Bush set to veto Iraq war timetable

[Soldier4Christ]

Bush set to veto Iraq war timetable 
'I'm disappointed that the Democratic leadership has chosen this course'

President Bush, standing firmly against a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, said Tuesday that he will veto the latest war spending bill taking shape in Congress.

"I'm disappointed that the Democratic leadership has chosen this course," Bush said.

"They chose to make a political statement," he said. "That's their right but it is wrong for our troops and it's wrong for our country. To accept the bill proposed by the Democratic leadership would be to accept a policy that directly contradicts the judgment of our military commanders."

House and Senate Democratic appropriators agreed Monday on a $124 billion bill that would fund the Iraq war but order troops to begin leaving by Oct. 1 with the goal of completing the pullout six months later. Democrats would need a two-thirds majority to override a presidential veto.

Democrats said they won't back down and pointed to past remarks by Gen. David Petraeus, the new Iraq commander, that security in Iraq requires a political solution.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who says the war in Iraq is "lost," likened Bush to President Lyndon Johnson, saying Johnson ordered troop escalations in Vietnam in an attempt "to save his political legacy" only to watch U.S. casualties climb steadily.

Bush said U.S. troops should not be caught in the middle of a showdown between the White House and Congress.

"Yesterday, Democratic leaders announced that they planned to send me a bill that will fund our troops only if we agree to handcuff our generals, add billions of dollars of unrelated spending and begin to pull out of Iraq by an arbitrary date," Bush said on the South Lawn.

He said the bill would mandate the withdrawal of U.S. troops beginning as early as July 1 and no later than Oct. 1, despite the fact that Petraeus has not yet received all the reinforcements he has said he needs in the latest military buildup to help secure Baghdad and the troubled Anbar Province.

Democrats have argued that the election that left Democrats in control of Congress was a referendum for a change of strategy in Iraq. Bush used the same election results to argue his point.

"The American people did not vote for failure," he said. "That is precisely what the Democratic leadership's bill would guarantee.

"It's not too late for Congress to do the right thing."

Petraeus will try to persuade lawmakers in a private briefing this week to pursue a difference course. As part of the president's push, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was expected to meet Tuesday with key senators, including members of the Senate Finance Committee, to discuss the funding bill. The topic also likely will be discussed at a policy lunch that Vice President Dick Cheney is having on Capitol Hill.

Radio ads expected to air Tuesday will attack Reid as treating troops like a "political football," GOP officials said.

According to a transcript, an Iraq veteran identified as Capt. Trip Bellard says, "Senator Reid's remarks undercut the morale of our soldiers and undermine our troops on the ground."

As outlined by Democratic officials, the emerging legislation would require the withdrawal of U.S. forces to begin by Oct. 1, even earlier if Bush cannot certify that the Iraqi government is making progress in disarming militias, reducing sectarian violence and forging political compromises.

Another provision in the measure would withhold about $850 million in foreign aid from the Iraqis if the government does not meet those standards.

The Pentagon would be required to adhere to certain standards for the training and equipping of units sent to Iraq, and for their rest at home between deployments. Bush could waive the guidelines if necessary. Democrats assume he would, but they want him on record as doing so.

Under the nonbinding timeline, all combat troops would be withdrawn by April 1, 2008.

After that date, U.S. forces would have a redefined and restricted mission of protecting U.S. personnel and facilities, engaging in counterterrorism activities against al-Qaida and other similar organizations, and training and equipping Iraqi forces.

Democrats jettisoned some of the domestic spending that Bush has held up to ridicule, including funds for spinach growers and peanut farmers. Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others decided to include money to help farmers hit by natural disasters as well as the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

[Brother Jerry]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who says the war in Iraq is "lost," likened Bush to President Lyndon Johnson, saying Johnson ordered troop escalations in Vietnam in an attempt "to save his political legacy" only to watch U.S. casualties climb steadily.

There was no saving the political legacy... there was saving American honor.  Johnson ordered troop escalation to halt an enemy that was advancing.  To end the conflict the way it needed to be ended.  But what happened then is happening now.  The political opposition allowed the escalation but not the funds to fight, they put imaginary limits on where the battle lines would be drawn. 

Bush said U.S. troops should not be caught in the middle of a showdown between the White House and Congress.

That is correct.  And Congress authorized this action when we went into it.  And a change in  people of that Congress or not should not matter.  They should still support the action, and if they do not then they should be working behind the scenes and out of the CNN spotlight to come up with a viable solution.  Kneejerk reactions of just pulling out are not viable solutions and only serve to "appease" the supposed masses (which by the way would be in full support of this if our apparent leadership were speaking as one body and in support of it as well).

[Soldier4Christ]

History is repeating itself. The democrats likened this to Viet Nam some time ago and are working hard to make sure it is. The only difference is this time the security of the entire world is at stake.

[barelahh]

you guys do not know the visceral reaction i am feeling right now.  I have to say this, i feel such anger at our leaders for betraying us like this.  Most importantly i feel they have betrayed my sons.  i have 2 that are marines, and 1 fixing to go into the navy.  i am doing my dead level best to talk my youngest out of joining right now.  I personally think that these liberals deserve what they get for doing this to our troops AGAIN!

I have a solution, just give me and all the other parents that have children in harms way over there a m-16, and all the weaponry and I'll go over and help clean house.  FREE OF CHARGE!

[Soldier4Christ]

you guys do not know the visceral reaction i am feeling right now.  I have to say this, i feel such anger at our leaders for betraying us like this.  Most importantly i feel they have betrayed my sons.  i have 2 that are marines, and 1 fixing to go into the navy.  i am doing my dead level best to talk my youngest out of joining right now.  I personally think that these liberals deserve what they get for doing this to our troops AGAIN!

My prayers are with them. I was proud to have served 20 yrs and at one time would have recommended it for most all. I am in the process of trying to convince my son not to join either because of these liberals. Any decent, honorable person in the Military will have a very hard life ahead of them as long as the liberals are in charge.

I have a solution, just give me and all the other parents that have children in harms way over there a m-16, and all the weaponry and I'll go over and help clean house.  FREE OF CHARGE!

Do mean Iraq or Congress??   

[Brother Jerry]

Amen to that PR.  Things were getting bad when I was in (got out in 95).  I could not imagine what it is like now.

Do mean Iraq or Congress??

I would probably say either