FEINGOLD BILL TO REDEPLOY TROOPS FROM IRAQ (Surrender in 120 Days)

[BigBadBrian]

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER COSPONSORS FEINGOLD BILL TO REDEPLOY TROOPS FROM IRAQ
April 2, 2007


Washington D.C. -_ U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.

“I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold’s important legislation,” Reid said. “I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period.”

“I am delighted to be working with the Majority Leader to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to an end,” Feingold said. “Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq.”

The language of the legislation reads:

(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.
Link (http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/20070402.html)

[FORD]

Looks like Feingold is right again.

[Sgt Schultz]

Feingold is a joke and a disgrace to the state of Wisconsin. If he ever faced an actual candidate for the Senate he'd have his ass handed to him.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Feingold is a joke and a disgrace to the state of Wisconsin. If he ever faced an actual candidate for the Senate he'd have his ass handed to him.

Why don't you run, ChickenhawkSchultz?

[Nickdfresh]

Just want to know two things BigDouchebagBrian:

1.) Whom are we/you 'surrendering' too? (your gay urges?)

2.) When does your son enlist?

[hideyoursheep]

Brian, you're an idiot.

"Surrender"......

How fucking stupid are you?

[Nickdfresh]

Look how he "cuts and runs" from his own thread. It's because he's just reciting what he was told like a good little middle aged bitch...

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Brian, you're an idiot.

"Surrender"......

How fucking stupid are you?

Piss off, boy.

:cool:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Look how he "cuts and runs" from his own thread. It's because he's just reciting what he was told like a good little middle aged bitch...

Leave it to Nick to bring up "gay urges" in this thread.

Speaking of gay urges, how are you and hideyoursheep getting along these days, Nick?

:)

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Why don't you run, ChickenhawkSchultz?

Define "chickenhawk"

[Nickdfresh]

Look in the mirror...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Leave it to Nick to bring up "gay urges" in this thread.

Sorry, lowblow!


Speaking of gay urges, how are you and hideyoursheep getting along these days, Nick?

:)

What makes you ask?

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Look in the mirror...

That's the best you can do?

Seriously, I want your definition (other than me of course).

[Ellyllions]

It's political rhetoric only...lip service for party reputation.



(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

This is exactly what they're supposed to be doing over there right now.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
That's the best you can do?

Seriously, I want your definition (other than me of course).

Then fucking Google it!

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Then fucking Google it!

I want YOUR definition. Doesn't have to be complicated.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
I want YOUR definition. Doesn't have to be complicated.

You know fullwell what the definition is...

First of all, this banter is off-topic, so take it to another thread...

Secondly, this from the guy that has no concept of the "Chicken Little" analogy...

But since I've determined that your not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I'll post a cartoon that's easy for you to figure out hopefully. Enjoy:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/_images/features/tomtomorrow/20031110.jpg

[Sgt Schultz]

Apparently YOU have no idea what Chicken Little is, especially as it relates to AlBore.

And regarding chickenhawk, since you refuse to define it, even though you throw the term around alll of the time - I'll make a guess that "chickenhawk", to you, means anyone who is not a vet being in support of American military force being used.

So am I right, anyone who is not a Vet being in support of the U.S. military being used?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Apparently YOU have no idea what Chicken Little is, especially as it relates to AlBore.

Wow! What a zinger! Yeah, I guess people with all them scientific degrees are all Chicken Littles, huh genius?

Try reading "1984" sometime, and maybe, just maybe, you'll figure out what a droning idiot you sound like, and who the real predictable "bore" is...


And regarding chickenhawk, since you refuse to define it, even though you throw the term around alll of the time - I'll make a guess that "chickenhawk", to you, means anyone who is not a vet being in support of American military force being used.

So am I right, anyone who is not a Vet being in support of the U.S. military being used?


LMFAO Actually, read the cartoon jackass. That's not quite it.

But you're getting warmer...

And if you have a point to make it quick, other than you're too much of a pussy to:

A.) serve in the military

B.) actually start a thread with an accepted definition provided by numerous online resources provided by Google...

Because I've notice you are incapable of discussing Feingold's points without resorting to personal attack...

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Wow! What a zinger! Yeah, I guess people with all them scientific degrees are all Chicken Littles, huh genius?

Try reading "1984" sometime, and maybe, just maybe, you'll figure out what a droning idiot you sound like, and who the real predictable "bore" is...

LMFAO Actually, read the cartoon jackass. That's not quite it.

But you're getting warmer...

And if you have a point to make it quick, other than you're too much of a pussy to:

A.) serve in the military

B.) actually start a thread with an accepted definition provided by numerous online resources provided by Google...

Because I've notice you are incapable of discussing Feingold's points without resorting to personal attack...

Just about all you do is throw insults around. I insulted Gore and Feingold, but not you. It is YOU who first typed the word "chickenhawk" in this thread. I'm trying to have a discussion by asking YOU what YOUR definition of the word is because you are so fond of the term (among others such as pussy, idiot etc). But, other than saying "look it up on Google" you don't really have your own definition. Even though you started the name calling and I asked for a clarification you now have a problem with our discussion being "off topic".

So again I'll ask you, what is YOUR definition of "chickenhawk"?

[spitfire ace]

Not wanting to tread on anyones toes here, but over here in England a chickenhawk" is an American neocon who advocates war but has no or little military knowledge or service.
If i'm incorrect let me know and i'll inform the masses and put the populous straight.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Just about all you do is throw insults around. I insulted Gore and Feingold, but not you. It is YOU who first typed the word "chickenhawk" in this thread. I'm trying to have a discussion by asking YOU what YOUR definition of the word is because you are so fond of the term (among others such as pussy, idiot etc). But, other than saying "look it up on Google" you don't really have your own definition. Even though you started the name calling and I asked for a clarification you now have a problem with our discussion being "off topic".

So again I'll ask you, what is YOUR definition of "chickenhawk"?

No, I insult you because I find your posts to be nihilist, almost condescending crap. I find lies and liars, especially smirky ones that cannot possibly believe the horseshit that they post, to be blatantly offensive. Your supercilious demeanor, and the fact that in the past that you've actually edited articles to fit your little worldview and talking points, offends me.

I mean, what am I supposed to think of a partisan ideologue that is such a sanctimonious self-righteous cunt, that he actually has to edit materials to support what he is saying?

I think that you and your ilk grandstanding the whole Neoconservative/Trotskyist mentality that "a little lie for a greater truth" mentality is just all that is wrong with this country right now...

I mean, look at your fucking avatar. Al Gore is "Chicken Little?" Dude, that's fucking rich, and beneath rebuttal, at this point...

Remember, "War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery!"

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by spitfire ace
Not wanting to tread on anyones toes here, but over here in England a chickenhawk" is an American neocon who advocates war but has no or little military knowledge or service.
If i'm incorrect let me know and i'll inform the masses and put the populous straight.

Thank you! I mean, Sgt Schultz is trying to sell some utter bollocks that anyone without military experience who supports the War is a "Chickenhawk."

I've no problem with those that want to discuss it...

I've never said this. A Chickenhawk is a condescending douchebag, running around the interweb with attacks on what they perceive to be "commie libs" and "Jihadist sympathizers," all while blogging and posting from the comfort of their mom's basement, and trying to turn the whole thing into a partisan ass-covering for the worst pResidents in modern history, and then blame it on the Democrats. Yeah, that's a good one!

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No, I insult you because I find your posts to be nihilist, almost condescending crap. I find lies and liars, especially smirky ones that cannot possibly believe the horseshit that they post, to be blatantly offensive. Your supercilious demeanor, and the fact that in the past that you've actually edited articles to fit your little worldview and talking points, offends me.

A nihilist? Are you sure?

I think you are confusing honest inquiry with superciliousness.

Edited how? By posting excerpts of articles? I think you are confusing editing (which is fine) and posting excerpts from articles, with blatant manipulation of words or works to misrepresent the original intent of the work cited.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I mean, what am I supposed to think of a partisan ideologue that is such a sanctimonious self-righteous cunt, that he actually has to edit materials to support what he is saying?.
See above.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I mean, look at your fucking avatar. Al Gore is "Chicken Little?" Dude, that's fucking rich, and beneath rebuttal, at this point...?.
The comparison of Al Gore with Chicken Little fits perfectly.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Sgt Schultz is trying to sell some utter bollocks that anyone without military experience who supports the War is a "Chickenhawk."

I've no problem with those that want to discuss it...

Really, then why always use that term? Your idea of “discussion” usually seems to be name-calling and trying to bully those you don’t agree with.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I've never said this. A Chickenhawk is a condescending douchebag, running around the interweb with attacks on what they perceive to be "commie libs" and "Jihadist sympathizers," all while blogging and posting from the comfort of their mom's basement, and trying to turn the whole thing into a partisan ass-covering for the worst pResidents in modern history, and then blame it on the Democrats. Yeah, that's a good one!
Finally we have your definition. So one is NOT a chickenhawk as long as he refrains from using certain words and terms you find hurtful. I said Feingold was a joke, and your response was to call me a chickenhawk. Makes a lot of sense.

Generally, when someone flings “chickenhawk” at someone else they imply that the “chickenhawk” has no business even discussing the topic; the topic here being the Iraq War. By using the term you are attempting to delegitimize anything I say no matter if it has merit.

I searched the forums here and the only place I found the term "Jihadist sympathizers" was in this thread, posted by you. I also searched "commie libs" and there were many hits, but the term was not written by me.

I also have no interest in “partisan ass-covering” for George Bush either.

So, am I still a chickenhawk?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
A nihilist? Are you sure?

I think you are confusing honest inquiry with superciliousness.

Anything BUT honest, you mean...


Edited how? By posting excerpts of articles? I think you are confusing editing (which is fine) and posting excerpts from articles, with blatant manipulation of words or works to misrepresent the original intent of the work cited.


Bullshit. It wasn't merely "an excerpt." You presented only half of the article that suited your little agenda, then selectively edited out parts that contradicted your post, or were at all critical of the Bush admin, completely changing the article's context, liar.


The comparison of Al Gore with Chicken Little fits perfectly.


Yeah, only science and the facts can stop you now...



Really, then why always use that term? Your idea of �discussion� usually seems to be name-calling and trying to bully those you don�t agree with.

Need a tampon?

You haven't posted here much recently, but I'm pretty sure you used to lob insults at anyone that disagreed with you, bang drum.

Yup! Some examples of Sgt. Scheistkopf's articulate political discourse:

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=282968#post282968

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=281280#post281280


Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
The crybabies continue to wet their diapers............boo hoo
__________

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=373416#post373416


Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
[B]The Democrat liberal conspiracy freakish left wing crybabies have their panties wedged even higher up into their bungholes. These no-brained, dim-witted, emotionally unstable, intellectual dinosaurs are STILL wetting their diapers and pooping their pantaloons about George Bush as an apparent coping mechanism to deflect bleak self examination. The inbred canon of Bushhate continues to be displayed at the latest incarnation of masturbatory megalomania.
Get your hankies out………………………………………

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=377238#post377238

More:

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=377176#post377176

Sgt. Scheistkopf insults veterans:

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=377176#post377176


Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
[B]Thanks for serving so you can tell me to shut the fuck up! I'm glad to see your service was not in vain and you protected my right to free speech. Thanks also for pointing out that I have no right to free speech unless I was in the armed forces like you were! I'm glad I paid taxes to pay you r salary and feed and clothe you so that you could then tell me to shut the fuck up becasue I didn't join and receive free health care, food, pay and clothing like you. Thanks for enlightening me.

Sgt. Scheistkopf bristles at being called a "Chickenhawk by that raving leftist madman: Knuckleboner????

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=377019#post377019

And to top it all off, Sgt. Scheistkopf calls me a ""loony leftwing...pacifist" that is rooting against the team and hoping that "we lose," the team he never played for but I did :mad: :
http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=377019#post377019

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=377019#post377019


Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
So since you won’t answer the question (don’t feel too bad, most lefties won’t answer) whether you want the U.S. to win the war or not I’ll guess that you DON’T want the U.S. to win the war. Bringing up the lame “chickenhawk� argument AGAIN I see? Fine.

Since you are in favor of the U.S. LOSING in Iraq and I’m sure you were not in favor of the war to begin with, and since there were no wmd then you are in favor of a return of Saddam Hussein, and since you and other leftists believe that free speech (in favor of winning the war) has certain caveats then I say that YOUR free speech means that YOU should show us all how YOU want to go live in Iraq after Saddam has been put back in power.


Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Fuck off with your Internet message board language. My original post was a reaction to you stating that you are rooting for the insurgents to win in Iraq and that as German you should know better. WHich part of the Marshall Plan did the U.S. not pay for then?

Yeah, right, go fuck yourself hypocrite pussy-bitch...

And thank you for proving me right in what a fundamentally dishonest, smarmy cunt you are...:)


http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=282968#post282968


[quote]Finally we have your definition. So one is NOT a chickenhawk as long as he refrains from using certain words and terms you find hurtful. I said Feingold was a joke, and your response was to call me a chickenhawk. Makes a lot of sense.

Generally, when someone flings �chickenhawk� at someone else they imply that the �chickenhawk� has no business even discussing the topic; the topic here being the Iraq War. By using the term you are attempting to delegitimize anything I say no matter if it has merit.

I searched the forums here and the only place I found the term "Jihadist sympathizers" was in this thread, posted by you. I also searched "commie libs" and there were many hits, but the term was not written by me.

I also have no interest in �partisan ass-covering� for George Bush either.

So, am I still a chickenhawk?

See the above posts cumrag...

And anyone can see what a fucking big-mouthed douche you are in that thread lobbing "fuck yous" like no tomorrow, and accusing people you seem to call "America's enemies," that is, Americans that disagree with you, are "rooting" for the enemy...

Nice revision of history Chewtar bitch. Now run along and "bang drum."

[Sgt Schultz]

You still can't, or won't, reply with any substance. Instead, you just come back with more of the same garbage, just at a higher volume.

Reading your posts are a waste of time.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
You still can't, or won't, reply with any substance. Instead, you just come back with more of the same garbage, just at a higher volume.
...

Well, I was quoting you...