"Breaking News": ABC flashes Bush claim that it's Congress -- not Bush veto -- that would stop troop funding
Following President Bush's April 3 press conference, ABCNews.com flashed a "Breaking News" alert on its website: "President Bush says if Congress fails to act on troop funding 'the price will be paid by our troops and their loved ones.' " ABCNews.com also featured an article bearing the headline: "Bush Says Democrats' Failure to Send Him Iraq Funding Bill Is 'Undercutting Troops.' " But missing from either headline was any indication that Congress is already "act[ing] on troop funding," having passed bills in both houses that fund the troops and that are expected to be reconciled in conference, with the final bill to be sent to the president for his signature. Bush, however, has promised to veto the troop funding bill if it includes provisions from either the House or Senate versions of timelines for the redeployment of troops from Iraq. He has stated explicitly, "I've made it clear for weeks that if either the House or Senate version of this bill comes to my desk, I will veto it."
This is the talk everywhere on the internet today. Bush and Cheney saying that Congress will hold up funding, when in truth, they actually gave them MORE than they asked for, but Bush won't sign a bill he doesn't deem "proper". So indeed, if he doesn't get what he wants, he won't sign it. Too bad your party lost Congress there Bushie, now you have to sort of live with it. And if you veto the bill, it will be YOU holding up the funding, not the democratically controlled Congress.
Congress has set a nice trap for Bush. If he remains obstinate and draws out this occupation until 2008, we will have a Democratic presidential win for sure. The best thing for the Republicans would be for the occupation to end in time to recover some credibility with the American people. Instead, they are playing into our hands.
So, this is all politics by your Democrats? Keep funding a war they say they are opposed to, but they want to stick it to Bush and ensure a Democrat lands in the White House in 2008 so the troops and the war be damned, in that effort? The ends justify the means?....Wow, what statesmen and women they are.
If they had any stones at all they would halt the funding of the war and bring the troops home like they insist they want.
And you are asking the American people to vote for politicians with that kind of character to lead your Democrats to victory?
More strawmen from Tommy.
The Democrats are sending up the bill to end this occupation. I'm saying that this is a noble and brave move because it would be much easier to do nothing and let this albatross sink the Republicans further. Similarly, the Republicans could help themselves by finding a way out of Iraq soon. By being stubborn they are sealing their own fate.
I never said that either party was acting out of politics. That was all the creation of the great mind reader, Tommy. Do you bend spoons too? I was merely pointing out that current course will almost guarantee a Democratic president, and outcome I welcome. However, I'd trade it for one less dead GI.
P L,
I'm quite sure Tommy doesn't smoke - it's too dangerous when you're waist deep in straw.
No, what is sad is saying you are against this war and then turn around and fund it - as your Democrats are doing. Are they noble in that effort?
They have attached a deadline for troop withdrawal. Of course, you knew that. You're just pretending to be dense.
If I recall, durring the elections the Dems promissed to bring the troops home NOW! The key word being "NOW". I never believed them, but tooo many did.
Your recollection is hazy.
I'd guess so, PL. "Rememberin' stuff" doesn't mesh too well with voting Republican.
I know, it's sad how many people thought that a party that consistently voted to blow up Iraqis for the last 15 years would suddenly turn and get peaceful. And now they're snowjobbing their puppy supporters with a bill that only SUGGESTS withdrawal, since none of them bothered to read the fine print and see that the 2008 date is totally non-binding.
TOMMY:
Are you really that naive? The Iraq War is a huge drain on American Blood and treasure, and the man who started it did so by using lies and falsehoods as his justification, sent the troops in without sufficient numbers or equipment (endangering their very lives in an unconscionable manner), and has NO PLAN for their eventual return. He has decimated our fighting forces, used and abused them, and intends keeping them in harm's way indefinitely (YEARS) just to preserve his own image.
But now THEY ARE IN THEATER. They need to be funded through an orderly withdrawal. Cutting off funds altogether would be irresponsible ... as irresponsible as this Administration was to start this unprovoked and unnecessary war in the first place.
There is a right way to pull out of a mess, and many wrong ways. The Dems are behaving responsibly, and Bush continues to be petulant in the face of massive continuing deaths of our troops. The war WILL end, and Bush will be forced to do it in an orderly way, and soon. THAT is the plan that works best for all concerned, considering that we cannot turn back time and undo the damage Bush has caused thus far.
(P.S. Your definition of "stones" seems to be to gamble foolishly and obsessively with other people's money. That is not "stones", that is GALL, and the Bush Administration has it in spades. TRUE COURAGE means facing reality, and not overreacting in every instance in a BLACK or WHITE, ALL or NOTHING manner. That is both irresponsible and usually a signal of insanity. You really need to recalibrate the qualities you use to assess courage.)
To do nothing? They hold the purse strings, remember?
They are not ending anything, they are funding it completely. So you are OK with that?
It's got a deadline, a responsible one. That's why George is threatening veto. Or did you miss that part?
You are the one who said Congress is setting a trap for Bush......and then I challenged you on the politics of that and then you claim strawman........how ridiculous.
If you're OK with setting traps in the context of a war, then so be it.
Don't act like you are opposed to the war, and they applaud your Democrats for funding it completely. You just appear hypocritical.
The trap just happens to coincide with the right thing in this situation. That is why Bush is screwed.
"Don't act like you are opposed to the war, and they applaud your Democrats for funding it completely."
The bill in question is the best strategy we have for ending the occupation. Cutting off funding won't accomplish that.
"You just appear hypocritical."
Hardly. Voting to cut off funding will be similarly vetoed and will fracture the national consensus that put the Democrats in power in the first place.
At least politicians like Kucinich put their money where their mouth is - he is against the war and will not vote to fund it.........I disagree with him politically but I respect him for sticking to his principles and not playing politics.........unlike the weak, ninny Democratic leadership who do nothing but straddle the fence.
If ending the Iraq occupation is the goal, cutting off funding will not achieve it. First off, it doesn't have the support of the American people who feel strongly about supporting the troops in the field. Secondly, it will be vetoed. Lastly, it will give the cons ammunition allowing them to paint the Democrats as "troop haters" and thus lessening their ability to act as the peoples' surrogate.
Money tied to a timetable is the sensible approach, and the one most likely to bring about the desired outcome.
You are correct. The troglodytes would like nothing better than to be able to blame the failure of Bush's Folly on the Democrats. That's exactly what they'll do if Congress cuts off funding. When Iraq inevitably goes down in flames, let the blame fall where it belongs...on Bush and Cheney.
No, the bill doesn't end the occupation. Read the fine print. It's totally open ended and funds the war crime for another 18 months. It's a con job.
- you are asking the American people to vote for politicians with that kind of character to lead your Democrats to victory? - tommy
Yep, and it was Charlie Rangel who admitted that the democrats had to buy votes with pork in order to get this bill passed....now that's real politics...without character.
Exactly, peanut storage and spinach subsidies - fits perfectly in a war funding bill.
That's the way it works in Washington. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.
- In September 2003, the money in Iraq was frozen in a battle for the 87 billion dollars that was allocated to the war by Congress...the effect on the troops and the mission was immediate...I was the commander of Forward Operation Base Regulars. One day we were building protective barriers, billets, dinning facilities, electrical system grids, motor pools, sewer systems, armoring vehicles and the like. The next day the money was "suspended."
For almost two months the money was unavailable. Work stopped, protection improvement stopped. The daily attacks continued....In counterinsurgency there are no timeouts. - Gerd Schroeder, Major US Army
It's not a game...it's deadly serious and not about "players" gaming the system.
If that really happened, it's just poor management by the Pentagon. They always have money available to move around. This notion that the troops will be stripped naked instantly if the deadline passes is bullsh*t. But, you know that.
...which is exactly why they can't just "cut" funding, and why deadlines seem to be the correct thing to do, if you want to end the occupation.
Nice copy and paste.
You're right it's not a game. My nephew is about to go back for his third tour, and my brother-in-law's spine is now a tangle of titanium from when an IED blew up his hum-vee. The bill in question funds the troops. It also sets up a timetable to bring them home. If Bush vetoes it, then it will be he that is pulling the rug from under the troops feet.
You couch potato warriors need to get off your ass and volunteer.
Yeah, the Republicans never tacked on any pork to their bills, did they?
[Shrugs] The GOP did the same thing. Remember the bridge to nowhere in 2006?
Guess what bill that was attached to?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-02-pork-voters_x.htm
Oh please. Hearing you GOPers whine about pork is astounding. Like you haven't all been stuffing your buddies' pockets for 6 years.
Its almost funny to listen to the party of Abramoff, Cunningham, and nobid Halliburton contracts snivelling about PORK.
Good job keeping to the talking points. Why don't you tell everyone what the "pork"in that bill really does? Hmmmm.... gives more funding to the Veterans Administration (well, we know that won't help the troops), it'll fund additional measures as outlined in the 9/11 commission report (I can see how that won't help), release more money to Katrina victims (George W. loves black people), and help farmers that had lost crops in the recent drought that George W. simply cut the funding.
Tommy, I know you mean well, and you enjoy playing the devil's advocate, but please, quit with the talking points. We all know them.
Except you conveniently forget that for the last few years Republicans have been trying to frame the issue as whether we stay forever or leave tomorrow. Most people aren't for pulling out immediately, we need to set up a timeline for withdrawal. If Dems just cut funding straight out the troglodyte hordes would be screaming bloody murder. Instead, Dems support the troops while they're there, but set a goal for getting out.
So what does that leave you to complain about? Not much. They're acting responsibly by not initiating immediate withdrawal and yet still proposing to get out. That's called compromise, I thought it was supposed to be a good thing, as opposed to wild-eyed liberals who hate the troops, you know? I think it was RinoHunter who spouted that same BS about Dems being chicken for this same thing the other day. These right-wing idiots went ballistic over any suggestion of withdrawal for years, now they have the nerve to criticize them for not calling for immediate withdrawal? Good freakin' God.
And here's you not even three months ago, via the magical google:"The poll you cite says 29% favor removing troops NOW, 30% say decrease - which is not immediate removal". Why were you going to the trouble of pointing out how few people support immediate withdrawal if you really think it's a good idea? And here's more of you from the same thread:"I can't endorse Bush's plan yet, so I am pretty much in your corner. But I am not convinced that immediate withdrawal is the best answer for us either........??"
So either it's militarily questionable or politically stupid, by your own account, but now you support it so much that you criticize the Dems for their lack of "stones". Unbelievable.
Explain why some principled Democrats voted against the funding?
Because they are from liberal districts and are representing their constituents.
Really? And Nancy Pelosi is not from a liberal district?
Right...........
"And Nancy Pelosi is not from a liberal district?"
Did I say that? You asked about those who voted to pull funding completely. You didn't ask about who didn't. You, Gump, are a goddamn genius.
Because I don't live there, and haven't a clue, I will appeal to your awesome knowledge of all things congressional, and ask you - what do Pelosi's constituents want?
I mean, other than to have Pelosi representing them?
Oh please, his contention regaring Kucinich is because he is from a liberal district........so I said so is Pelosi and she voted for the funding.....so Prag's reasoning is ridiculous. Tell me again how conservative Pelosi's SF district is?
I didn't say ALL people from liberal districts voted for removal of funding. I was giving a reason for those that did.
So, Kucinich listened to his constituents and Pelosi ignored hers.
OK.
If she successfully forces Bush out of Iraq, I'm sure they'll forgive her.
For sure those yellow belly libs in SF will.
I'm not aware of anyone in SF has jaundice, of any political stripe.
Do you really think you score points that way? Do trolls know they are trolls? That's a deep question that is hard to answer.
Just another yellow-bellied lib weighing in: if we had the votes, I would most certainly impeach, convict, remove - every TRACE of Reugnancy from the past six years. We don't (yet) have the votes.
So we settle for doing what we can, and hoping for those votes in some future time, with Bungle shipped to The Hague, and most of his administration Boyz as well.
Haste makes "Repugnancy" into whatever I typed.
For sure the moronic, brainwashed residents of Planet Wingnut will buy that kind of canned ignorance.
I hate to say this, because it makes me sound like a rightwing nutjob, but I find that it's pretty good ammo: I'm a lifelong liberal, and I'm a war veteran. I might be wrong, but I'm gonna bet that YOU'RE the yellow-belly that found some reason to not go fight for your country.
I promise I'm not some redneck trying to be cool. I just won't have my patriotism called into question by someone who sat on the sideline. It's getting pretty tired.
His contention was not based solely on Kucinich being from a liberal district. Had you continued reading, you would have seen that he also wrote that Kucinich was voting in the interest of his constituents. That's not a bad idea for a guy who wants to get re-elected. Or a gal who wants to get re-elected.
I know you've heard this before, but we're not a binary population here, Tommy. Some people who share ideology actually differ on the details. Oh, except for conservatives, of course. They all agree unanimously with George Bush and Rush Limbaugh, and Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney, and Ann Coulter, and.... Well, I needn't go on. Just look at how all the Republicans voted the same way on this bill...
Because Dems don't march in lockstep, unlike the GOP?
What's unbelievable is how you want to hold me accountable for my little posts, yet you let your waffling, spineless Demcrats rationalize and spin their way around this war all day long......Oppose it, but fund it.....rail against it, but fund it.......if you find that commendable, well, I am not surprised.
So, what you're saying is the only way to oppose the war is to de-fund it immediately and completely?
Is that really your contention?
Ask Kucinich. That is his position, apparently you disagree and just say you're opposed to the war.
There are different approaches. Pulling fun ding completely is one way. But it's not likely to succeed. It would be pointless for Congress to pull funding only to have it vetoed and be no better off than before. I know that cons want them to pull funding. It would make the middle ground up for grabs. The cons abandoned the middle ground long ago when they supported this president's disastrous policy long after it was obviously a failure. Now they want it back. I don't blame ya. But you're gonna have to deal with it and hope the Democrats screw up somehow.
Different approaches? Now that is spin extraordinare. Just how is it different?
I'm not your first-grade teacher. You don't see a difference between cutting all funding, and supplying funding and setting a date? Maybe you're obtuse act is not an act after all.
Good lord, I quoted you distinguishing between public opinion of immediate withdrawal and troop reduction, now you don't understand the concept of "different approaches"?
Tommy
Instead of hiding behind what other peoples view points are on the war, why don't you just state what you think we should do?
Should we stay in Iraq? If not then what are you advocating?
Or is it easy for you to be judgmental and then hide behind other people instead of giving real answers?
I have stated my view on the war. We are there, we need to inform the Iraqi govt. that we are leaving soon and they must get their act together - no publicly announced timetable. I am not hiding behind anyone, the topic here is funding the war and Bush's veto.
If you are opposed to the war and feel our occupation there should end immediately - as many Democrats say, then to fund it is hypocritical........it's politically spineless, in my opinion.
"We are there, we need to inform the Iraqi govt. that we are leaving soon and they must get their act together - no publicly announced timetable."
That's the Bush approach. Stay the Course. Glad to have you on record.
"then to fund it is hypocritical........it's politically spineless, in my opinion."
It's your opinion; a very malformed ill thought-out opinion. I'm trying to think of a good analogy for you (though I doubt it will help). This sometimes works when explaining things to my ten year old. Hmm. OK.
Your daughter is 25 and still living with you. She doesn't seem to even try to get a job and sucks a couple grand off you a month. Now, you could out of principle completely stop giving her money. It would give you a few moments of smug satisfaction. But when you do so, your daughter opts to move in with a local carny who has more toes than teeth. Have you accomplished your goal? In one dimension, you have. But you've won the battle and lost the war. In this situation it would be better to give her a deadline to become self sufficient and continue to support her while you help her get a job and learn to manage her finances. A win for everyone.
It's not a perfect analogy. But a reasonably intelligent person gets the idea.
Why would you appeal to intelligence when faced with perverse obstruction?
If there's no announced timetable, isn't that really an empty threat? Do you consider that to be support for or opposition to the war?
I said publicly announced timetable. That only emboldens the enemy, and I am against them.
Tell us how it emboldens the enemy. I've never heard a satisfactory explanation of this.
Who would know about this timetable? Would the public know anything about the timetable or just ve left assuming no timetable exists?
There are plenty of strategic and intelligent decisions and information that the public is not privvy to when fighting a war - a timetable is no different. If you announce it to the world, the enemy waits you out.....that's not hard to comprehend.
The timetable is for our generals and military leaders to communicate to the Iraqi government.
Answer this: Why wouldn't we want the "enemy" to "wait us out"? Right now, they are attacking at a rate that is preventing the Iraqi government from building its strength. If the "enemy" stops activity to wait for our exit, that would give the Iraqis time to get their crap together. That sounds like a good idea to me.
By the way. Who is the enemy? Shia? Sunni? Kurd?
There are plenty of strategic and intelligent decisions and information that the public is not privvy to when fighting a war
Nice generalization that applies more to the operational details of a conflict. However, the decision to engage in war or make peace had generally been a very public one within our democracy.
If you announce it to the world, the enemy waits you out.....that's not hard to comprehend.
You've been suckered by the Bushie talking point. This is simply cover for the complete lack of any timetable.
The timetable is for our generals and military leaders to communicate to the Iraqi government.
Who in the Iraqi government would you trust to keep it secret?
That's straight from the Mitt Romney playbook:
"ROMNEY: Well, I wouldn’t publish it for my adversaries to see.
I would certainly sit down with al-Maliki as well as his government, plot out a series of milestones, timetables as well, measure how well they’re doing.
But that’s not something you’d publish for the enemy to understand, because, of course, they can just lay in the weeds until the time that you’re gone. So these are the kinds of things you do privately, not necessarily publicly."
[link to thinkprogress.org]
I guess you've found your man for 2008. You both have the same ill-thought out plan.
Oh...you didn't answer my second question. Do you support or oppose the occupation?
I said publicly announced timetable. That only emboldens the enemy,
"Ahmad, the Americans are leaving on July 8th".
"Thanks be to Allah. I was so discouraged, I couldn't muster more than 150 bombings a day. Oh, maybe an occasional dozen mortar shots, and those sniper attacks. But my heart wasn't really in it."
"Yes, praise be to Allah. And American democrats. We were in our last throes, but now..."
No, what emboldens the insurgency is our stupid conduct of this war. Our military have done their duty well and bravely. It is the conduct of the war by such incompetants as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Justice Department, Gitmo, rendering, Abu Graiab, firing the Iraq Army, the graft by US firms in contracting reconstruction and the list goes on and on. Then there was the suck up to Chalabi and Sadaam's bombmaker who told a passle of lies just as Sadaam had trained them to do. As I said, the American public and the troops are not at fault, it is these guys who let us down, and miserably so in fact.
Quick civics lesson for you in case this wasn't clear for you. Politicians are suppose represent the members of their district, not their personal views. I know you want to dumb this debate down to Liberal = anti war, Republican = pro war, but most of us realize that the issue isn't this simplistic.
I would like to see our troops out of the Iraq as soon as possible and I would also like to see this take place in a way that makes sense. It really floors me that we have no benchmarks for success or failure. No time tables to measure these things or to decide if it makes sense to continue or cut our loses. Who runs a major undertaking in the "real" world without these things? The reason why so many people want to pull out now or soon is because after all this time and lives spend what progress do we have to show?
Are you sure you don't write sound bits for the GOP? If your oppose the war and you don't vote to pull funding you have no integrity? Are you sure those are the ONLY 2 options?
I'm asking you, because that is what you're suggesting. Either it's defund the troops or support the war, according to you.
And I am telling you that it not some arbitrary opinion.......why are you ignoring that is Kucinich's opinion? He is perfectly comfortable with it. However, you prefer the spineless leadership's position instead, I get it.
It's not spineless. You've not shown where it is. It's good strategy. Cutting funding would be a good approach if it would actually work and bring about an end to the occupation. But it won't. It's a principled stand that accomplishes nothing. As I said before, we know you want them to go that route. It will give you the ability to point to Dems and say 'troop hater', and thus reoccupy the middle ground you long ago ceded. It ain't going to happen. Get used to being a minority party for the foreseeable future.
You weren't asked for Kucinich's position. You were asked about your own. Why? Because it appears you're trying to label people based on a narrow definition of what it means to "oppose the war."
You've also said you oppose the war. So, do you think funding should be cut immediately? Do you think funding should continue, but a timeline for withdrawal established? Do you think the funding and occupation should continue indefinitely?
Sorry, I know you want to make this about me so you can deflect away from your ninny-fied, weak and spineless Democratic party, that's OK.....being ashamed of their unprincipled standing is expected - and I am not a Congressperson.
Actually, it is about your assertion, specifically that the only legitimate form of opposition to the Iraq occupation is to cut off funding immediately. That was your assertion...your post...not that of a Congressman. (Or is your name Tom Tancredo?)
Really? Then ask the Democrats who voted against the funding bill. I guess they were just a figment of my assertion's imagination.
Nice try, you can excuse your precious Democratic leadership if you want to - it's nice to be a loyal Democratic soldier, they need more of you.
"Then ask the Democrats who voted against the funding bill. I guess they were just a figment of my assertion's imagination."
So Democrats aren't allowed to disagree? Kucinich voted for this bill, but I'm sure he wished it went further. If he wasn't also pragmatic, you would think he'd not vote for the funding/withdrawal out of principle. He knows that we must do something. It's called compromise.
What part of there are more then 2 options don't you understand?
Tommy does seem to be implying that you're either "for or against it." Of course, there's so many inconsistencies in his posts on this topic, his objective could be a number of other possibilities. However, since he's defying attempts to obtain clarification, we'll probably never know.
I LIKE the way you put the "defying" on Tommy! Would that our media hats were so scrupulous!
Then ask the Democrats who voted against the funding bill. I guess they were just a figment of my assertion's imagination.
So, are you saying your defense for your assertion is that some Democrats, byt their votes, seem to agree? That's a fallacious argument. It doesn't explain why you think that the only legitimate form of opposition is an immediate cut of funding.
Nice try, you can excuse your precious Democratic leadership if you want to
Hmm...perhaps you could quote me as to where I did that.
it's nice to be a loyal Democratic soldier, they need more of you.
Resorting to name calling? The reality is that I'm not a registered Democrat. Last Fall I voted for fewer Democrats than Republicans and independents. The fact is, Tommy, you don't know jack sh*t about me.
You haven't made your point. If their current approach brings about an end to the occupation, will you still call it "spineless"?
You're pathetic, and I think you know it.
It's about you because you're decrying hypocrisy, yet you're the hypocrite. You're criticizing Dems for not doing something you admitted was an unpopular idea, and possibly a bad one too.
Nice one. So being a hypocrite is criticizing an unpopular idea while disregarding principles. That is the most convoluted definition I've ever heard.
Since you and your "alter ego" are so good at googling......try a dictionary and look up "hypocrite"
Hypocrisy is to expect the Dems to do something you don't even support. It would be like me saying, "Why don't those cons just up and and outlaw abortion in all cases. That would be the principled stand. I'd call them a fascist, but they'd be principled fascists." The cons know the political chances of passing an outright ban on abortion, so they take a more measured approach that has a higher chance of success. And there are different degrees of "pro-life", just as there are different degrees of anti-Iraq occupation. The Democrats found a bill that all could support and pass and that has a chance of doing some good.
Absurd. Hypocrisy is saying one thing - "I oppose the war!!".........and doing something else "I am funding this war".
Kucinich opposes the war and does not vote to fund it........he is not a hypocrite. Whether I agree with him or not is irrelevant. I admire his principled stand........not those that straddle the political fence.
Hypocrisy;a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess....The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
Nice narrow definition you posted there. You yourself quoted the low approval numbers for immediate withdrawal, you know it's a horrible political idea and possibly a horrible military plan. But you expect us to accept that you honestly believe Dems should embrace it to show they have "stones"? How can you possibly expect them to do that? Believing you are trying to display an opinion that's not really yours (see the definition) is giving you the benefit of the doubt here. If that's not the case, fine. Maybe you're not being hypocritical, maybe you're just the most naive person on the face of the earth.
Something to remember the next time you talk about "how Washington works" or anything of the sort...
Answer this one question (I know you won't): Did Kucinich vote for or against the recent spending/withdrawal bill that passed the house? Think long and hard about that one.
HR 1591 - Kucinich voted against.
Your premise is GARBAGE. It boils down to the unsupportable false dichotomy of either Congress does something in the way YOU decide and define or else it means they dont support the action they are actually taking because you have decided to DEFINE it that way. Its dumb. YOU dont get to frame the debate and expect us all to take that frame as having any tenuous connection to reality whatsoever.
Look what I found, not even two weeks old;
This is an issue where I feel the Democrats are the wronged party. I do hold them accountable for their authorization, but the management of this war and the bungling of it so badly, and the mess we are in, is totally on Bush's shoulders. Bush broke it, he is responsible for fixing it......to turn it around on the Democrats and say "what is your solution" is really not fair.
They are in a tough spot here - if they cut off funding they look anti-troops - if they bring the troops home too quickly, they are then responsible for the ramifications of that decision, and who really knows what that is?
I don't blame them for supporting Bush, or flat out rejecting him......he owns this mess and the people should demand that he fixes it before he leaves office. If I were a Democratic candidate, I would say "George Bush, you fix this mess so it will not be a campaign issue in 2008.....get to work!"
Where's the call for a principled stand? Where's the condemnation of those who are "straddling the political fence"? How did we go from "They are in a tough spot" to arguing that they should have "stones" and do the politically disastrous thing? Incidentally, there's no way of suggesting I'm taking your words out of context, because it's copied in full and you weren't even replying to anyone.
Wow. I mean, WOW. You distinctly and explicitly note the political dangers of defunding the war, you say it's unfair to demand a solution from them, but today it's all about blaming Dems for not taking a principled stand to defund the war outright even though the political cost is obvious. What's changed in the past 12 days, Tommy, besides the fact that the Dems actually took action that doesn't lend itself very well to right-wing criticism?
Incidentally, I don't have any alter egos here, but if making an unfounded accusation is the best response you have, then that speaks volumes. It is possible that more than one person can hold you accountable for your own disingenuous commentary, you know.
Per Air America yesterday There'd been a republican PAC meeting over the weekend with our 4 star Iraq general. The report to the general was that we must see positive results by August or they, the republicans, will vote to cut off funding. Comrnts Tommy?
Good........even if the source is the dubious Air America.
dubious like all of the posts you've recently got busted in for lying or dubious in another way?
Surprise. Tommy is lying through his tee...keyboard. When dealing with Tommy, rather than accept Tommy's "interpretation" of facts it's always better to check what the third party is actually saying. Kucinch does not support an immediate de-funding and precipitous withdrawal.
[link to kucinich.us]
"2. .US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and necessary equipment home. Congress appropriated $70 billion in bridge funds on October 1 st for the war. Money from this and other DOD accounts can be used to fund the troops in the field over the next few months, and to pay for the cost of the return of the troops, (which has been estimated at between $5 and $7 billion dollars) while a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force."
Read it again.......Kucinich voted against funding it (HR 1591) and said this last weekend "Congress should be using it's power now to pull the plug on the war and to stop this war and to stop the bloodshed and take a new direction".
It's on his website, go to your three month old article and click to home and more relevant articles.
And there's also people who voted for Nader, too.
If enough people had voted for Nader, we wouldn't even be in this mess today. He would NOT have invaded Iraq. He would have ended the sanctions and thrown AIPAC out of DC. Anti-US sentiment in the region would have dropped like a rock. 9/11 probably would never have happened. US troops would have been taken out of all the Persian Gulf nations and US planes would have stopped bombing Iraq on a weekly basis.
But Americans voted for the imperial parties yet again and the murder continues.
Nothing in the quote supports your assertion that Kucinich wants to de-fund the occupation and withdraw immediately.
Politics is the art of doing what is POSSIBLE. Since the Dems cannot take the chance that if they cut funding Bush wont just leave the soldiers there to DIE without support just to make Dems look bad they have to do what they CAN. Tommy blinded once again by partisanship
Kucinich takes the chance. Is he misguided?
Stop trying to act like the only 2 options in this situation are to continue the war or cut funding. You sound like a partisin broken record. Kucinich is allowed his view point, but there are other ideas about the best solution for this situation.
The balance between practicality and principled stands is a fine line. I dont blame dems for coming down on either side of the issue. I save my blame for those who want to prolong the war indefinitly. As I already stated and as is said below, I am not going to be pigeonholed by your attempt to frame this issue with your false dichotomy. YOU do not define reality
Yes, though I have great respect for Kucinich, I believe he is misguided, and not only with regard to the politics. I am not convinced we can perform a safe and orderly withdrawal with the funds available. Nor do I favor raiding other accounts for that purpose. On those substantive points, I differ with Kucinich.
...and the White House is *not* playing politics? Is it not playing politics to say the Democrats don't support the troops, or that the Democrats want America to lose in Iraq, or that Democrats are traitors, etc.???
My how your side squeals like pigs when we play politics in retaliation to the most political administration probably ever. Bush is even turning the Justice Department into his personal political tool. EVERYTHING to this administration is about politics.
You don't think Bush is using our soldiers as his pawns?
You said it.
Republican candidates for the presidency are presently watching George W. Bush destroy any chances whatsoever they might have, to be elected in '08...
Furthermore, House and Senate members up for re-election in '08 are likewise going to be destroyed by the party 'Bush' loyalty they're so unwisely demonstrating right now.
Listen: To summarize as briefly as possible... the election last November was history-making... never before in U.S. History had EVERY SINGLE CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRAT BEEN RE-ELECTED... it was an historical first.
An equally history-making first: REPUBLICANS FAILED TO WIN EVEN ONE OPEN SEAT IN THAT ELECTION, not one! And there were 468 elections nationwide... they failed to win even a single open seat!
Six incumbent U.S. Senators lost their seats (they were fired by the American People), and 22 incumbent U.S. Representatives likewise lost their seats (were also fired by the American People)... AND ALL TWENTY-EIGHT OF THOSE INCUMBENTS FIRED WERE REPUBLICANS!
It was because of...
1. Iraq
2. George W. Bush
and 3. Congressional Republicans themselves
Guess what? The three things I just listed there?
That's Sen. John McCain's 'trinity' right there.
These idiots better wake up and fly right, and get into accord with the American People, because it can get worse in '08... it can.
Has the bill been sent to the White house yet?
NO. As noted, reconciliation of the House and Senate versions must first occur; after the spring recess.
Here's what the president said today:
""In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds...
The bottom line is this: Congress' failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines...
Others could see their loved ones heading back to the war sooner than they need to."
--George W. Bush
If Congress is 'failing to fund our troops on the front lines', then my question is:
"By what amount of money are our troops failing to be funded?"
"How much, what's the dollar amount?"
Those cheapskates in Congress!
I'll tell you what: I'll make up the difference personally, the amount of money that Congress is failing to fund our troops... tell me the dollar amount that Congress is failing to fund our troops...
...I'll write out a check, just tell me the amount.
"Others could see their loved ones heading back to the war sooner than they need to."
Puddinhead George must have missed the memo...this is already happening. The story came out today that troops are having to cut short their badly needed leaves in order to provide his "troop surge".
About the best characterization I've seen so far:
From Josh Marshall at TPM
Poor Barbara (Bush). I bet little George W. whined and stomped his feet until she bought him his candy at the grocery store. Now he's still a ten-year-old. Just a taller one.
What the troglodytes cannot admit is that their misbegotten war is already won...Saddam Hussein is dead; a new government is in place. What we're engaged in now is an occupation, a police action. The only way to "win" as they keep insisting, is to declare war on the nation of Iraq and destroy it. Otherwise, all we can do is continue to occupy it and hope that the Iraqis stop shooting at us and at each other. In order to pacify the whole country, we'll need at least twice as many troops,and there is NO way to insure a peaceful Iraq when we leave, no matter how long we stay. Now that the civil war has begun, we would need to be as brutal as Saddam in order to stop the fighting. Is that what our soldiers have died for?
Bush and Cheney are liars and war criminals.
I know people sometimes recoil at Vietnam comparisons, but swap the word "Iraq" for "Vietnam" in a good portion of your post and it unfortunately sounds correct with either.
I agree. While there are major differences, the similarities are striking. Perhaps the saddest is that, once again, the Conservatives are so frightened of damaging America's macho image that they are willing to squander thousands of young lives.
How many dead soldiers is the NeoCon ego worth?
Oh, WAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!
"If they had any stones at all they would halt the funding of the war and bring the troops home like they insist they want." - Tommy
And if they did, what would we hear next from you, Insanity, Limpballs, OhReally, and the rest of the wingnut talking heads?
The same thing we've heard the past four years: "Dems don't support the troops, blah blah blah . . ."
So, here's a bill that GIVES Bush the funding he wants - ALONG WITH a timetable for getting them out.
So if Shrub doesn't sign it, the only one "not supporting the troops" . . .
. . . {drumroll} . . .
. . . {cymbal crash} . . .
. . . is HIM.
So if Bush wants his war funded, he need do only two things:
SIGN THE BILL AND STFU
Clank, clank, clank...
That's the sound of Duhhbya kicking the Iraq can down the road.
I used to think he was incompetent; now I think he's addicted to failure.
- they are willing to squander thousands of young lives. - nerzog
Evidently Harry Reid has some number he can justify squandering. Instead of standing on principle...if the President vetoes the bill...he will push for denying all funds next year.
Move over Mt. Rushmore...Harry Reids on his way.
It is accurate. Congress know he will veto the bill if it contains arbitrary timetables. They insist on passing it anyway, they are in effect assuring it will not be made law, not Bush.
Not, it's on Bush. It's all him.
---"Congress know he will veto the bill if it contains arbitrary timetables. They insist on passing it anyway, they are in effect assuring it will not be made law, not Bush."---
Bush knows Congress will keep presenting the bill that puts the brakes on Bush's fiasco in Iraq. Bush petulantly insists he will veto it anyway, in effect assuring that the bill -and thus the funding of the troops as well as their future safety-will not be made law.
Thats just dumb. Bush vetoing a bill that has enough support to pass Congress is ALL on him. By that logic free thought progression Congress is obligated to send Bush ONLY Bills he approves of thus being a rubberstamp not one of the checks and balances. The weak attempt at a point is like a wifebeater saying its my WIFES fault I put her in the hospital since she KNEW I would beat her if she talked back to me.
OH, GIVE ME A FREAKIN' BREAK . . .
"Yep, and it was Charlie Rangel who admitted that the democrats had to buy votes with pork in order to get this bill passed . . . now that's real politics . . . without character." - Wesley
Please . . . stop acting like the Democratic Congress is the first one in US history to add pork to a funding bill . . .
We're spending $1 billion A MONTH on an illegal war . . . and you and Tommy have the BALLS to complain about farmer and rancher subsidies being "pork"?? You two like to EAT, don't you?
Then again, you probably thought Ted Stevens' "bridge to nowhere" was a great idea . . .
Actually, it's more than a billion a month. Isn't more like a billion a week?
- stop acting like the Democratic Congress is the first one in US history to add pork to a funding bill - mjh
It's not just about adding pork. It is exactly as Rangel explained it...coercing gutless democrats...who would not vote for the bill unless promised pork.
That is the underlying argument that is separate from "pork"...this isn't a highway bill...it's about national security.
Not national security. It's about funding George's vanity project.
Here's a clue. All pork is about buying votes. It's the way things are done. The Republicans were masters of it.
ABC News is just serving its purpose - stenographer to the president.
57 days. as oppse to 87 days in 2005 and a 117 days in 06 by the republican party.
There was a debate earlier this thread where Tommy argued that it it is better to tell the Iraqui's you're leaving, but not set a timetable is better than to set a timetable and not tell anyone what it is. But has anyone noticed that the two come down to the same thing?? Either way, the enemy knows you're leaving but not when!
Take a look at the abc news image at the bottom of the article and note where it says: Bush Says Democrats Failure to Send Him Iraq Funding Bill is Undercutting Troops.
Now take a loof at the media matters article where Bush says, "I've made it clear for weeks that if either the House or Senate version of this bill comes to my desk, I will veto it."
It is clear that Bush is aware of the funding bill and it is clear that Bush has already made a pre-emptive decision to veto the funding bill.
It should also be clear to abc that Bush has made a pre-emptive decision to veto the bill and in light of that fact abc is doing a disservice to the public by stating: Bush Says Democrats Failure to Send Him Iraq Funding Bill is Undercutting Troops
when abc ought to have written the banner like this:
Bush is poised to undercut troops.
The President asked for a troop funding bill...and the democrat party is hiding behind that facade...when their real issue is declaring defeat...by pulling out the troops or causing them to leave by defunding.
The troops are there now and funding must be supplied. If the democrats have the courage of their convictions...bring forth a stand alone bill to remove our troops from Iraq...either by fiat or defunding.
mmfa and the democrat party firmly believe that the American public wants our troops home now or very soon...that political water appears to be very shallow...jump right in.
The DemocratIC Congress provided funds according to the way THEY think those funds should be spent as is THEIR function according to the Constitution Bush and the rest of the ReNAMBLAcans are stuck along with YOU in thier committment to the lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy. The majority of Americans dont agree with their bloodlust and zeal for killing and death.
- The majority of Americans dont agree with their bloodlust and zeal for killing and death. - solon
Then it should be a slam dunk for the democrat party to bring forth a bill that...on its own merits...declares defeat in Iraq...and bring the troops home.
Thats not the only way to oppose the ReNAMBLAcans lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy. The way Congress has acted also accomplishes this. Pretend all you want that your false dichotomy describes reality it isnt true and wishing wont make it so.
Charlie Rangel was right.
Rangel has his opinion how things should be. Other Democrats have theirs BOTH ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING. Neither of you get to define the false dichotomy as the ONLY choices. Rangels arguments lost the day. THAT is how democracy works not ONLY about WHAT is done but also about HOW something is accomplished. Viva Democracy.
It's not about Rangel's position...it's about his admission that the democrat party had to bribe weak spined members of the party with pork to get them to support the bill.
You don't know how they would have voted otherwise. Please name me a congressperson who has never received pork. Funny. The crickets are chirping.
Indeed you're right...I'm only stating what an infuential member of the democrat party said...they had to bribe democrats to get them to support the bill...it would be funny if it weren't so shameful.
Yeah the way things have ALWAYS worked in Congress is now somehow shameful now that Democrats have taken over. Your partisan ideological blindness is showing AGAIN.
Nope...what I find shameful is...a US congressman that can be bribed with pork...when voting on matters of national security.
I didnt notice you mentioning it while the GOP ruled the roost so your protestations ring hollow.
I don't know of any republicans that were bribed with pork for their vote on national security...perhaps you can help me out...it you've got the money honey...I've got the time.
Ignorance as plausible deniability. You are a Bushie.
Easy enough
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3344/is_200204/ai_n8079285The new politics of national defense will go on display over the next several weeks as the House and Senate mark up President Bush's request for an extra $27 billion to fight terrorism at home and abroad. Appropriators will package some pork in the new and popular "homeland defense" wrapper by redirecting some of that spending away from Bush's priorities to their own pet projects back home. How much of the $27 billion will turn into pork?
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2006/05/the_black_budge.html
Earmarks made by Congress may be partially responsible for the tremendous growth in the black defense and intelligence budget. The USA Today has written about how former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) and Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) wielded earmarks in the classified defense budget to benefit Mitchell Wade's MZM. You've got to wonder what other questionable earmarks are in the black Pentagon budget that are or aren't directly connected to the growing Cunningham-Brent Wilkes-Wade scandal.
In addition, until recent years, both committees followed an unwritten rule that Members would not be allowed to insert “pork” into the intelligence authorization bill because they recognized the potential for abuse if Members were allowed to authorize funding for pork barrel projects in their home states as part of a list of classified projects that escaped public scrutiny. If appropriations were to be authorized by the committees for what could be considered a pork barrel project, the authorization would be made (in general, unclassified terms) as part of the public bill. According to reports I have received from both congressional and executive branch sources, however, this longstanding policy has eroded significantly in recent years.
http://coburn.senate.gov/ffm/index.cfm?FuseAction=LatestNews.NewsStories&ContentRecord_id=0a6a4a13-802a-23ad-41ab-670571c6ad4e&Issue_id=
The defense authorization bill was held up by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., because House-Senate negotiators dropped a Coburn-sponsored provision to analyze the costs effects of lawmakers' pet projects, called ''earmarks,'' on Pentagon operations.
Is that enough? I got more...
Nice research...pork barrel earmarks are despicable...by either party.
Yet, the point of my question was to point out what members of congress had been bribed with pork...by their party leadership...to obtain their vote on national security...none of your articles did that...though it was interesting reading.
Rangel was very clear...democrat leadership had to offer pork to get members of their party to support defunding and pull out dates...it's really that simple.
As nothing shows that all the pork in the Bill we are talking about is going to Dems. THESE were during GOP controlled congress. Pork is pork, these were national security bills. So, I restate my original premise since I didnt see you complaining THEN about the pork I think your outrage is a bit selective.
You can "restate your original premise as many times as you'd like...it doesn't change the fact that you have provided no evidence that republican congressmen had to be promised "pork" in order to get their vote for the party.
And no, I don't have selective outrage concerning pork spending. It was wrong...it is wrong...it will be wrong.
You're also slow on the draw...I have never said that all the pork went to democrats.
I did cite Charlie Rangel...he said it was a fact that democrats had to be coerced with pork to vote for the bill...that's a fact and that's shameful.
Rangels rhetoric notwithstanding its the SAME THING. When the GOP ran the congress National Security bills were rife with pork I didnt hear a peep out of you. NOW you zero in on this THE WAY ITS ALWAYS BEEN DONE. And scream bloody murder. Just because Rangel is more principled and honest about it so he says straight out what pork really is doesnt change the FACT its the SAME THING. Rangel just admitted it. The GOP did the SAME THING, you know it and I know it. I provided the articles that showed the GOP congress doing the SAME THING. Your stubborness doesnt hide the fact from ANYONE that its the same and I didnt see you complaining THEN. To YOU it might not seem like selective outrage to me it does.
As with 90% of all bills ever passed in the history of Congress, was that really supposed to be a point? Bloodthirsty GOP members can always be counted on to vote for getting Americans kille on the other hand.
it amazes me how this President is so willing to blame everyone else. If not for his mis-action our troops wouldn't be there in the first place. But to all those who are so pro war I suggest you read this column and take up the challenge:
[link to joeleonardi.wordpress.com]
Let's for a moment assume that Bush signs this measure.
What happens if the Democratic deadline for troop withdrawal is passed and there is no troop withdrawal?
The bottom line is this: If the deadline for withdrawal is exceeded, the Constitution does not permit the Congress to issue orders to the troops. That is solely the province of the Commander-in-Chief. What the Constitution does permit is for the Congress to UNFUND the Iraq deployment, forcing the President to withdraw the troops from combat regrdless of the state of the conflict. The House version of this bill as it is presently worded must do exactly that after August 31, 2008. The Senate version of the bill is not absolute on its Mar 31 2008 guideline.
I have heard many times that Democrats want to focus on the war in Afghanistan and catch Osama instead of wasting effort in Iraq. If that is true, then why do both the House and Senate versions of this bill demand withdrawal from Afghanistan as well as Iraq? Are readers to assume the Democrats have been lying?
The President asked for a troop funding bill...and the democrat party is hiding behind that facade...when their real issue is declaring defeat...by pulling out the troops or causing them to leave by defunding.
- wesley / Tuesday April 3, 2007 03:39:27 PM ESTwesley,
The Legislative Branch has the power of the purse. As far as your concern about the stipulation that troop withdrawl comes with the funding; the Legislative Branch has the power to do that to. We are not under a dictatorship.
Did you know that only Congress can declare war?
Maybe longer than you've been alive.
Democrats want to declare defeat and get out of Iraq...some immediately and others by a date certain.
Bring forth the bill...on its own merits...what will you tell your congressmen?
Republicans want to continue with their unsuportable lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy, Congress and the majority of Americans disagree.
Forget the funding...since it is cut and dried...lets see that bill from the democrats...up or down vote...declare defeat and come home...according to you....it will be easy.
Funding is the constitutionally mandated area Congress has authority over this issue. So HERE IT IS, lets see how comitted to the Bush administrations lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy they are.
Then the democrat majority should push their agenda all the way...stop funding now...declare defeat and come home.
Setting some future date is the cowards way out...declare your position and look your constituent in the eye...shouldn't take any guts. After all, you think that is the overwhelming position of Americans.
No fair bribing waffling democrats with pork.
The war has already been won. This is about ending an occupation.
You can state your false dichotomy all day long, it still doesn't hold water.
How come in 6 years, the cons didn't propose a bill outlawing all abortions? Where was it? Why these half measures? Where were their stones?
ah ah ah...no switching gears...
The great mind reader solon has already declared that the overwhelming will of the American public is being derailed by Pres. Bush...that should be an easy sell by the democrat majority.
Bring it on and lets find out for sure.
I dont HAVE to read minds I can read POLLS. Perhaps one day YOU too can accomplish this simple feat. Adult education, look into it.
Apparently you don't understand what a false dichotomy is.
The real dichotomy is that Bush insists on no timetable while Congress is pressing for one. This, not the all or nothing nonsensical position you are trying to stake out, is what the American people want.
Well I am glad the ReNAMBLAcans are locked into their get as many Americans killed as possible policy. However YOU dont get to use your false dichotomy to demand things be done YOUR way or they not be done at all. Its the MORON position.
I know the words are hard to spit out...let me help you.
Declare defeat and come home...see that's not so hard.
They are not indicitive of reality as much as you WISH it were up to YOU to do so. I think YOU ought to say the words. LETS GET AS MANY AMERICANS KILLED AS WE POSSIBLY CAN. Its clearly what you want. Just give in and say it.
I meant up to you to DEFINE it so
It IS the majority position not ONLY of Americans in general
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-06-26-iraq-poll_x.htm
WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans say Congress should pass a resolution that outlines a plan for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday. Half of those surveyed would like all U.S. forces out within 12 months.
But of the TROOPS THEMSELVES
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0301/dailyUpdate.html\
Survey of US troops finds that 72 percent want to withdraw within a year.
A large majority of US troops think the US should withdraw completely from Iraq within a year. Stars and Stripes reports that the poll of 944 US troops in Iraq, conducted by Zogby International, found that only 23 percent of service members felt that the US should "stay as long as needed
- A majority of Americans say Congress should pass a resolution that outlines a plan for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq - solon
Come on...let's have it then. Quit dinking around with funding. Put up the bill and bring it to a vote...stand alone...show the public that the democrat congressmen don't have to be bribed to vote their principle and support the "will of the American people".
WHAT? Have you no respect for the Executive Branch, sir? Have you none, for the CIC? Bungle gets to decide whether to withdraw, or have his funding for indefinite occupation withdrawn.
They DO have it IN the funding bill which is where Congresses authority in THIS matter lies. Keep beating the horse if you want, but its DEAD, stinking, and drawing flies
Oh so Clintonesque...
Democrats have thumped their chests on the issue of bringing the troops home...when they attached it to a bill that the President has sworn to veto...what a tub of guts they have.
When this feckless bill gets tossed back in their face...now what?
To paraphrase Harry Reid..."ok for you mister...we're going to cut off your funding next year". Now there's a man of real character...
You better advise Reid about that wanton slaughter of Americans for the next year...LOL.
This is where Congress authority lies on this issue the funding it is in the proper place when Bush vetoes it in favor of his endless war philosophy it will THEN be time to decide what to do next. This is ONE right way to accomplish bringing the troops home. YOU want your false dichotomy to frame the issue. WE arent dumb enough to buy into that. You have LOST this argument. Its over. Congress is doing WHAT they are supposed to do in a proper way. YOU just wish they would do it the way YOU want them to for tactical partisan political reasons. Its not the Dems fault they arent as dumb as you WISH they were nor that the American people arent as bloodthirsty nor have the zeal for war and death that you do.
Well, what is this "proper funcition congress" going to do when this bill is tossed back to them?
The democrat leader Harry Reid has already set the stage for using the old Cubs mantra...wait till next year...there's real leadership.
Congress did what they thought was right. Now its Bush's turn to stake out his claim on an endless war. THEN it will be time to decide the NEXT action. THAT is how it works thats how it ALWAYS has worked. Step by step. Congress has shown they want the troops home like the American people do. Bush can make HIS position clear. Then its time for either compromise OR confrontation. The dynamics of the situation are fluid and NOT defined by your silly false dichotomy as much as you WISH it were.
- Now its Bush's turn to stake out his claim...Bush can make HIS position clear. - solon
You're train is running late...Pres. Bush has already staked out his position. At least while the democrat controlled congress wrangles fruitlessley with this bill...and chasing attorney firing demons...it keeps them out of mischief...
No he hasnt, rhetoric ISNT action. Until he breaks out the veto stamp its still TALK. Congress has ACTED, they passed a bill. Bush now must ACT. Once he does the next step takes place. You keep posting as if YOUR delusions define reality they dont. This situation is still fluid. This is how compromises are either reached or confrontations START. Not by talking but by ACTING, not in whatever way YOU think they ought to but in the ways it has been done for centuries. The train is running EXACTLY on schedule. YOU are just complaining that they arent running it the way YOU want them to for YOUR partisan tactical advantage.
Well, wonder of wonders, a president can't veto a bill until it reaches his desk...now that's sharp as a marble reasoning.
Pres.Bush has made it very clear that he will shove the bill up the tailpipes of Pelosi and Reid. The next step...in your dear process...is that Reid is setting the stage for no action until next year...
But wait, what about the will of the people...this year? Oh isn't it great to be a Cubbies fan?
I wouldnt know about being a cubbies fan I do know the Dems kicked GOP BUTT last election so I am not sure what they are waiting for. You have no point. Yes Bush SAYS he will veto the bill something he has not done ONCE so far. SAYING he will veto the bill is not vetoing the bill. THAT will have consequences TALKING about it does not. The PROCESS is working itself out as it is supposed to. Congress did its job which agrees with the will of the American people the ball will go to Bush's court, THEN he will do what he will do and the NEXT STEP WILL THEN BE TAKEN. This is how it is done. let Bush stake out his territory. Congress already stuck this bill up Bushs tailpipe and he will either veto it like he has said he would several other bills or sign it like he did those bills. The GOP isnt all that solid on this war either. Dems did their thing it will work out how it works out, the situation is still fluid and NOT defined by the false dichotomy you keep trying to frame it as.
Yeah, you said that all before.
Here's a little item for you...Reid has partnered with Feingold. He announced that if the President vetoes the funding bill...they will bring to the floor for a vote...a proposal...that calls for withdrawing troops in 120 days.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Of course I said it before YOU keep repeating the same point, I keep giving the SAME ANSWER. Whatever Reid SAYS, its still a fluid situation, TALKING in politics is tactical. Its the ACTIONS that are real. Its like a card game with bluffs staking out positions making comprimises that is what politics IS. Nothing is set in stone until its DONE not vetoes not positions. This is politics 101
As long as American soldiers are dying, Bush will not have to admit he has lost in Iraq. This will be true if the war lasts 200 years. On the 201st year, if Democrats finally say "enough is enough", and cut off funding for Bush's war, the Republicans will howl that the Democrats want to declare "DEFEAT".
It's a peculiar brand of "courage", Bush and his supporters have, being able to say you haven't made a big mistake, wasted thousands of lives, and LOST ... AS LONG AS THE BLOOD KEEPS FLOWING. How many must die so that Bush won't have to admit he was WRONG? How many must be maimed to preserve Bush's desired image of a successful wartime president?
If you pour enough American soldier's blood on Bush's incompetence and defeats, it obscures the truth. That is all Bush desires, for the TRUTH to be obscured, put off, not looked at, ignored. As long as the blood flows, Bush will not have "given up." He has a peculiar kind of courage: He'll let people die for his mistakes, but he cannot bring himself to ADMIT mistakes. (Hint: this follows NO definition of "courage".)
Bush is clearly deranged. He ignores the will of the American people and the recommendations of much of his command staff who've all but publicly declared this to be hopeless. The ISG threw him a rope to politically allow him to pull out of the quicksand and he dissed them. He is under the delusion that steadfast somehow equals strong.
We are now in the middle of a civil war that will continue whether we stay or leave. Our presence may be stemming the violence moderately, but we are doing so with US BLOOD and TREASURE in a country representing no strategic threat to the US. Our presence allows the jihadists to use us as both a propaganda tool and a training ground to further inflame the region.
Congress is taking the only sane position left and that is to do whatever it takes to put the brakes on this mess in a responsible manner. If that takes $25B of pork to stave off another $150B a year lost in Iraq, its money well spent. And the Democrats are rightly not taking a drastic "principled" stance that allows the Administration to paint them into the corner. It is beyond laughable to act like this one bill somehow now makes this mess Congress' fault rather than acknowledging the 4 years of Bush's debacle with anyone other than the Fox lapdogs.
p.s., Tommy - your strategy, like Bush's is still failure, just on a longer timescale. If Iraq is truly the front line in the WOT, then Bush should have had the courage to put in the 0.5M troops needed to pacify the country (like his fired General told him). But it's never really been about "victory" - you do know that don't you?
Wow... you're good. That's it in a nutshell, isn't it-can I quote you?
Feel free - no copyright here.
Good synopsis. The problem is Bush couldnt care less how many troops die. He is going to keep them there so when Dems take the white house and pull them out the rightwing can begin rewriting history about how we were just about to win the war on terror in Iraq then those spineless Dems cut and ran. Like they are STILL trying to do about Vietnam. These rightwingers have NO truck with reality. It doesnt help them sell their fantasies so it is dismissed entirely
Asking Congress to cut funding or shutup is like asking Bush to commit to an infinite deployment or shutup.
Man this one went on for a while. Tommy and Weslely should try some their arguments on a righty site. Keep a counter going for the number of obscenities. Probably people just waiting to flame you. It can releive alot of tension I guess. I've mentioned it elswhere, I'll mention it again. " out of Iraq" runs though a 20+ point program to leave Iraq. The ideas in it should be a part of the discussion on how we leave Iraq. It is not easy or simple, but by my rough estimate a months worth of occupation money would buy it. Mind shrub would have to appologise. Which could put it in the never gonna happen catigory. It could probably wait till he's gone though.
Hey, *I* just cannot express how really, really greatful I am, for Tommy & Wesley's generosity in offering such keen (and free) insight and advice on how those opposed to Bungle's Iraq debacle, should frame our arguments, and for providing planning assistance for both strategy and tactics. Likely, without their helpful guidance, we would have been subject, as Libruls so often are, to paralysis by analysis, and that analysis would have been of all the wrong aspects of our problem.
It strikes me that perhaps they regret which side of this argument their politics has imposed upon them - you know, opposing the opponents?
One would have to be a dullard not to KNOW that the DemocratIC majority in both the house and Senate voted for funding the Troops. Now if Bush wants to veto it, it will be Bush himself who votes against funding the troops. We will see if he truly cares about the well being of the troops by how he manages his signature, to veto it or not to vetoit. He alone will be responsible for cutting the funds for the troops. if he insists on a veto.
Hey Wesley . . . what was that about Bush "shoving the bill back in Pelosi's and Reid's tailpipes?"
Um, perhaps you haven't heard of the term "override" . . .
To reiterate:
Shrub asked for more money.
Congress is giving it to him.
It has a withdrawl date attached - reflecting the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
If Shrub won't sign it, the only one not "supporting the troops" . . . IS HIM.
Wes, you can whine and biatch all you want about "spineless Dems needing pork to pass a bill" . . . this is not the first pork added to a bill in the history of Congress, and probably won't be the last . . . go whine to your congressperson/senator, not us . . .
- Um, perhaps you haven't heard of the term "override -
Um, perhaps you haven't heard of the 154 House republicans supporting the veto...which prevents "override".
Then they can "own the war" along with Bush and his 30% aproval rating. What principles are those 154 Republicans sticking to, if they keep backing him up? Are Dems just playing politics, but somehow those Republicans are acting with integrity?
"California Democrat Lynn Woolsey said on Democracy Now! (March 22), "There are virtually no enforcement measures in this legislation that will make the President do anything that we're telling him to do when we get to the end of August 2008 and the war is still going on,"
http://www.counterpunch.org/everest03282007.html
Democrats once again fund mass murder and lie to their supporters. You been neo-conned by Pelosi and Reid. Ain't ya glad you voted for them? You coulda voted Green and had the troops packing up and coming home right NOW but you chose the lesser of two evils again and they went out and did evil, as usual. So keep telling yourself this bill sets timetables and makes the war crime end...but it don't.