ThinkingBlue: NO MORE ENABLING BUSH'S VETO MADNESS

Edwards Uses First Media Buy To Urge Congress To Stand Firm Against President Bush On Iraq

With one swift movement of a pen, George W. Bush sentenced hundreds, maybe even thousands of our young troops to death or physical torture for the rest of their sad lives. Would he have moved so belligerently and without any compassion WHATSOEVER, if he had, had any skin in this game of war he enjoys playing? For instance, one or both of his daughters or even something as insubstantial as losing his entire fortune (ONE SKIN, HE COULD NEVER STAND TO LOSE!)

I doubt it!!!

He takes pleasure in having so much power because he does not have to suffer any consequences. My God, I must tell you, I do not feel like I am living in a free society, except for the fact that I can voice my disgust for this man, we call Commander-In-Chief, without fear of reprisal. (An autonomy, Bush and his merry band of neocons, would sure as hell, take away if they could.)

Bush desires to keep this loathsome war of his in a perpetual state of limbo, with each step forward begetting 2 steps backward in the hope that he can dump it onto someone else's lap come, 2009.

IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY NOW! His EGO should not be allowed one more day of protection. We should not be enablers to his madness. We should not empower his lack of grief which discharges so much anguish and pain to so many. Not one more day! NOT ONE MORE DAY! Please sign the petition CONGRESS MUST STAND FIRM. Thank you, thinkingblue

Huffington Post Wires
Dems Challenge Bush With Iraq Timetable
ANNE FLAHERTY AP March 23, 2007 11:03 PM EST

WASHINGTON
— The House voted Friday for the first time to clamp a cutoff deadline on the Iraq war, agreeing by a thin margin to pull combat troops out by next year and pushing the new Democratic-led Congress ever closer to a showdown with President Bush.

The 218-212 vote, mostly along party lines, was a hard-fought victory for Democrats, who faced divisions within their own ranks on the rancorous issue. Passage marked their most brazen challenge yet to Bush on a war that has killed more than 3,200 troops and lost favor with the American public.

He dismissed their action as "political theater" and said he would veto the bill if it reached his desk. The Senate is about to take up its own version.

The $124 billion House legislation would pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
this year but would require that combat troops come home from Iraq before
September 2008 _ or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain
requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election
sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not."

Just over an hour following the vote, Bush angrily accused Democrats of playing
politics and renewed his promise to veto the spending legislation if it included
their withdrawal timetable, despite administration claims that the money is
needed next month by troops.

"These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops,
the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders,
an artificial timetable for withdrawal and their pet spending projects. This is
not going to happen," he said.

Congress so far has provided more than $500 billion for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, including about $350 billion for Iraq alone, according to the
Congressional Research Service.

Across the Capitol, the Senate planned to begin debate Monday on its own war
spending bill, which also calls for a troop withdrawal _ and also has drawn a
Bush veto threat.

The Senate's $122 billion measure would require that Bush begin bringing home an
unspecified number of troops within four months with a non-binding goal of
getting all combat troops out by March 31, 2008.

These bills "offer a responsible strategy that reflects what the American people
asked for in November _ redeploying our troops out of Iraq and refocusing our
resources to more effectively fight the war on terror," said Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

While Friday's House vote represented the Democrats' latest intensifying of
political pressure on Bush, they still face long odds of ultimately forcing him
to sign such legislation.

In the Senate, Democratic leaders will need 60 votes to prevail _ a tall order
because that would mean persuading about a dozen Republicans to join them.

And should lawmakers send Bush a measure he rejects, both chambers would need
two-thirds majorities to override his veto _ margins that neither seems likely
to muster.

Voting for the House bill were 216 Democrats and two Republicans _ Wayne
Gilchrest of Maryland and Walter Jones of North Carolina. Of the 212 members who
opposed it, 198 were Republicans and 14 were Democrats.

Those opposing Democrats included seven of the party's more conservative
members, including Georgia Rep. Jim Marshall, Tennessee Rep. Lincoln Davis and
Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor, who say they do not want to tie the hands of
military commanders.

The other seven dissenters were members of a liberal anti-war caucus who
routinely oppose war spending and would accept only legislation that would bring
troops home immediately.

Fearing that other liberals would join them and tip the scales, Pelosi had spent
days trying to convince members that the bill was Congress' best shot at forcing
a new course in Iraq _ an argument that was aided when the Democrats added more
than $20 billion in domestic spending in an effort to lure votes.

Pelosi received a boost this week when several of the bill's most consistent
critics said they would not pressure members to vote against it, even though
they would oppose it themselves.

The vote was considered a personal victory for the new speaker, whose husband
watched the debate Friday from the gallery overlooking the House floor.

Anti-war groups remained divided on whether passage of the bill was a good
thing, and protesters tried to disrupt debate Friday and pressure members to
oppose the bill.

"This is just the beginning of the beginning of the end of this war," said Rep.
Barbara Lee, D-Calif., among those who opposed the bill.

The emotional debate surrounding the bill echoed clashes between lawmakers and
the White House over the Vietnam War four decades ago.

"We're going to make a difference with this bill," bellowed Rep. John Murtha,
D-Pa., a Vietnam War veteran who helped write the legislation.

"We're going to bring those troops home. We're going to start changing the
direction of this great nation," he said, bringing a standing ovation and hugs
from his colleagues.

Republicans countered that the bill would be tantamount to conceding defeat.

"The stakes in Iraq are too high and the sacrifices made by our military
personnel and their families too great to be content with anything but success,"
said Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn.,
and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said they planned to try to strip the withdrawal
language from the Senate bill _ which would probably require a
difficult-to-achieve 60 votes.

"We're not prepared to tell the enemy, 'hang on, we'll give you a date when we
are leaving,' said McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~