Senate Rejects Iraq Withdrawal Bill

The United States senate rejected a bill that would cut off money for the war in Iraq by March 31, 2008. The strong opposition to the bill was disturbing as the vote was 29 to 67, far short of the 60 votes needed to pass the bill. Nineteen Democrats decided not to support a bill that was proposed by Democrats

A timetable for withdrawing for Iraq is crucial to bringing our troops home. Without a timetable for withdrawal our troops could be stuck in Iraq for years upon years. Some people in the administration and President Bush himself have said that a timetable for retreat just means we are giving the terrorist and insurgents victory. That is not true at all, we have already achieved victory in Iraq and are creating more instability daily by being there.

We need to train the Iraqi army and police to combat these threats themselves, so they can handle their own internal affairs. We need to be focusing on getting the Iraqi's and their government self sufficient. We need to have a timetable for withdrawing the troops. Perhaps March 31, 2008 is a little to early, but we need some kind of date for the complete withdrawal of American forces from Iraq soil.
Another bill was rejected that would require the administration to report progress on Iraq by July 15th and September 15^th was also rejected .

These bills that are being rejected seem like progressive bills towards ending the war and without them what progress can be made towards bringing our troops home or declaring victory in Iraq? Why vote against bills that call for progress reports and time tables for withdrawing our troops?

Presidential candidates Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama both voted against the bill that proposed withdrawing the troops by March 31, 2008. They both felt like cutting off money to the troops would be betraying them. Most Democrats simply didn't have the spine to sign the bill. The division among Democrats has killed any real progress towards ending the war in Iraq.

Hopefully sometime soon, an effective plan can be implemented and a bill can finally be passed that will bring our troops home.

In other Iraq news, Prince Harry will not be deployed to Iraq. A reality T.V show was also in place to follow around Prince Harry in his tour. He received several threats and the British military decided not to deploy him as the risk to his life and his fellow soldiers lives would be to great. Well obviously he would be a prime target regardless. It was a not a good idea to begin with. One must wonder what in the world Britain was thinking?

sources:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/16/news/congress.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051600830.html?hpid=sec-artsliving