The house voted to bring combat troops out of Iraq by September 2008?

Question

Does that mean every soldier? Or are some soldiers still required to continue a peacekeeping mission after that deadline?

Answer 1

I bet Al Quaeda is glad to hear this.

Answer 2

I see this a little more than fodder.

Elections are near and jobs are on the line. What's "right" is taking a back seat to what's politically "smart".

The final decision is not yet made - there are more steps to come in this part of our political process - and the pull-out question is only being kicked around to measure the pulse of the nation by using this theatrical performance in an attempt to sort out and paint a portrait of the next elections hawks and doves.

The senate has not been poled on the issue yet and Bush has veto power at his disposal in any case; and while congress could make a last minute effort to over-ride any veto action the president takes, (a pocket veto would be most likely)... the bottom line is that weather congress makes additional shows of side-taking or not, the question of maintaining a presence in Iraq, Afghanistan and the entire middle east region is a far greater benefit to American interest and world safety than pulling out could ever be.

Everyone, republican and democrat alike, understands the cost of staying vs leaving - the later choice being likely to result in little more than the creation of a new chaos great enough to give cause to return again in a very costly process to restore peace to the region; and it is this realization which must lead in the minds of rational people. (I still assume them all to be more rational than political in the final analysis.)

It's all just a political show, folks. The struggle here at home is just over controlling the reins...while the real struggle is in controlling the oil rich region of the Gulf and in defeating terrorist aggression - you don't suppose anyone is going to lose sight of that do you?

[][][] r u randy? [][][]
.

Answer 3

Michelle ... Well, you're a little ahead of things. This legislation would also have to be passed in the Senate before being sent to the President for his signature. However, the media has been reported that approval by the Senate is not likely. If it somehow does get sufficient support in the Senate, the President has already assured us he would veto such a bill. There would not be enough votes in Congress to overturn this, so the veto action would be sustained.

Answer 4

- He did not end the wars= You cant purely pull troops out and flow away the international places volatile. they are going to be even worse than till now we've been given there. - He did not close Gitmo- Blocked via a choose - He prolonged the patriot act- Um ok? - He prolonged and prolonged the Bush tax cuts- The GOP refused to compromise in this. - S&P downgraded united states of america's credit status- all republicans there. - 5 trillion funds have been spent - under 3 easily and government spending is often larger in recessions by way of larger spending and much less gross sales. - The unemployment value is at 9.a million% - We replaced into on a roll till the GOP desperate that their in basic terms objective replaced into to make this a one term president. You look to think of this u . s . is ran via one individual and no person else is to blame for making helpful that is ran wisely.

Answer 5

It is a bill without teeth. The only reason it passed is because there was so much pork added to it. Still has to go to the Senate and then to dubya. What do you think the chances are of that getting signed into law?

Answer 6

Bush is going to Veto this bill

Answer 7

Guess Who is right. It doesn't mean Jack because Bush is going to veto it.

Answer 8

Bush is going to veto that bill.

Answer 9

Bush will not have to veto it, it will not pass the senate.