Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ichy Smith who wrote (57124)	4/2/2007 7:15:31 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

You are one lucky guy

To: Ichy Smith who wrote (57124)	4/2/2007 7:30:23 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Ichy, a rare outburst by someone who cares passionately about an issue can be expected. Besides, what you suggested is never going to happen & it's highly unlikely to incite others either. Meanwhile, we have real people who wield real power who are trying their damndest to bring about massive carnage & harm national security purely for political purposes. ** If Bush vetoes, Reid is ready to defund the war** By feedback@qando.net (McQ) The QandO Blog Or so he claims: <<< U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008. “I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold’s important legislation,” Reid said. “I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period.” >>> Of course there is an immediate problem with this planned legislation. The Senate Republicans won’t waive their legislative filibuster if this is put to a vote as they did in the last vote which passed. That will require Reid to come up with 60 votes to pass it. Without significant Senate Republican defections, that is very unlikely. This is simply the next step in what Sen. Schumer previously declared as an endless attempt to stop the war in Iraq by any means necessary. But this one is their truly preferred legislation. Of course it is completely contrary to the one now pending (i.e. completely funding the war), but most won’t concern themselves with the contradiction. When legislation introduced by a party wanders from one extreme to the other, you can count on politics, not principle, being the primary motivation. Its primary stipulations: <<< (a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d). (b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. (c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008. (d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows: (1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations. (2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel. (3) To train and equip Iraqi security services. >>> Absurd on it’s face. Just enough troop strength that Bush is left with the responsibility, but not enough to then effect the outcome. Obviously, to anyone with the wherewithal to Google Senator Reid, one can easily find examples of him contradicting himself: <<< In May 2005, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said this: "As far as setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that`s not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don`t want us there. It doesn`t work well to do that." >>> Of course that was before he removed all doubt about being a principled man. Now it’s politics before principle and the devil take the hindmost. The operation in Iraq has been transformed from a war into a political football and the president’s team and the military are faced with an opposing political team who have no principles and absolutely no problem with abandoning a country to the tender mercies of unspeakable animals who use children to hide car bombs. Must be why the number two man in al Qaeda chastised the Democrats for not moving fast enough to get the US out of Iraq. Having apparently rejected the lesson supposedly learned in the Balkans, Harry Reid is now content to abandon Iraq on an arbitrary timeline, and do exactly what he said wasn’t a very wise thing to do - empower those who don’t want us in Iraq. If he introduces this legislation, he will , metaphorically at least, spit in the eye of every soldier, sailor, marine and airman who’ve fought and died to make Iraq a success and leave it, eventually, as a peaceful nation. A proud moment to be a Democrat, I’ll tell you. qando.net feingold.senate.gov qando.net transcripts.cnn.com