Case made for continued US involvement in Iraq

This brief bit of slanted logic in the Herald article titled Larsen: Dems lack votes to change war policy, caught my eye this morning.  US Rep Larsen is quoted as saying:

Gen. David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, failed to make the case for continued U.S. involvement in Iraq

…congressional Democrats do not have the votes to force a change in policy.

What?  With a Democrat controlled congress, it sounds to me like they did make a case for continued involvement in Iraq.  Did little Rick Larsen miss logic day in school?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Case made for continued US involvement in Iraq”

  1. wally says:

    ‘hammer, I’m in agreement with you. It seems that when Democrats are actually in a position to change the direction in Iraq or impeach President Bush, they only push things as far as is useful to their politics. While there may be a small minority of Democrats who actually think we should exit stage left from Iraq and impeach the Bush Administration; I think most, including both the Democratic Party candidates do not.

    CitizenSteve, I am well aware that we don’t live in a 51% wins style democracy. Imagine the case of whiplash this nation would have if policies, especially military policies, wagged like a dogs tail every time that 51% flipped from one side to the other. Our system, the one you describe needs a genuine change of heart in our nation, for the direction of the nation to change. Apparently the report given by these men did not elicit a genuine change of heart on the direction we are taking in the war on terror.

  2. CitizenSteve says:

    It looks more like little Wally missed logic, math, civics and ethics in school.

    A few facts you seem to be unaware of:

    A bill must pass both houses of Congress before it can become law.

    To override a filibuster and move a bill forward in the Senate requires 60 votes.

    Once a bill passes both houses of Congress, it must be signed into law by the President.

    The President has the power to veto a bill instead of signing it into law.

    Congress has the power to override a Presidential veto, but it requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate.

    Out of 435 seats in the House of Representatives, there are 233 Democrats.

    Two-thirds of 435 is 290.

    Out of 100 Senate seats, there are 51 Senators who caucus as Democrats (49-D + 2-I)

    Two-thirds of 100 is 67.

  3. Bellinghammer says:

    Why would the dems want to try to override the current Bush strategy? It proved to be a huge success for them in the last election and they are hoping for a repeat.

    If you look at Obama’s platform he says he will withdraw troops from Iraq as long as progress is being made. So if progress is not being made it goes to reason that he would stop withdrawing troops. He probably would stop withdrawing troops and then blame it on Bush’s past mistakes. Don’t worry the eventual Dem president won’t abandon Iraq any sooner than McCain would. They just need to sound like they will to appease their base.