IF the bill had timetables, when is the earliest it called for troop withdrawl???

LSK

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-24-07 07:07 PM
Original message

IF the bill had timetables, when is the earliest it called for troop withdrawl???

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kenny blankenship

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-24-07 07:17 PM
Response to Original message

1. Since it did not have a timetable for withdrawal the "earliest is called for troop withdrawal"

is an impossible (or nonsensical) question to answer.

You might refer back to the previous bill Bush vetoed which called for withdrawal to begin by Oct.1 at the latest.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LSK

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-24-07 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. found my answer, it was to BEGIN on Oct 1

The Democrats� decision to give way appeared likely to bring an end to a legislative battle that has raged since Feb. 5, when Mr. Bush first requested the additional war financing. Mr. Bush had insisted that the money not be bound by time constraints, and Democrats proved unable to override his veto of their initial, defiant vote in favor of a spending bill that called for a troop withdrawal to begin on Oct. 1.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/washington/23cong.html?ref=todayspaper

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kenny blankenship

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-24-07 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #2

3. At the latest. If the Baghdad gov't failed to meet certain criteria, it could've begun in July

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LSK

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-24-07 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. source?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Blue_Roses

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-24-07 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #3

5. where did you hear that?

link?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kenny blankenship

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-24-07 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #5

6. Look it up if you don't remember! Jesus. Will two citations suffice ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602469.html
The provision most likely to survive the next round is a set of political and diplomatic benchmarks for the Iraqi government. The language all but certain to be dropped, or at least diluted, would require troop withdrawals to begin as early as July 1 and no later than Oct. 1.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18365267/
The legislation requires a troop withdrawal to begin July 1 if Bush cannot certify that the Iraqi government is making progress in disarming militias, reducing sectarian violence and forging political agreements, otherwise by Oct. 1.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Blue_Roses

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-24-07 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #6

7. who pissed in your wheaties

geeze...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Blue_Roses

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-24-07 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #6

8. this part makes no sense...

"Beginning July 1, if Bush decides that the Iraqis are falling short, U.S. combat forces would be withdrawn over six months. If the government shows progress, the deadline would be extended until Oct. 1, with troops leaving by March 2008."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kenny blankenship

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-24-07 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #8

9. What it would have done is force Bush to stand up in front of the country & say Iraq is going swell

Edited on Thu May-24-07 08:08 PM by kenny blankenship

when presumably there would be all kinds of evidence to the contrary. It makes--would have made-- him personally responsible for "certifying progress", or else Johnny would come marching home more or less immediately. Obviously Bush would choose to certify that progress, rather than end the war. But events and actors in Iraq could force him to eat his words in realtime. Iraqis of all factions would know when the deadline for certification was coming up and could plan their social schedule accordingly.
Basically it's a humiliation move.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LSK

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-24-07 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #9

10. and that is different from any other day when he says we are making progress?

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 02nd 2024, 12:26 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.