House Approves Iraq Withdrawal Bill

Rick Moran
Democrats in the House got their way and passed a $50 billion troop funding bill that would force the President to begin withdrawing troops immediately and have all troops out of Iraq by December, 2008:

"We want a plan in Iraq. . . . We want stability in the Middle East," Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee, said minutes before the vote. "We want to put a plan in place that holds the president accountable."

The bill stands virtually no chance of being enacted. Amid recent reports of progress in Iraq, Bush, who is determined not to let Congress restrict how he conducts the war, has threatened a veto. Democrats know that but say that their efforts to limit the war since taking control of Congress in January are a political -- and, some say, moral -- necessity.

"The American people voted for change," House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday. "We ought to extricate American men and women . . . from refereeing a civil war." The measure angered the Bush administration.

"This is for political posturing and to appease radical groups," chiefly MoveOn.org and Code Pink, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said yesterday.
Until a few days ago, the measure seemed doomed to fail. Liberals didn't think it went far enough and conservative Democrats believed it went too far. But Pelosi and House leader Stenny Hoyer twisted enough arms to make the bill a reality.

The Senate will surely reject the measure so it won't even end up on the President's desk. It's just one more example of liberals standing on the battlements, waving the bloody shirt, telling their rabid supporters on the internet that they tried, by gum, but those war mongering Republicans and bloodthirsty President are against us.

At least it looks good on a press release...
Democrats in the House got their way and passed a $50 billion troop funding bill that would force the President to begin withdrawing troops immediately and have all troops out of Iraq by December, 2008:

"We want a plan in Iraq. . . . We want stability in the Middle East," Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee, said minutes before the vote. "We want to put a plan in place that holds the president accountable."

The bill stands virtually no chance of being enacted. Amid recent reports of progress in Iraq, Bush, who is determined not to let Congress restrict how he conducts the war, has threatened a veto. Democrats know that but say that their efforts to limit the war since taking control of Congress in January are a political -- and, some say, moral -- necessity.

"The American people voted for change," House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday. "We ought to extricate American men and women . . . from refereeing a civil war." The measure angered the Bush administration.

"This is for political posturing and to appease radical groups," chiefly MoveOn.org and Code Pink, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said yesterday.
Until a few days ago, the measure seemed doomed to fail. Liberals didn't think it went far enough and conservative Democrats believed it went too far. But Pelosi and House leader Stenny Hoyer twisted enough arms to make the bill a reality.

The Senate will surely reject the measure so it won't even end up on the President's desk. It's just one more example of liberals standing on the battlements, waving the bloody shirt, telling their rabid supporters on the internet that they tried, by gum, but those war mongering Republicans and bloodthirsty President are against us.

At least it looks good on a press release...