the briefings, Petraeus met with reporters and described
progress in Iraq as mixed. Sectarian slayings in Baghdad are down by a
third since January, he said, and progress in the Sunni province of
Anbar has been "almost something that's breathtaking," he said. On the
other hand, he said, "the ability of al-Qaeda to conduct horrific,
sensational attacks obviously have represented a setback."
[Specifically, a public relations setback. The only military value
car and truck bomb attacks have is to demoralize the home folks and
give the liberal appeasers ammunition to demoralize the home folks
even more.]
Petraeus appeared to warn war opponents against intemperate comments,
saying, "It is always helpful to remember the various audiences out
there as this wonderful democratic process goes forward, and those are
our partners, our allies, the enemy, and also frankly our men and
women in uniform."
[The only audience the liberals are interested in is the hard-left
of their own politcal party. They do not care what the effect of what
they say has on others, friend or foe, as long as the anti-war Left
gets the message that their political leaders are with them in spirit.
The spirit of denial and appeasement and fear.]
For Democrats, he elliptically echoed recent comments by Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates when he suggested pressure from Washington
may be helpful if broadly applied to the fragmented Iraqi government.
Petraeus's mixed assessment stood in contrast to a bleak quarterly
report from the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, which declared that
Iraq remains in the grip of a "breakdown in law and order" and faces a
"rapidly worsening humanitarian crisis."
[Consider the source.]
Beneath yesterday's political debate, halting talks have already begun
on a second funding bill for the war, on the assumption Bush will veto
the first.
[I would bet the farm on that one.]
The bill passed yesterday sets strict requirements for resting,
training and equipping troops but would grant the president the
authority to waive those restrictions, as long as he publicly
justifies the waivers.
The bill also establishes benchmarks for the Iraqi government to
meet: Create a program to disarm militias, reduce sectarian violence,
ease rules that purged the government of all former Baath Party
members and approve a law on sharing oil revenue.
Unless the Bush administration determines by July 1 that those
benchmarks are being met, troops would begin coming home immediately,
with a goal of completing those withdrawals by the end of the year. If
benchmarks are being met, troops would begin coming home no later than
Oct. 1, with a goal of completing the troop pullout by April 1.
[What a bunch of foolishness!]
After combat forces are withdrawn, some troops could remain to protect
U.S. facilities and diplomats, pursue terrorist organizations, and
train and equip Iraqi security forces.
[Senator Kennedy would not like that because it would put the lives
of American troops in jeopardy. Right, Ted? You didn't agree to
this, did you?]
Blunt said neither the president nor the vast majority of GOP
lawmakers would ever accept restrictions on troop deployments or
binding withdrawal dates.
[The only date the Iraqis have to worry about is January, 2009, when
President Bush leaves Office.]
But, he said, Republicans would back the benchmarks. Rather than
tying those measurements of progress to military consequences, he
suggested linking them to the $5.7 billion in the bill for nonmilitary
assistance to the Iraqi government.
[A much better alternative to surrender.]
Democrats do not want to offer anything up for negotiation as they
pressure Bush to sign the bill as it stands. But the contours of the
second bill are emerging. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm
Emanuel (Ill.) said yesterday that putting the force of law behind
benchmarks has always been an issue that has divided congressional
Republicans from the White House -- making it a potential wedge to
push next week.
Other Democrats suggested the most contentious items in the bill, such
as binding troop withdrawal dates, would probably migrate to a defense
policy bill that will be on the House floor next month or to the
annual Pentagon budget bill, due up in June.
But Democrats, from the party's conservative wing to its liberal left,
said last night that they will not buckle to Bush's demand for war
money with no policy strings attached. "He's not getting what he
wants," said Rep. Dennis Cardoza (Calif.), a conservative "Blue Dog"
Democrat.
[You're messing with the bull. You may get horned. Be careful.]
To add pressure for a compromise, a coalition of liberal
organizations, working in concert with Democratic leaders in Congress,
is planning hundreds of rallies and dozens of news conferences to
protest Bush's veto.
[Let them whine. They will have no effect on President Bush's
determination to win in Iraq.]
Americans Against Escalation in Iraq is organizing what it
anticipates will be a historically large outpouring of sentiment
against the Iraq war within hours of the president's veto, with news
conferences just after the veto and "signature rallies" -- some of
which could draw thousands of people -- the next day in about 50
places represented by fence-sitting Republicans lawmakers.
[Don't count the chickens before they hatch.]
Staff writers Bill Brubaker and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum contributed to
this report.
end
TA
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042601190_pf.html
Senate Approves War Spending Bill
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 26, 2007; 2:06 PM
The Senate today gave final approval to a $124 billion war spending
bill that requires troop withdrawal from Iraq to begin by Oct. 1, with
a goal of ending U.S. combat operations there by next March.
President Bush has pledged to veto the bill, and White House
spokeswoman Dana Perino promised this morning he would act "very
soon."
The Senate approved the measure by a 51-46 vote, a day after the House
passed the bill by 218-208, brushing aside weeks of angry White House
rhetoric and veto threats.
"It is time to end the loss of American lives and to begin to bring
our soldiers home," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said on Senate
floor this morning.
{Bringing our troops home from Iraq will not end the loss of
American lives. Instead, this action will encourage fanatics to kill
more Americans. On Sept. 11, 2001, our enemies killed almost 3,000
Americans, and we had no American troops in Iraq. Claiming that
retreating from Iraq will end the loss of American lives is just a
delusion shared by appeasers such as Senator Kennedy.]
"For the sake of our troops we cannot repeat the mistakes of Vietnam
and allow this to drag on long after the American people know it's a
mistake."
[But the fact is Senator Kennedy is repeating the mistakes made
during the Vietnam war. As he did during the Vietnam war, Senator
Kennedy is advocating the premature removal of support for an ally.
Kennedy wants to pretend that pulling out of Iraq will save American
lives, but all this will do is postpone the inevitable and end up
costing the U.S. and its allies many more lives lost in the future. In
the case of cutting off support for South Vietnam, Kennedy could not
make the argument that it would save the lives of American troops
because there were no American troops in South Vietnam, having
returned home two years prior to the time the liberal appeaser,
Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress decided to cut off funding to South
Vietnam. Kennedy's "concern" for American troops is purely political.
He, like all appeasers, reject any involvement in confronting our
enemies, and they want no part of it, whether Amercan troops lives are
involved or not.]
Today's vote completes work on the rarest of bills: legislation to try
to end a major war as fighting still rages.
[Except that this bill will not end the war. It will just embolden
our enemies and help their recruitment of fellow fanatics. Appeasers
do not understand that these kinds of actions are counterproductive.
Running from a fight does not discourage a bully, it encourages him.]
Democrats hope to send the measure to the White House on Monday,
almost exactly four years after President Bush declared an end to
major combat in a speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. That would be
a particularly pungent political anniversary for Bush to deliver only
the second veto of his presidency.
[I notice this reporter was careful not to claim, as many other
liberals have falsely claimed, that President Bush "declared "Mission
Accomplished" on that day (Keith Olbermann, of MSNBC perpetrates this
lie every night at the end of the program he hosts.). President Bush
did declare the end to "major combat" (which I think this reporter
hopes is taken the same way as "Mission Accomplished"), but President
Bush also said in his speech that day that there was still a long way
to go in Iraq and that the American people should be prepared to make
further sacrifices. The liberals distorted the meaning of the
"Mission Accomplished" banner, attributing it to President Bush, when
in fact, it was the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln whose mission had
been accomplished. The liberals distorted the meaning to try to do
harm to President bush then, and they are still telling this lie to
try to harm him now. All one has to do is read the speech President
Bush gave that day to understand that he was in no way declaring
victory in Iraq or anywhere else, and that liberals who claim he was
declaring victory are damn liars.]
Last night's House vote came after a fiery, partisan debate that has
grown familiar after months of wrangling, first over a nonbinding
resolution opposing Bush's troop increase, then over the largest war
spending bill in U.S. history.
"How many more suicide bombs must kill American soldiers before this
president offers a timeline for our troops to come home?" asked Rep.
Patrick J. Murphy (D-Pa.), a freshman Iraq war veteran who lost nine
fellow paratroopers this week in one of the deadliest attacks of the
war. "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."
[Nine killed is relative: The Normandy landings of World War II saw
the death of 6,000 American troops in one day: practicing for the
D-Day landings in a storm caused the death of 1,200 American troops in
one day; In Vietnam, American deaths ranged from 150 to 450+ per
month (enemy death rates were ten times higher). It is a distortion
to say the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily. Those who made such
statements meant that the military could not force the Sunnis and the
Shia to love each other and get along. But a military victory is
certainly possible in Iraq, if we are determined to have one. Saddam
Insane was able to control Iraq with his military, and the U.S.
military is certainly more capable than Saddam's military. The U.S.
does not desire to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to make them
toe the line, as Saddam did, but we could if we wanted to do so. And
declaring defeat, as this bill does, is a much better breeder of
terrorists, than anything to do with President Bush's foreign policy.]
"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," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said.
"We have a solemn obligation to the American people to finish the job
we started."
[Liberal appeasers could not disagree more. They didn't want to
start the job in the first place, and will stop it just as soon as
they are able.]
Republicans stayed largely united, with only Reps. Wayne Gilchrest
(Md.) and Walter Jones (N.C.), voting for the bill and Rep. Jo Ann
Emerson (Mo.), voting present. Thirteen House Democrats -- seven
conservatives and six liberals -- opposed the bill.
[Duly noted.]
Perino fired off a statement saying, "Tonight, the House of
Representatives votes for failure in Iraq, and the President will veto
its bill."
[That's exactly what they did. Our enemies are rejoicing. And
preparing for the next blow against us.]
But even House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) acknowledged a growing
political strain as the bad news from Baghdad continues. "We need to
get some better results from Iraq, both politically, economically and
militarily in foreseeable future," he said.
[We will not be getting any good news from the liberal news media.
They are out to undermine the war in any way possible, and good news
just doesn't fit in with doing that.]
Indeed, the vote came before a backdrop of troubling news. The
administration dispatched Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S.
commander in Iraq, to plead for patience as he briefed House and
Senate lawmakers on efforts to quell sectarian and Islamic
fundamentalist violence with the influx of more than 28,000 additional
troops.
[Only about half of that number of troops have actually been
deployed. Yet Harry Reid has already declared the "surge" a failure,
even though it has not even been fully implemented.]
After the briefings, Petraeus met with reporters and described
progress in Iraq as mixed. Sectarian slayings in Baghdad are down by a
third since January, he said, and progress in the Sunni province of
Anbar has been "almost something that's breathtaking," he said. On the
other hand, he said, "the ability of al-Qaeda to conduct horrific,
sensational attacks obviously have represented a setback."
[Specifically, a public relations setback. The only military value
car and truck bomb attacks have is to demoralize the home folks and
give the liberal appeasers ammunition to demoralize the home folks
even more.]
Petraeus appeared to warn war opponents against intemperate comments,
saying, "It is always helpful to remember the various audiences out
there as this wonderful democratic process goes forward, and those are
our partners, our allies, the enemy, and also frankly our men and
women in uniform."
[The only audience the liberals are interested in is the hard-left
of their own politcal party. They do not care what the effect of what
they say has on others, friend or foe, as long as the anti-war Left
gets the message that their political leaders are with them in spirit.
The spirit of denial and appeasement and fear.]
For Democrats, he elliptically echoed recent comments by Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates when he suggested pressure from Washington
may be helpful if broadly applied to the fragmented Iraqi government.
Petraeus's mixed assessment stood in contrast to a bleak quarterly
report from the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, which declared that
Iraq remains in the grip of a "breakdown in law and order" and faces a
"rapidly worsening humanitarian crisis."
[Consider the source.]
Beneath yesterday's political debate, halting talks have already begun
on a second funding bill for the war, on the assumption Bush will veto
the first.
[I would bet the farm on that one.]
The bill passed yesterday sets strict requirements for resting,
training and equipping troops but would grant the president the
authority to waive those restrictions, as long as he publicly
justifies the waivers.
The bill also establishes benchmarks for the Iraqi government to
meet: Create a program to disarm militias, reduce sectarian violence,
ease rules that purged the government of all former Baath Party
members and approve a law on sharing oil revenue.
Unless the Bush administration determines by July 1 that those
benchmarks are being met, troops would begin coming home immediately,
with a goal of completing those withdrawals by the end of the year. If
benchmarks are being met, troops would begin coming home no later than
Oct. 1, with a goal of completing the troop pullout by April 1.
[What a bunch of foolishness!]
After combat forces are withdrawn, some troops could remain to protect
U.S. facilities and diplomats, pursue terrorist organizations, and
train and equip Iraqi security forces.
[Senator Kennedy would not like that because it would put the lives
of American troops in jeopardy. Right, Ted? You didn't agree to
this, did you?]
Blunt said neither the president nor the vast majority of GOP
lawmakers would ever accept restrictions on troop deployments or
binding withdrawal dates.
[The only date the Iraqis have to worry about is January, 2009, when
President Bush leaves Office.]
But, he said, Republicans would back the benchmarks. Rather than
tying those measurements of progress to military consequences, he
suggested linking them to the $5.7 billion in the bill for nonmilitary
assistance to the Iraqi government.
[A much better alternative to surrender.]
Democrats do not want to offer anything up for negotiation as they
pressure Bush to sign the bill as it stands. But the contours of the
second bill are emerging. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm
Emanuel (Ill.) said yesterday that putting the force of law behind
benchmarks has always been an issue that has divided congressional
Republicans from the White House -- making it a potential wedge to
push next week.
Other Democrats suggested the most contentious items in the bill, such
as binding troop withdrawal dates, would probably migrate to a defense
policy bill that will be on the House floor next month or to the
annual Pentagon budget bill, due up in June.
But Democrats, from the party's conservative wing to its liberal left,
said last night that they will not buckle to Bush's demand for war
money with no policy strings attached. "He's not getting what he
wants," said Rep. Dennis Cardoza (Calif.), a conservative "Blue Dog"
Democrat.
[You're messing with the bull. You may get horned. Be careful.]
To add pressure for a compromise, a coalition of liberal
organizations, working in concert with Democratic leaders in Congress,
is planning hundreds of rallies and dozens of news conferences to
protest Bush's veto.
[Let them whine. They will have no effect on President Bush's
determination to win in Iraq.]
Americans Against Escalation in Iraq is organizing what it
anticipates will be a historically large outpouring of sentiment
against the Iraq war within hours of the president's veto, with news
conferences just after the veto and "signature rallies" -- some of
which could draw thousands of people -- the next day in about 50
places represented by fence-sitting Republicans lawmakers.
[Don't count the chickens before they hatch.]
Staff writers Bill Brubaker and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum contributed to
this report.
end
TA