I haven\'t yet read all the details about the bill the House passed the other day that sets a deadline of August 31, 2008 for troops to remove from Iraq.... except this article shows that it really does NOT bring all the troops home, according to Chet Edwards.
Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock, whose district includes Bell County and Fort Hood, said the bill would undermine commanders in the field and lead to failure in Iraq.
“We are sending the message to the terrorists that we are not focused, resolved and determined to win, but instead distracted by silly political games,” he said in a statement. “We are telling them that we give up and they have won this battle. All they have to do is wait until August 2008.”
Edwards disputed the suggestion that all U.S. troops would be pulled from Iraq by the Aug. 31 deadline.
The bill allows an unspecified number of troops to be left behind to conduct anti-terror missions, to train Iraqi forces and to protect U.S. diplomatic personnel and infrastructure. Of the more than 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, fewer than half are combat forces.
So, we\'re really NOT removing troops from Iraq, those troops that are there will STILL be fighting (ala *anti-terror missions*), and the bill won\'t even specify how many are going to be left in, so that Bush can send MORE back! I mean, what\'s the point? This is for MILITARISM. And notice, what\'s the *infrastructure*? Permanent bases?
Edwards said giving the president flexibility on troop redeployment was another important consideration for him in approving the bill.
I see he stopped adopting the Republican talking point that says that, which is *micromanaging*, as he\'s said before.
Even if the language of the spending bill is ultimately changed to something that Bush is more likely to sign into law, Friday’s vote was a powerful statement, Edwards said.
“I think it sends a very important message that the U.S. House of Representatives told the Iraqis they have got to step up to the plate,” he said. “If Iraqis are not willing to do that, then no amount of American lives and tax dollars will ensure the future of Iraq.”
I\'m tired of this talking point that seeks to blame the Iraqis even though they are the VICTIMS. Using a different analogy, it would be like a wife-beater going into someone else\'s house and beating up the husband there, and the wife, too, parking his butt on the couch, and refusing to leave until the wife gets well enough to kick him out, all the while brandishing his guns. Rather, what was Wife-Beater doing going into a house that wasn\'t his in the first place, and why doesn\'t he get the heck out?
One more note about this. I haven\'t gotten a letter yet from Chet Edward\'s office to answer my question about whether he was one of those that worked to get the Iran provision taken out. (In fact, it was the SAME guy who again told me that no one there could answer my question and it\'s policy to always send these (insipid) letters, unlike what I was told her locally. And I never got a return call from the local Edwards office, although I left a message). But the article says.
Edwards had been critical of previous efforts by Murtha to set higher standards on troop readiness and deployments, making it impossible for the war to continue. Edwards played a key role in negotiating a compromise that allows the president to waive those restrictions.
The Edwards compromise would require the president to publicly acknowledge to Congress if he believed it was in the best interest of the country to deploy troops with less than a year’s rest from combat, extend combat tours beyond a year or send units into battle without proper training.
Yup. More on that from before. I guess this is the back of the hand to the Democrats who want to see us leave, and a kiss to the Republicans who want more war.