Congress begins acting to get America out of Iraq.

[Woodrow]

The people are speaking and our elected Lawmakers in Washington are begining to listen.

Now is the time for all Americans to send letters of support to Those who are voicing opposistion to policy in the mid-east and now is the time that we remember those who are not acting in our best interest and remove them from office as fast as possible.

We need to take back control of the government. At the moment we seem to have too many in Washington that have forgotten that Our government works for us, we don't work for it.

There is a reason why our founders placed in the constitution that it is :

"A Government of the People, by the People and for the People."

We can not let people forget that once they are elected to Washington.

Lawmakers draft anti-Bush Iraq resolution
Democrats, leading Republican, say more troops not in 'national interest' NBC VIDEO


• Bipartisan resolution opposes Iraq war
Jan. 17: Senators hold a news conference to announce a bipartisan resolution opposing the war in Iraq. NBC's Mike Viquiera reports.
MSNBC


Updated: 2 hours, 10 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - A group of senators including a Republican war critic announced agreement Wednesday on a resolution opposing President Bush's 21,500 troop build up in Iraq, setting their marker for a major clash between the White House and Congress over the unpopular war.
The non-binding resolution, which was also gaining interest from a second key Republican, would symbolically put the Senate on record as saying the U.S. commitment in Iraq "can only be sustained" with popular support among the American public and in Congress.

"I will do everything I can to stop the president's policy as he outlined it Wednesday night," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican and potential 2008 presidential candidate, who joined Democrats at a press conference on the resolution.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11457525/

 

[Woodrow]

In a related story. The shift in power is taking shape. The voices of the people have been heard and now is not the time for us to be quiet.

Levin focuses ahead on Iraq

Hearings will be his first chance to use Dems' control of Congress to help shape Iraq policy.

Gordon Trowbridge / Detroit News Washington Bureau

Advertisement


Get free headlines by e-mail
NEW! Get text alerts on your cell phone


Mark Wilson / Getty Images

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is choosing to move forward with Iraq policy rather than analyze past mistakes. See full image



Printer friendly version
Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Carl Levin's first hearings as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee will question administration officials and outside experts about possible new strategies in Iraq -- and not about possible mistakes in conduct of the war.

Source: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061230/POLITICS/612300354/1022

 

[snakelegs]

it's high time. i was against the u.s. invasion of afghanistan and the u.s. invasion of iraq.
some are just for cashing in on the politically popular - get the troops out.
i think it would be wrong to just get the troops out and not take any responsibility for the situation we have brought about in iraq.

 

[Count DeSheep]

Me thinks that this is a good thing. The U.S. is like that over-enthusiastic guy that always tries to help, but only makes more problems. True, the Americans HAVE gotten Saddam out of the way...But didn't they kill him on a Sunni holiday? Me no know whether or not to believe the news...XP

What do you guys think will happen with America's approval rating in the Middle East? Will more and more people think that America is Demonsville, or will they come to accept America? Me wonders...

I do hate to sound like an American, but this DOES look like the Vietnam situation, doesn't it? The tactics of the apparent winners are the same, are they not? No huge battles, but they DO manage to kill a lot of Americans...And the media plays right into it, too. Notice how, even though there are casualties on both sides and those numbers are aired on the news daily, the media only bothers to mention when 2,000 AMERICANS have died. Never, "The 2,000 terrorist was killed in Iraq today..." Always something to make it seem as if the American soldiers are standing around in line, waiting to be shot. Odd, isn't it?

The Democrats were praised by people opposed to American presence in Iraq, weren't they? They were exalted by the enemy for their anti-war efforts. Doesn't that mean that they were giving aid and comfort to the enemy? *cough*TREASON*cough*

Hmm...Funny how history really DOES repeat itself...

 

[north_malaysian]

There's some speculations in Malaysian newspapers that USA will attack Iran this year.... I hope, the congress can stop this from happening...

 

[Count DeSheep]

America attacking Iran? Tch. They'd have Israel, and maybe Britain and Austalia. But who else? I can't name many that would support the U.S. in this effort, can you? A couple of nations against almost everyone else...that is not a risk the Americans would take after taking a chance with Iraq. America will not attack Iran. Not soon, anyway. Years from now, maybe. But not within the decade.

 

[snakelegs]

Me thinks that this is a good thing. The U.S. is like that over-enthusiastic guy that always tries to help, but only makes more problems. True, the Americans HAVE gotten Saddam out of the way...But didn't they kill him on a Sunni holiday? Me no know whether or not to believe the news...XP

What do you guys think will happen with America's approval rating in the Middle East? Will more and more people think that America is Demonsville, or will they come to accept America? Me wonders...

I do hate to sound like an American, but this DOES look like the Vietnam situation, doesn't it? The tactics of the apparent winners are the same, are they not? No huge battles, but they DO manage to kill a lot of Americans...And the media plays right into it, too. Notice how, even though there are casualties on both sides and those numbers are aired on the news daily, the media only bothers to mention when 2,000 AMERICANS have died. Never, "The 2,000 terrorist was killed in Iraq today..." Always something to make it seem as if the American soldiers are standing around in line, waiting to be shot. Odd, isn't it?

The Democrats were praised by people opposed to American presence in Iraq, weren't they? They were exalted by the enemy for their anti-war efforts. Doesn't that mean that they were giving aid and comfort to the enemy? *cough*TREASON*cough*

Hmm...Funny how history really DOES repeat itself...

in some ways the democrats are worse than the republicans cuz they're more hypocritical. they have never been antiwar and i don't think they are now.
no, of course the u.s. will not get approval in the mideast - why shoud they??? the u.s. didn't care about getting rid of saddam - we have no problems with dictators.

 

[snakelegs]

America attacking Iran? Tch. They'd have Israel, and maybe Britain and Austalia. But who else? I can't name many that would support the U.S. in this effort, can you? A couple of nations against almost everyone else...that is not a risk the Americans would take after taking a chance with Iraq. America will not attack Iran. Not soon, anyway. Years from now, maybe. But not within the decade.

the u.s. had no real support for its attack on iraq either, but did that stop it?
i pray that we will not be so insane as to attack iran, but i am not overly optimistic, as i think much of what we have done is not only wrong, but irrational.

 

[Goku]

I'm glad to see that the US congress is starting to head in th right direction, it proved to be a world disaster that Bush got elected in 2000 even though Al Gore had half a million more votes.

As for attacking Iran, i really hope they dont. Israel and the Jewish lobby may press the US to but the US has to look out for its own interests too, attacking Iran will not only affect innocent civilians, Iran can counter attack and cause losses to the US in Iraq which could escalate things even more. Basically attacking Iran is a recipe for disaster in an already war torn area. Lets move forward for peace.

 

[Woodrow]

The rolling ball is gaining momentum.

WASHINGTON - A second Republican signed onto a Senate resolution on Wednesday opposing President Bush’s 21,500-troop buildup in Iraq, setting a marker for a major clash between the White House and Congress over the unpopular war.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, a moderate from Maine, said she would support the nonbinding resolution, which would put the Senate on record as saying the U.S. commitment in Iraq can be sustained only with support from the American public and Congress.

Snowe’s decision to join the effort came as the White House and GOP leaders struggled to keep Republicans from endorsing the resolution, and raised questions about how many more defections there might be.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11457525/

 

[snakelegs]

again, i hope that whatever finally passes that it does not simply bring home the troops but make the u.s. take responsibility for the hell it has unleashed.

 

[Woodrow]

That is a big question. Although this is a step in the right direction. We need to face up to our obligations to restore Iraq.

However, us just getting out would be beneficial to both us and Iraq.

I do believe that any restoration will have to come from neutral sources as American presence will only lead to more bloodshed. But, I believe we should pay our share of the restoration costs.

 

[north_malaysian]

From what I've seen that the Iran gains the most benefits for American occupation of Iraq.

If that crazy bush attacked Iran, Iraq will be Iranian first alliance...

 

[snakelegs]

i would like to see the u.s. spend the same amount of money it is spending now, on reparations and no contracts to u.s. companies.
i think there is a real danger that this issue (u.s. responsibility) will be overlooked, if it is not coupled with the call for troop withdrawal.

 

[Woodrow]

From what I've seen that the Iran gains the most benefits for American occupation of Iraq.

If that crazy bush attacked Iran, Iraq will be Iranian first alliance...

True, and in the past Iraq was always our strongest allie against Iran.

 

[Woodrow]

This seems to be getting to be a very hot topic on Capitol Hill.

WASHINGTON - The United States should cap the number of troops in Iraq, while increasing American forces in Afghanistan, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday.

Clinton, the expected front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, was quick to seize the spotlight the day after Illinois Sen. Barack Obama took a major step toward entering the race.

Appearing on network television and radio shows to discuss her recent trip to Iraq, the New York senator said she opposes President Bush's plan to increase U.S. troops in Iraq and favors redeploying troops out of Baghdad and eventually Iraq. She said she also favors conditioning economic aid to the Iraqi government's progress in meeting certain political goals.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16669005/

Updated: 8 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - A Senate resolution opposing President Bush’s war plan on Iraq put the White House and Republican leaders on the defensive Wednesday as they scurried to prevent a trickle of GOP support for the measure from swelling into a deluge.

Eager to avoid an embarrassing congressional rebuke of the president’s new war strategy, the administration seemed to hint that the effort — led chiefly by Democrats — might somehow be of assistance to terrorists. They also herded GOP skeptics to the White House, where they tried to allay the concerns of Republican lawmakers including Sens. John Warner of Virginia, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Susan Collins of Maine.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11457525/

 

[north_malaysian]

This seems to be getting to be a very hot topic on Capitol Hill.

If it's a very hot topic in America, it'll be a very hot topic worldwide too.... we as outsiders are watching closely...

 

[Woodrow]

If it's a very hot topic in America, it'll be a very hot topic worldwide too.... we as outsiders are watching closely...

Which is only right. The leaders of the World's Nations no longer have responsibility to just the people under their jurisdiction. The decisions any national leader makes will affect every human on earth over time.

Although we act like each country is affected only by the decisions made within our own countries, The truth is every decision made by every politician affects each and every one of us.

We may be made up of many nations, but we are all residents of the same world. Each and every decision must be made in the best interest of all of Earth's inhabitants and not just to enrich a few.

 

[AHMED_GUREY]

good news

 

[Woodrow]

Not totaly related to the topic but is an indication of the changes now taking place in Washington.
More good news if this goes through:

Updated: 7:01 p.m. CT Jan 17, 2007
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has agreed to let a secret but independent panel of federal judges oversee the government’s controversial domestic spying program, the Justice Department said Wednesday.

In a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will have final say in approving wiretaps placed on people with suspected terror links.

“Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,” Gonzales wrote in the two-page letter to Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa.



“Accordingly, under these circumstances, the President has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires,” the attorney general wrote.

The Bush administration secretly launched the surveillance program in 2001 to monitor international phone calls and e-mails to or from the United States involving people suspected by the government of having terrorist links.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16673270/