By William Roberts
March 15 (Bloomberg) -- The Senate rejected Democratic- backed legislation that calls for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq just hours after a House panel approved a plan to bring the troops home.
In the Senate, a measure sponsored by Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada fell 12 votes short of the 60 needed for passage. It would have revised the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq to say it is no longer valid, and U.S. troops shouldn't be policing an Iraqi civil war.
Even the defeat of the measure was a step toward forcing President George W. Bush to change course in Iraq, said Senator Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat.
``We ratchet up the pressure on the president, and we ratchet up the pressure on Republican senators,'' Schumer said.
White House spokesman Tony Snow said the legislation would ``pull the rug out from under the Iraqi people by trying to set artificial deadlines when it comes to U.S. military commitments. If that bill comes before the president, he will veto it.''
Meanwhile In the Senate, after weeks of skirmishing, Republicans easily turned back Democratic legislation requiring a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days. The measure set no fixed deadline for completion of the redeployment, but set a goal of March 31, 2008. The vote was 50-48 against the measure, 12 short of the 60 needed for passage.
It appears that Bush has won this first round, while Blair still plans on taking his Troops out. British Prime Minister Tony Blair's announcement that British troops will begin withdrawing from Iraq would appear to be bad news for the Bush administration. Ever the propogandist, Cheney says, said the move was actually good news and a sign of progress in Iraq.
"Well, I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well," Cheney told ABC News' Jonathan Karl.
Mar 16, 2007
Senate Rejects Democratic Iraq Troop Withdrawal Plan
Feb 21, 2007
Leaving Iraq: Apocalypse Not
By Robert Dreyfuss, Washington Monthly.
Posted February 19, 2007.
Much of Washington assumes that withdrawing from Iraq will lead to a bigger bloodbath. We need to question that assumption.
But if it was foolish to accept the best-case assumptions that led us to invade Iraq, it's also foolish not to question the worst-case assumptions that undergird arguments for staying. Is it possible that a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces will lead to a dramatic worsening of the situation? Of course it is, just as it's possible that maintaining or escalating troops there could fuel the unrest. But it's also worth considering the possibility that the worst may not happen: What if the doomsayers are wrong?
In My View of It, I don't see the difference our presence in Iraq is making. If recent reports are true, AlQeada is alive and well in Afghanistan, Iran continues to arm insurgents in Iraq and the oil is flowing strong. So, what will be different if we leave? Perhaps the money we are spending there would actually be put to use here at home. Perhaps we could save the lives of countless thousands of people if we left. Perhaps we could regain our credibility as a Humanitarian Country rather than as the Terroristic Country our War Lord President is causing us to appear to be. Sadly, it may be to late for this Country to ever be seen in a positive light ever again!
