House has just approved Iraq War Withdrawal Timetable

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

BAD move (R) - but Bush will veto it and won't get overrulled.

[CPT MikeyMike]

Inks hit it on the nose - it will get nowhere.

And I think it's a poor move.

[TheresNoMoney]

Americans support this bill 56% to 37% in the new WSJ poll out today:

The poll — which was taken of 1,004 adults from April 20-23, and which has an overall margin of error of 3.1 percentage points — comes as Congress considers an supplemental spending bill that would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq no later than Oct. 1, with the goal of having all combat troops leave by March 2008. The legislation hits the House floor on Wednesday, and heads to the Senate on Thursday.

Yet the poll shows that 56 percent say they agree more with the Democrats in Congress who want to set a deadline for troop withdrawal, versus the 37 percent who say they agree with Bush that there shouldn't be a deadline.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18312789/

[Wakie]

The timeline is stupid.  But at the same time the White House's complete lack of metrics to measure progress in Iraq is just as stupid.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Americans support this bill 56% to 37% in the new WSJ poll out today:

The poll — which was taken of 1,004 adults from April 20-23, and which has an overall margin of error of 3.1 percentage points — comes as Congress considers an supplemental spending bill that would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq no later than Oct. 1, with the goal of having all combat troops leave by March 2008. The legislation hits the House floor on Wednesday, and heads to the Senate on Thursday.

Yet the poll shows that 56 percent say they agree more with the Democrats in Congress who want to set a deadline for troop withdrawal, versus the 37 percent who say they agree with Bush that there shouldn't be a deadline.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18312789/

1) 56% is not people in congress
2) 56% doesn't override a veto.

[TheresNoMoney]

1) 56% is not people in congress

Great insight there.

[Sam Spade]

Does this bill have the "goal" language included (as opposed to the earlier "strict timetable")?  I have not read the bill.

If so, it is meaningless.

[The Dowager Mod]

It's non binding.

[MasterJedi]

It's non binding.

Bad move, even though Texasgurl is correct.

[CARLHAYDEN]

It's non binding.

Bad move, even though Texasgurl is correct.

Essentially what is happening is that many Democrats in Congress are walking a tight rope where they want to avoid enraging the left wing nut cases at Moveon.org, etc. while at the same time trying to avoid alienating the swing voters they need to get reelected.

[Silent Hunter]

It is binding, IIRC, but it'll get vetoed.

Here's the breakdown of the vote:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll265.xml

[Ebowed]

It is binding, IIRC

Well, there must have been something wrong with it (from a liberal perspective).  Pete Stark voted "present."

[Mr. Morden]

It is binding, IIRC

Well, there must have been something wrong with it (from a liberal perspective).  Pete Stark voted "present."

I think the liberal complaint is that the timeline isn't fast enough.

[nlm]

BAD move (R) - but Bush will veto it and won't get overrulled.

It's a first step to defunding the war or forcing Bush to change course in a meaningful way.

Sure Bush will veto it. But what happens next? A veto will not get him his money. All Congress has to do to defund the surge is not send him a bill - he can not veto them not sending him a bill - so the stage is set for a negotiation. There is plenty to come on this - and the next few steps in this process will determine if it was a good move or a bad move for Congress.

[MODU]

It's a first step to defunding the war or forcing Bush to change course in a meaningful way.

To mean that the only "meaningful way" is to leave, right?

[nlm]

It's a first step to defunding the war or forcing Bush to change course in a meaningful way.

Sure Bush will veto it. But what happens next? A veto will not get him his money. All Congress has to do to defund the surge is not send him a bill - he can not veto them not sending him a bill - so the stage is set for a negotiation. There is plenty to come on this - and the next few steps in this process will determine if it was a good move or a bad move for Congress.

To mean that the only "meaningful way" is to leave, right?

Yours words - not mine. I'm not an all or nothing sort of guy, I think there is plenty of middle ground to be had on this issue.

[MODU]

Yours words - not mine. I'm not an all or nothing sort of guy, I think there is plenty of middle ground to be had on this issue.

I just ask, because of the praise Gates and Petraeus received when being selected to their posts and their proposed change in strategy by Bush's opponents, just to have those same people trying to pull the resources and support they need to implement the new strategy before it even has a chance to get off the ground. 

[nlm]

Yours words - not mine. I'm not an all or nothing sort of guy, I think there is plenty of middle ground to be had on this issue.

I just ask, because of the praise Gates and Petraeus received when being selected to their posts and their proposed change in strategy by Bush's opponents, just to have those same people trying to pull the resources and support they need to implement the new strategy before it even has a chance to get off the ground. 

I'm old enough to remember surge after surge in Vietnam and what that amounted to - so are some of the members of Congress. I think you are twisting things up when you confuse praise for the men in a hearing and approval of the strategy being used. Those are very different things. I think you are also ignoring the middle ground (perhaps I'm wrong about that - appearance can be deceiving) - our choices don't amount to either doing what Bush wants or leaving the area completely, there have been any number of plans layed out that do neither of those things. That is also the direction that Congress is pushing Bush. However - Bush can turn it into an all or nothing situation by refusing to negotiate, in which case he may end up with nothing - and that would be bad for the country. It will not surprise me if he does that - brinksmanship is about the only tool he has in his bag.

Let's also not pretend that Gates and Petraeus define what the mission is - Bush does that. They just try and figure out means to achieve the goals that Bush sets. There are a great many people trying to muddy the water about that in addition to trying to claim that the troops and the mission are the same thing (how insulting is that to the troops?). Bush being at the front of that group.

[Nym90]

I support this; it's certainly not perfect, but at this point in time it's far better than the proposed alternatives of "stay the course" or a "surge".

[MODU]

I'm old enough to remember surge after surge in Vietnam and what that amounted to - so are some of the members of Congress.

So am I, and I'm sad to see Congress trying to repeat their past mistakes.  Let the military do their job so the country can succeed.

[nlm]

I'm old enough to remember surge after surge in Vietnam and what that amounted to - so are some of the members of Congress.

So am I, and I'm sad to see Congress trying to repeat their past mistakes.  Let the military do their job so the country can succeed.

Again - your statement muddies the waters. The mission was created by Bush, not the military. The mission can be changed - in fact Bush himself has changed it a few times. This has nothing to do with letting the military do their job. This is about defining what we should do moving forward and what the militarys mission should be - as opposed to what a proven incompetent like Bush wants it to be. He has been invited by Congress to be a part of that process moving forward - he has declined their invitation to this point. At the end of the day Congress is going to have to approve of what they are funding in some form or another - if Bush would come to the table now, I'm sure he will get more than if he comes to the table later.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's non binding.

Yes, it's been totally watered down to appease right-wing Democrats.
Hopefully Bush is stupid enough to veto it anyways.

[nlm]

It's non binding.

Yes, it's been totally watered down to appease right-wing Democrats.
Hopefully Bush is stupid enough to veto it anyways.

He is.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Good, the only Republicans who should be tried for treason are Hagel and Smith.

[nlm]

Good, the only Republicans who should be tried for treason are Hagel and Smith.

I know I'm going to regret asking - what are the ground you see for Hagel and Smith being tried for treason? Please keep it within the realm of the law - if you can.