HOURS after President Bush appealed for more time for his Iraq plan to work, the House of Representatives voted for a dramatic change of course - a troop withdrawal to start in four months and a shift in the mission by next year mainly to fight against international terrorists. Both the House vote and a similar one planned in the Senate next week add pressure on Republicans facing widespread frustration with the war. Most Republicans say they won't vote to force Bush to withdraw troops on a timetable and that they'll wait for a mid-September report to decide whether to change course.

House Democrats said that with casualties in Iraq high and worldwide terrorism threats growing, there was no reason to hold back, and they pressured Republicans to reject the president's strategy now. They were 67 votes short of the two-thirds majority necessary to override a presidential veto, however.

Democrat house speaker Nancy said there would be more votes on Iraq, “hopefully with an increasing level of support from our Republican colleagues.”

“We have a duty not just to voice our opposition but to vote to end the war,” she said.

At the same time, more than 3,600 American troops have been killed and thousands injured, the war is costing $10 billion per month, and Iraq's Shiite-dominated government has failed to meet benchmarks it set months ago.

“He is telling the American people to be patient. We cannot wait. We cannot be patient. The American people want to end this war and end it now,” said Democrat representative John Lewis. “How many more of our young people must die before we realize enough is enough?”

I pulled some of the important information out, but you may full the entire article here.

There is no "deadline" unless it passes, which may be possible, but also unless Bush signs it, which is highly unlikely, given recent history.

I hate when the media write things like this, as if anything has happened (and I work in the field ). It's only gotten 1/3 of the way to being a reality!

I'm sorry... maybe my history teacher was wrong but I believe it was the President that was the Chief in Command of the military, not Congress.

Maybe congress needs to re-read the Presidents job description, and then their own? xD

Congress declares war, the president can send military forces for I believe up to 90 days without congress support.

Ok then that would be acceptable.
But then again he could say "Ok 4 months + 90 days = 7 months to turn this around and gain support".

He already deployed them at the beginning of the war without congress approval IIRC, I don't think he can make them stay for an extra 90 days.

That's right, George Dubya is the DECIDER man! He should be completely allowed to throw away thousands of our troops without question!

No President can conduct a war without receiving funding from Congress (whether war is declared or not, which it hasn't been here). They could cut it off right now it they wanted, but they won't, because 1) Doing so hurts the troops, and they don't want to do that (well, the ones who want to get reelected don't want to do it) and 2) Republicans have the power of filibuster in the Senate, and Democrats only barely control that chamber. Add warhawk Democrats like Joe Lieberman, and this bill has little chance of passing. And even if it does, Bush it going to veto it, and I'd be extremely surprised if both chambers have the 2/3 vote to override it, even with the Republicans who've defected from Bush (which, despite the media hype, actually isn't that many, I think).

All I can say about all this is that I'm glad my cousin is finally home from Iraq, after he's been there since March 2004.

Senators Lugar and Warner have come up with an amendment to the spending budget that is likely to gain more support than previous amendments - it doesn't call for requirements on the president, more like "expectations". It suggests a troop withdrawl starting in Oct (I think it's October) as well as a request of the President to resubmit his request for War funding, and other things.

Given that these are two highly influential Republicans (one from the Senate Armed Forces Committee and one from the Foreign Relations Committee, as I recall) it's likely to be better supported, though many Democrats aren't all that supportive to date (they want stronger language making requirements of the President).

Just what we need from this Congress, more legislation without any teeth. Didn't they already pass something like that not too long ago?

Not as far as I'm aware

This is a really divisive issue. There is about 30-40% of the country who wants Congress to stay out of it (and largely back Bush in general) while 60-70% of the country want out of Iraq.

Personally, in a country where majority rules, I think the 60-70% of the country should be heard. The president is commander in chief, but at the same time he gets that power from the American people who elected him and right now most of the American people aren't too happy with his performance or direction.

Of course, Congress has an even lower approval rating (~20%), but that's another topic.

bfarber you just made me learn something about myself. I thought to myself, "Damn right the 60-70% should be heard!" but then I thought, "Wait a minute 80-90% of us are just plain stupid."

What I mean to say is while I would love for everything to go in favor of popular opinion there are very few people in this country with as much information as Bush. Most people just want out because they still can't figure out why we are there, and because the violence seems out of control. Neither of those reasons is justification for evacuation.

These days I think of the American public like kids on a playground...

It is a very clever thing, they keep saying all the time that they would withdraw, but they have never done so.
Before bush won the second time, there was so much of rumor n in the press that american people wanted bush out
because of this iraq issue, but AGAIN they elected him.

So what do we learn from this???

Well, setting aside conspiracy theories of Bush fixing elections and such (possible during his first election if you ask me, unlikely during his re-election, though I didn't vote for him), it is rather common for Americans to re-elect an incumbent during a war. Historically, it has happened almost every time.



While possibly true (though that's probably a much higher "stupid" percentage than I would have given) stupid people have the same rights as everyone else in this country I'm afraid. And then there's the argument of "what exactly defines 'stupid'?" Is it that they don't agree with your views? Is that what makes them stupid? Is it that they didn't go to college?

My point is, every law-abiding, tax-paying citizen has a vote in this country. That's what makes America, America.

Personally, I'm on the fence on troop withdrawl discussions. On the one hand, I don't agree with the war in Iraq (though I did support the offensive against the Taliban in Afghanistan given the 9/11 circumstances), however on the flip side, withdrawing our troops too suddenly could be even worse than staying in Iraq - both for us and for Iraqis. This is one of those points in time I am glad I'm not a politician tasked with resolving and deciding on an issue like this.

See you recognize the cause and effect situation we are in, which means you aren't in the stupid category . I'm in that same place. I'm not sure what to do now. It's just a big mess.

What I mean by stupid is that there are still multitudes of people that think we went into Iraq because they attacked us on 9/11 some surveys have numbers as high as 60% of the American public hold that view... When there is that kind of ignorance I'm kinda glad that we are a democratic republic and not just a democracy.

You'd think we'd be heard, and it seems as they are starting to get the message, but unfortunately, that's just not how Congress works.

Frankly, nothing will happen with a Democrat congress and Bush in office. For his own part, he holds his ground - he doesn't back down. And Congress keeps pushing. So Congress and the President are just at this stand still where nearly nothing can/will get done.

*sigh* is it 2008 yet?