Strange... the bill 'would compel an unspecified number of troops to leave Iraq within 30 days, a requirement Bush is already on track to meet as he begins in coming weeks to reverse the 30,000 troop buildup he ordered earlier this year. It also sets a goal of ending combat by Dec. 15, 2008, and states that money included in the bill should be used to redeploy troops and "not to extend or prolong the war."'
So the Democrats think people will be impressed by their passing a bill getting Bush to do what he's just about to do anyway? Wow. That's telling him.
And the Republicans, while pushing the line that everything in Iraq is going well (children playing on the streets and markets opening again, everyone ganging up on the terrorists, 70% fewer deaths...) object to the idea of a deadline for troop withdrawal a year from now? Is it the plan to have an indefinitely sustained state of "things getting tremendously better but more to be done" in Iraq - to justify de facto permanent occupation liberation?
'Even if the [$50b withdrawal] bill falls flat - as many in the Senate predict it will, since a veto override is unlikely - it will still have served the Democratic leadership's strategic purposes, according to Leys.
"It allows Pelosi, [Dave] Obey and [John] Murtha to say that Bush is not providing funding for troops, once he vetoes the bill," Leys said. "It also gets the Republicans on record saying they would not support a troop withdrawal. The bill is a political move."'Withdrawal Not Required in Iraq Funding Bill
What the..? Bush is less popular than Nixon at his least popular and Congress is indulging in convoluted political gamesmanship to make him look bad? It's as if, offered some fish in a barrel to shoot, you said, "Well, I'll need a helicopter and some ballistae..."
