WH Statement on Iraq Accountability Bill claims it "insists on a surrender date"

[BurtWorm]

Which is an outright lie.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070425-7.html



Statement on the Emergency War Supplemental


RSS Feed White House News

Seventy-nine days after President Bush sent Congress a request for emergency war funding for our troops, the House of Representatives has passed disappointing legislation that insists on a surrender date, handcuffs our generals, and contains billions of dollars in spending unrelated to the war.

Last November, the American people voted for a change in strategy in Iraq - and the President listened. Tonight, the House of Representatives voted for failure in Iraq - and the President will veto its bill.

Democrats have forced this process to continue for too long. The President calls on the Senate to quickly pass this legislation so the President can veto it and then work with the Congressional leadership on a clean bill that funds our troops while respecting the judgment of our military commanders and helping ensure the safety of the American people.

# # #

[sam sarrha]

1. lets face it... we need to impeach them, get rid of the Mafia crony types

they just dont get it

[BurtWorm]

2. Marty Lederman of Balkinization asks "How Low Can He Stoop?"

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/04/how-low-can-he-stoop.html


Marty Lederman

The official White House statement on the Democratic supplemental funding bill states that the legislation "insists on a surrender date."

I understand the inevitable urge to spin every issue so as to put one's adversaries in the worst possible light. But really. To play at such name-calling with a matter this solemn and important -- to use official White House stationary to cavalierly insist that a majority of the national legislature not only favors military "surrender" but "insists upon" it -- is conduct unworthy of a chief executive, let alone a Commander in Chief.

Needless to say (or it ought to be needless, anyway), there's not a single soul in this town suggesting that the United States "surrender" to anyone. (Surrender to whom, exactly? After all, the armed conflict that Congress originally authorized was against a particular nation state led by a particular regime -- and we deposed that regime. The "war" as it currently exists is in effect an attempt to police a brutal civil war that has every sign of continuing indefinitely, regardless of when we may choose to substantially withdraw.)

The bill passed by Congress, which I describe below, would require a gradual redeployment of troops from Iraq, basically on the President's own timetable, beginning in July -- that is to say, it would begin to get us out of this quagmire, something that an overwhelming percentage of the American public desires. If the President wishes to make a case that this majority view would be bad policy, so be it. But is it the President's view that 70-plus percent of the U.S. public favors our "surrender" to some (undefined) enemy?

Defining shamelessness down.

[Sapere aude]

3. They know how to use words don't they. And the noise machine and the Luddites will repeat them over

and over.

[Rosemary2205]

4. Still catapulting the propaganda I see. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

5. You have to admire their sheer gall.

"the American people voted for a change in strategy in Iraq - and the President listened"

The change in strategy (which is not what we voted for by the way, our vote was much more specific than simply a change, any change) is: more of the same!

We voted to end the war. By the ass-logic of the presidunce that means escalate the war.

The escalation has failed. The presidunce admits that failure by his refusal to accept even the weak no-teeth metrics and directives of the new funding bill. He knows that come October nothing will have changed: there will be no progress. The escalation has failed and the regime is out of ideas about what to do next. They cannot accept defeat, they cannot win, they cannot continue the war without ruining our army and bankrupting our nation and they cannot end it.

[BurtWorm]

6. I don't know if "admire" is the right word, exactly.

"Gall" is.

[C_U_L8R]

7. Bluster Monkeys

the White House is filled with a bunch of Bluster Monkeys
all going apeshit because they fucked up their stupid war
and they can't find anyone to blame it on.

awwwwwwwww.

[Fresh_Start]

8. Bush you don't have to surrender, you just need to be effective

apparently you have no belief that you are up to the job of creating stability in Iraq.
Admit that YOU can't do the job and get the hell off the plantation.

[EFerrari]

9. Impeach.

www.a28.org

[bigtree]

10. right before our eyes

and some folks told us this wasn't fascism

[BurtWorm]

11. kick

[Tennessee Gal]

12. Surrender? Who on earth would we be surrending to?

Iraq is in chaos. No one is in control. For there to be a surrender there has to be an entity in control.

Just get the hell out and let them settle it. It is their country. Not ours.

Does anyone think that Al Qaeda would stay there after we are gone? I don't.

Al Qaeda has no interest in their civil war. Al Qaeda would move on and our government led by someone rational, obviously not GWB, would get to work tracking down Al Qaeda and protecting our country from real terrorists.