A report in the New York Times documents movement by some Senate Democrats towards a compromise bill that would not include a withdrawal timeline. Here's Senator Dodd's statement in response to this development:
"Rather than picking up votes, by removing the deadline to get our troops out of Iraq you have lost this Democrat's vote.
"Despite the fact that this has been the bloodiest summer of the war and report after report says that there has been little to no political progress, the White House continues to argue that their strategy is working.
"It is clear that half measures are not going to stop this President or end this war.
"I cannot and will not support any measure that does not have a firm and enforceable deadline to complete the redeployment of combat troops from Iraq. Only then will Congress be able to send a clear message to the President that we are changing course in Iraq, and a message to the Iraqis that they need to get their political house in order.
"I urge my colleagues to join me and declare their opposition to this measure."
Comments
Bush Two lieing to the public is not new. However, I was able to predict as early as May of 2004
that it would be necessary for the U.S. to instigate and maintain mayhem in Iraq until the Iraqis cry "uncle" and agree to let us stay on OUR bases as long as we want.
After all, the lack of concern for the people of Iraq wasn't just apparent in the assault on Fallujah. No, it was well in place when the CIA "worked" with Ayad Allawi (the fellow who wants to be president now) to explode car bombs in Baghdad for the purpose of "destabilizing" the regime of Saddam Hussein, thus bringing terrorism to that benighted country and actually making the claim that the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq were "connected" in that they were both beholden to the expertise and explosives provided by the CIA.
So, why are our Senators relying on reports in the New York Times? And why is Senator Dodd still calling for an end to a war that's nothing more than a terroristic occupation.
Was the President's declaration that combat operations were over just a book-keeping matter, to reduce the pay of the troops? Surely, after more than a quarter century in the Senate, Chris Dodd knows more than the New York Times. And his pledge of confidentiality has long been erased by the Nuremberg Precedents.
to speak out about the dems capitulation to the pubs. Keep it up!