<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wild About Harry</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/07/18/wild-about-harry-3/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/07/18/wild-about-harry-3/</link>
	<description>Summum nec metuas diem, nec optes - Marcus Valerius Martialis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:27:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mwalimu Daudi</title>
		<link>http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/07/18/wild-about-harry-3/comment-page-1/#comment-63333</link>
		<dc:creator>Mwalimu Daudi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:31:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/07/18/wild-about-harry-3/#comment-63333</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt; [I]t turns out that Mitch McConnell is a little smarter than Harry Reid. &lt;/i&gt;

Frankly, that&#039;s not much of a comparison. There are more brains to be found in a month-old head of lettuce than in Dirty Harry&#039;s noggin. Still, it is galling that the GOP had to lose last year&#039;s elections before learning that it &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; possible to say &quot;No&quot; to a Democrat - and live.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i> [I]t turns out that Mitch McConnell is a little smarter than Harry Reid. </i></p>
<p>Frankly, that&#8217;s not much of a comparison. There are more brains to be found in a month-old head of lettuce than in Dirty Harry&#8217;s noggin. Still, it is galling that the GOP had to lose last year&#8217;s elections before learning that it <i>is</i> possible to say &#8220;No&#8221; to a Democrat &#8211; and live.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neo</title>
		<link>http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/07/18/wild-about-harry-3/comment-page-1/#comment-63279</link>
		<dc:creator>Neo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:46:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/07/18/wild-about-harry-3/#comment-63279</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;SEC. 1535. REDUCTION AND TRANSITION OF UNITED STATES FORCES IN IRAQ.&lt;/i&gt;

&lt;i&gt;(a) Deadline for Commencement of Reduction.--The Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.&lt;/i&gt;

&lt;i&gt;(b) Implementation of Reduction as Part of Comprehensive Strategy.--The reduction of forces required by this section shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq&#039;s neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq. As part of this effort, the President shall direct the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the United Nations to seek the appointment of an international mediator in Iraq, under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council, who has the authority of the international community to engage political, religious, ethnic, and tribal leaders in Iraq in an inclusive political process.&lt;/i&gt;

&lt;i&gt;(c) Limited Presence After Reduction and Transition.--After the conclusion of the reduction and transition of United States forces to a limited presence as required by this section, the Secretary of Defense may deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq only for the following missions:&lt;/i&gt;

&lt;i&gt;(1) Protecting United States and Coalition personnel and infrastructure.&lt;/i&gt;

&lt;i&gt;(2) Training, equipping, and providing logistic support to the Iraqi Security Forces.&lt;/i&gt;

&lt;i&gt;(3) Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other international terrorist organizations.&lt;/i&gt;

&lt;i&gt;(d) Completion of Transition.--The Secretary of Defense shall complete the transition of United States forces to a limited presence and missions as described in subsection (c) by April 30, 2008.&lt;/i&gt;

The real rub here is section (b).  Obviously, Congress is trying to thread on Executive branch territory.

Beyond that, Bush could simply send more troops to Iraq prior to the 120 day date and then pull them out before April 30, 2008 to comply, as sections (c), (1), (2) and (3) are pretty much what is going on now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>SEC. 1535. REDUCTION AND TRANSITION OF UNITED STATES FORCES IN IRAQ.</i></p>
<p><i>(a) Deadline for Commencement of Reduction.&#8211;The Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.</i></p>
<p><i>(b) Implementation of Reduction as Part of Comprehensive Strategy.&#8211;The reduction of forces required by this section shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq&#8217;s neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq. As part of this effort, the President shall direct the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the United Nations to seek the appointment of an international mediator in Iraq, under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council, who has the authority of the international community to engage political, religious, ethnic, and tribal leaders in Iraq in an inclusive political process.</i></p>
<p><i>(c) Limited Presence After Reduction and Transition.&#8211;After the conclusion of the reduction and transition of United States forces to a limited presence as required by this section, the Secretary of Defense may deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq only for the following missions:</i></p>
<p><i>(1) Protecting United States and Coalition personnel and infrastructure.</i></p>
<p><i>(2) Training, equipping, and providing logistic support to the Iraqi Security Forces.</i></p>
<p><i>(3) Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other international terrorist organizations.</i></p>
<p><i>(d) Completion of Transition.&#8211;The Secretary of Defense shall complete the transition of United States forces to a limited presence and missions as described in subsection (c) by April 30, 2008.</i></p>
<p>The real rub here is section (b).  Obviously, Congress is trying to thread on Executive branch territory.</p>
<p>Beyond that, Bush could simply send more troops to Iraq prior to the 120 day date and then pull them out before April 30, 2008 to comply, as sections (c), (1), (2) and (3) are pretty much what is going on now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FedUp</title>
		<link>http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/07/18/wild-about-harry-3/comment-page-1/#comment-63278</link>
		<dc:creator>FedUp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:18:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/07/18/wild-about-harry-3/#comment-63278</guid>
		<description>Just goes to show ya that we&#039;ve got dinosaurs who have outlived their usefullness and think that they can dictate their wishes to all.  This should be a wakeup call to both parties, but it won&#039;t!  Term limits would bring an end to the dinosaurs and perhaps get clearer thinking people in Congress... a forlorn hope, I&#039;m sure...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just goes to show ya that we&#8217;ve got dinosaurs who have outlived their usefullness and think that they can dictate their wishes to all.  This should be a wakeup call to both parties, but it won&#8217;t!  Term limits would bring an end to the dinosaurs and perhaps get clearer thinking people in Congress&#8230; a forlorn hope, I&#8217;m sure&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

