Senate OK sends Iraq bill to Bush

As reported here, [i]n a bold challenge to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled Congress cleared legislation Thursday to begin withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

A "bold challenge"? More like an abject surrender to various special interest groups on the left (Moveon.org., Code Pink, etc.) and the terrorists, if you ask me.

The White House dismissed the legislation as "dead before arrival."

President Bush has already stated that he will veto this bill as it stands right now, with the troop pull out time table and all of the non-war funding appropriations (read "pork") included, and the Democrats know - know! - that they do not have enough votes to overturn his veto.

The 51-46 Senate vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage a day earlier it underscored that the war's congressional opponents are far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a Bush veto.

So why go ahead with this?

Democrats marked Thursday's final passage with a news conference during which they repeatedly urged Bush to reconsider his veto threat. "This bill for the first time gives the president of the United States an exit strategy" from Iraq, said Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin.

I think we already have an "exit strategy from Iraq", and that would be when the Iraqi's can deal with the sectarian killings, and the terrorists on their own. Until such time, they still need our help.

The legislation is "in keeping with what the American people want," added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Reid is delusional. Reid doesn't know what he's talking about when he states that the legislation is "in keeping with what the American people want.", in that, most people that I know - and I'll remind you that the majority of the people living here in Seattle are liberals - want us to finish the job we started, whether they agreed with going there in the first place or not.

Finishing the job does not entail setting a time table for leaving, allowing the terrorists to just sit back and wait until we're gone. It entails ridding Iraq of those terrorists.

But the Democrats don't see it like that, since they take their marching orders from the groups I mentioned above, who think that if we leave, things will get "back to normal". They couldn't be more wrong. They said the same thing in the late 1960's and early 1970's about Southeast Asia, and when we left, millions of people were killed and millions more were displaced in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

If we leave Iraq prematurely, we will be leaving millions of Iraqi's to a similar fate.