For Wallace, Dems -- but not Republicans -- who vote "no" on Iraq funding bill are willing to "let the money run out for the troops"
On the May 27 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asserted that, in voting against the emergency supplemental funding bill for the Iraq war last week, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "was voting to actually let the money run out for the troops on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan." However, while Wallace has repeatedly suggested Democrats voting against a supplemental are putting American troops in harm's way, he has never held President Bush -- who vetoed an Iraq supplemental -- or Republican members of Congress -- many of whom either supported the president's veto or have themselves voted against a supplemental funding bill -- to the same standard.
On the April 15 edition of Fox News Sunday, Wallace asked Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), who had earlier in the program advocated a supplemental that would include timelines (if timelines drew a presidential veto, Levin suggested a compromise supplemental that would include benchmarks) to make a promise: "But bottom line, Senator Levin, before I bring in Senator [Lindsey] Graham [R-SC], the Democrats will not allow money to run out for the troops." Levin later voted for the first supplemental, which included a timeline for withdrawal. However, though Graham voiced his opposition to that supplemental that included a timetable and claimed that the president "should veto it," Wallace never suggested that Graham's opposition to the supplemental (he ultimately did not vote on the bill) would "allow money to run out for the troops." Earlier in that segment, Wallace asked, "Senator Levin, you know, because he said it over and over, that the president will veto any bill that attaches a timetable for withdrawal. So what are Democrats, either before or after the veto, going to send him that he can actually sign?" Wallace did not suggest during that segment that Bush's impending veto would allow funding for the troops to run out.
On the March 25 edition of Fox News Sunday, Wallace asked Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): "If it comes down to a choice between the timetable and funding the troops -- and it may come down to that with vetoes and all these other things -- where do you come down?" However, when Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) expressed his opposition to the emergency supplemental -- which he would later vote against -- during that same segment, Wallace did not suggest that Lott's opposition to the bill was a vote to "let the money run out for the troops," as he did with Clinton, nor did he ask whether Lott would choose between a "timetable or funding the troops," as he did Feinstein. Clinton's "nay" vote on the revised supplemental -- which included no timelines -- and Lott's "nay" vote on the initial supplemental both had the same net effect with regards to the funding of the war, which was to allow it to run out.
Also, on the March 11 edition of Fox News Sunday, Wallace told Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), "by voting against the spending bill, you would be voting against giving the troops body armor, against more funding for veterans and military hospitals." Waters, like Lott, would eventually vote against the bill. Additionally, on the April 1 edition of Fox News Sunday, Wallace repeatedly noted the president's intention to veto the supplemental without ever suggesting that, in doing so, the president would be effectively allowing funds to run out for the "troops on the front lines." Wallace posed the following question to Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE): "Congress is going to send the president the spending bill, but with some sort of timeline attached to it. The president we know is going to veto it. Senator Biden, what happens then?" Later, Wallace posed a similar question to the Fox News Sunday roundtable: "At some point, the Congress is going to send the president the spending bill with a timetable attached. The president, I believe, despite what Senator Biden said, is going to veto it. Then what happens?"
On the April 29 edition of the program, Wallace began a question to NPR senior political correspondent and Fox News contributor Mara Liasson by asserting, "The Congress is going to send the president the Iraq war spending bill with these goals for getting out. He's going to veto it." Wallace again omitted the fact that the consequence of that veto would be to allow funding to run out.
From the May 27 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
NINA EASTON (Fortune magazine): I think for Hillary Clinton, this is really the start of her focus on the primary campaign as it has to do with the Iraq war, as opposed to looking to the general election.
If you had been a fly on the wall in the debates among her consultants this week, I'm sure it was intense. They must have been thinking about [Sen.] John Kerry's [D-MA] war funding vote in contrast to his pro-war vote, what that was going to mean in the general election.
But at the end of the day, [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] is the real threat. We're going to see her tied at the hip with him, because the antiwar faction of the party -- they like [former Sen.] John Edwards [D-NC], but they love Obama. And I'm not sure she would have cast the vote this way if Obama wasn't in the race.
WALLACE: Bill [Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard], I mean, let's talk about this, because this completes quite a turnaround for Senator Clinton.
After the president announced his troop surge in January, here's what Hillary Clinton said -- and let's put it up on the screen. "I don't support cutting funding to our troops." And of course, she stood up to war critics, saying that she refused to apologize for her 2002 vote authorizing the use of force.
Now, I understand it's one thing, if you feel that way, to vote to set a timetable for withdrawing troops. She did something different here. She was voting to actually let the money run out for the troops on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan.
From the May 6 edition of Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Senator, let's talk some practical politics here.
SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD [D-CT]: Sure.
WALLACE: You have an impasse now between the White House and congressional Democrats over this war funding bill. Everyone agrees money is going to begin to run out probably by the end of this month. Would you support a stopgap measure as a compromise that would send the president money and give him a way to sign a bill?
[...]
WALLACE: Oh, OK, good. We thought we'd lost the picture of you for a moment there, Senator Dodd.
The question is, are you going to insist on sending him a troop withdrawal, which you know he isn't going to sign, or would you accept this idea of a compromise, probably political benchmarks that would put conditions for political progress on the Iraqi politicians, and if they failed to do that, then you would take foreign aid, not military aid, away from them?
From the April 29 edition of Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Mara, let's pivot to where -- excuse me -- not to Iraq six years ago, but Iraq today. And this is going to be a very busy week. The Congress is going to send the president the Iraq war spending bill with these goals for getting out. He's going to veto it.
He's called congressional leaders up to meet with him on Wednesday. Meanwhile, there are new reports that we're going to be in Iraq well into 2008, according to the generals, and that we're scaling back our expectations for what [Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-]Maliki can achieve. Where does all this add up, and where does it leave us?
From the April 15 edition of Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Senator Levin, you know, because he's said it over and over, that the president will veto any bill that attaches a timetable for withdrawal. So what are Democrats, either before or after the veto, going to send him that he can actually sign?
LEVIN: Well, we're going to send him, first of all, hopefully, a very strong bill which would say that we're going to begin to reduce troops in four months as a way of telling the Iraqi leadership that the open-ended commitment is over. Not just rhetorically, but in fact, to try to force them to take responsibility for their own country. If we don't have the votes to override, and it appears that we don't, but we never know until that vote is taken, we will then hopefully send them something strong in the area of benchmarks as the second-best way of putting pressure on the president to put pressure on the Iraqis.
And those benchmarks would hopefully have some teeth in them, telling the Iraqis that the open-ended commitment is over, and that they must meet their own benchmarks which they set for themselves to reach a political settlement on the sharing of resources and the sharing of power, or else there's going to be a response in terms of reduction in support, both militarily and economically. That was the recommendation of the Iraq Study Group, and I would think that that would be the second step. It's not as strong as that first bill, which we hope to send him, but promptly thereafter, if he vetoes it and we can't override, we will send him something, I believe, that has some very strong, clear statement about the Iraqis needing to meet their own benchmarks and consequences if they don't.
WALLACE: Senator Levin, there's also been some talk among Democrats about sending him a smaller spending bill -- what Senator Obama says, giving him a shorter leash so he would have to come back to Congress more often. What do you think about that idea?
LEVIN: Well, I think it's a possibility, but less likely, because it's a fairly short period that this supplemental lasts. It only lasts through the end of September. So I think we have to make a very strong, clear statement to the president that now we're going to support the troops, there's no doubt about it. We're going to fund the troops. There's no doubt about that. But we're going to try to use this opportunity to change this course.
The president was told by the people last November they want to change course in Iraq. He has not done it. He's gotten us in deeper militarily, although there is no military solution. We're going to try to use this opportunity to change course.
WALLACE: But bottom line, Senator Levin, before I bring in Senator Graham, you will not -- the Democrats will not allow money to run out for the troops.
LEVIN: That is absolutely correct. We've made that clear. We never have allowed that to happen. As a matter of fact, it was Congress that added $20 billion last year to the president's request.
WALLACE: Senator Graham, what do you think of what you're hearing from Senator Levin, and specifically this idea of some sort of benchmarks, maybe benchmarks with teeth that would say the Iraqi political side has to live up to its part of the bargain?
GRAHAM: Well, number one, the president will veto the legislation in its current form, and he should. If you really want to support the troops, don't cut their legs out from under them. We sent [Gen. David] Petraeus off 81 to nothing. He got unanimously approved by those voting in the Senate. He had a specific game plan in mind. Timetables, timelines for withdrawing the troops, benchmarks that give your enemy a road map of how to drive us out of Iraq are bad ideas. These are [sic] congressional micromanagement of the war that will have short- and long-term efforts. The president will veto this bill. He should veto it.
And I do believe that timelines and deadlines undercut Petraeus, they empower the enemy, and people start making political deals, Chris, in Iraq, when America leaves, not what's in the best interest of Iraq in the future. So, I don't buy this at all. I think it's disastrous. If you want us out of Iraq, just cut off funding. Don't bleed General Petraeus dry and undercut him.
From the April 1 edition of Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Let me bring in Senator Biden, because let's get exactly to this point of the showdown. Congress is going to send the president the spending bill, but with some sort of timeline attached to it. The president, we know, is going to veto it. Senator Biden, what happens then?
BIDEN: I'm not so sure the president is going to veto it. Everybody says that. The timeline of the United States Senate --
WALLACE: Well, he says it, among other people.
[...]
WALLACE: But let me ask you both, again, if I can press the question: Who is going to blink? Senator Biden -- I mean, is Congress -- after you get this veto, assuming, as Senator [Mitch] McConnell [R-KY] and the White House says you are going to get this vetoed bill, will the Democrats say, "All right, we've made our point and we'll give you a clean bill without the timeline?"
BIDEN: No, I don't think so. I think we'll end up doing what the Senate did, not what the House did -- set a target date, number one. The memo is not to the enemy. The memo is to the president. "Mr. President, get straight on this war. Get us out of the middle of a civil war and do what our troops are supposed to be doing."
And secondly, if it is pork to provide money for the consequences of Hurricane Katrina, if it's pork to provide money for the 9-11 report, if it's pork to provide money -- you know what happened here, Chris? If the president had been honest with what he needed for this war in his regular budget, in 2007 budget, then we wouldn't be having this supplemental this way. But it's this pea-in-the-shell game they played. They never put the money they know they're going to need for the war in the budget because it will send off alarm bells, and then they come along six months later and say they need a supplemental. So, you know --
WALLACE: Let me just step in here, because I want to move on to Iran. And I just want to ask Senator McConnell just a -- so if you do get -- after the veto, if the president then gets a bill with a soft, a goal of a timeline, but not a firm date for withdrawal, would you say that the president still should not accept that even if that's the cost of getting this $100 billion for the troops?
[...]
WALLACE: Let's move on to the showdown between the president and Congress over Congress' decision this week -- and it seems clear that after they work it out on a compromise in conference -- to add a timetable, some sort of timetable or goal for withdrawal to that emergency spending bill for conducting the war. Here's what -- excuse me -- here's what the president and Speaker Pelosi had to say about it this week.
[begin video clip]
PRESIDENT BUSH: I'll veto a bill that restricts our commanders on the ground in Iraq, a bill that doesn't fund our troops, a bill that's got too much spending on it.
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI [D-CA]: Calm down with the threats. There's a new Congress in town.
[end video clip]
WALLACE: Brit [Hume, Fox News Washington managing editor], at some point, the Congress is going to send the president the spending bill with a timetable attached. The president, I believe, despite what Senator Biden said, is going to veto it. Then what happens?
From the March 25 edition of Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: OK. Let's move on, if we can, to Iraq, because that's the other big clash that's going on now. The House voted Friday to bring all -- well, most U.S. combat troops, almost all of them, home by August 31st, 2008. The Senate's going to consider a bill that would set a goal for getting most combat troops out by next March.
Senator Lott, do you have the votes to strip the timetable from the spending bill?
LOTT: We have not done a whip check specifically on this upcoming vote, but I believe that we do. There are members in the Senate in both parties that are not comfortable with how things have gone in Iraq. But they understand that artificial timetables, even as goals, are a problem.
Now, to have some benchmarks of things that we expect to happen, that's fine. But we will try to take out the arbitrary dates. You know, we need to put that kind of decision in the hands of our commanders who are there on the ground with the men and women. For Congress to impose an artificial date of any kind is totally irresponsible.
And here's the other point, the main point. It's sort of what -- you know, so far the Congress this year has done nothing, and even The New York Times talk [sic] about the perils of a heavy gavel. We're investigating, we're forcing our hand. This is not going to happen. So why are we going through this exercise of heaping pork on the backs of our men and women in uniform and trying to put artificial dates which will not occur. We'll either knock it out or it'll be taken out in conference, or the president will veto it.
WALLACE: Senator Feinstein, we're beginning to run out of time, and I want you to answer that question, but I also want to ask you another one at the same time. The Pentagon came out this week and they said if they don't get this emergency spending -- this is all about $100 billion in emergency spending -- by mid-April that it's going to hurt training, it's going to hurt deployment, it's going to hurt repairs of important equipment.
If it comes down to a choice between the timetable and funding the troops -- and it may come down to that with vetoes and all these other things -- where do you come down?
From the March 11 edition of Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Respectfully, Congresswoman, are you one of those, what Congressman [David] Obey [D-WI] would call "idiot liberals" who would vote against this spending bill, and thereby deny our troops body armor and medical care?
WATERS: I don't know. I think his language was quite unfortunate. That was a mother whose son has done two tours of duty in Iraq. He's apologized for having used that kind of language. And I would hope that he does not do that again. I don't know what he thinks about my position and whether he would characterize me that way. But I would hope not.
WALLACE: But by voting against the spending bill, you would be voting against giving the troops body armor, against more funding for veterans and military hospitals.
This is beyond ridiculous. The Republicans in Congress voted against the first bill because the Democrats put a gimmick in the bill. The Republicans didn't want to vote for a bill that would tell our enemies exactly when we were leaving. It had nothing to do with funding the troops. The Republicans wanted to fund the troops without all of the political gimmicks involved. No decent politician would vote for a bill announcing the date and time that we would surrender to Al-Quaeda. That's never happened in a war, and hopefully it never will happen. The 14 Democrats in the Senate voted against a funding bill with no gimmicks involved. They voted against funding the troops.
This is beyond ridiculous. The Republicans in Congress voted against the first bill because the Democrats put a gimmick in the bill. The Republicans didn't want to vote for a bill that would tell our enemies exactly when we were leaving. It had nothing to do with funding the troops. The Republicans wanted to fund the troops without all of the political gimmicks involved. No decent politician would vote for a bill announcing the date and time that we would surrender to Al-Quaeda. That's never happened in a war, and hopefully it never will happen. The 14 Democrats in the Senate voted against a funding bill with no gimmicks involved. They voted against funding the troops.
Sounds like someone is feeling nostalgic for November 2006. The days of Bush's rubber-stamp Congress are over, Rino. Accept it and quit your whining.
If the Democrats wanted to end the war now they could. They have the majority. All they would have to do is cut off funds and the war would be over. The Democrats are trying to have it both ways. If they truly believe that we shouldn't be in Iraq, they should cut off funds for the war. They are, in affect, doing the same "rubber stamping" that you claim the Republicans did.
Rino you are way to smart to try that one. The Dems have veto overriding in the house but not in the senate. They have some power but no enough. They don't have the 60 votes in the senate to override junior's veto without Republican support. They don't have that and you know it.
Another rightwing talking point. Woul Bush bring them home? Or would he be as stubborn and without decency as his history shows and keep them there with substandard funding to make the point that HE is the decider? I dont blame Congress for not trusting that Bush wouldnt consign a whole bunch of troops to their deaths for his own purposes. The have it both way propaganda parrot meme is dumb. They made it clear what they wanted to bring the troops home. Bush made it clear what he wanted, to get as many Americans killed as he possibly can. You agree with Bush, I dont, neither does Congress which made that clear.
"Another rightwing talking point"
Not really. I've heard a lot of intellectually honest liberals say the exact same thing. The very liberal poster on this site named Red King made the exact same argument. So no, it's not a right wing talking point. If you were actually intellectually honest you would be disgusted with the Democrats in Congress who refuse to do what the voters wanted them to do. The Democrats are weak and have no guts, and you should condemn them for their lack of courage.
MMFA did a decent job posting bias on this post, but so what?? What do you expect??
Nevertheless, the Democrats, Republicans, and Bush are to blame for the problems with the funding or the war.
If you want a good "fair and balanced" debate about Bush, the war, and even MMFA. Check out the articles on this website.
http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com/
Lots of (baseless) assertion, little debate on your site. I have been far better served even by truth-challenged conservative sites, in that after ignoring the blatantly false leads, one can sometimes find both a nugget of right-wing thought (none evident on Copious Dissent) and an admissible argument that the nugget is relevant to the nominal topic. Besides, the style is rather questionable: the photo-shop job on Pelosi is both poorly done, and inessential for the purpose supposedly served. Even a caricature-sketch would have been more suitable.
If you were actually intellectually honest you would be disgusted with the Democrats in Congress who refuse to do what the voters wanted them to do.
Who says we're not? We just don't take kindly to war cheerleaders like you, who think that supporting the troops means letting Bushie Wushie blunder his way around in Iraq for another year and a half, squandering our children's money left and right.
I'm not a war cheerleader. I simply don't think it's smart to tell Al-Quaeda exactly when we're leaving. That's never happened in the history of war. I believe that we would have been better off if we never would've gone into Iraq, but now that we're there we can't pull out all at once and leave behind an extremely unstable region in the middle east. I wouldn't have any trouble with a PRIVATE timetable negotiated between the White House and Congress, as long as it was kept private and lot leaked to the media. I just don't want Al-Quaeda to know exactly when we're leaving.
maybe they could send all the American people a letter and let us know. Please!l
You are an idiot. Al-qaeda didn't have a foothold in Iraq until we opened the floodgates up. And the main source of problems in Iraq are IRAQI INSURGENTS and IRAQI's FIGHTING OTHER IRAQI's. They have been fighting for thousands of years, and the only time they "stopped" was when a powerful dictator from one of the Sects took control.So you are making a false argument in my opinion, because the Iraqi's are from IRAQ meaning, they will be there when we leave regardless of when we decide to leave. And we should be getting out of Iraq and setting deadlines, because we are emboldening and training Al-Qaeda by leaving our troops as target practice for terrorists. It's a lot better to get training in a live combat situation than in a terrorist training camp, so you can thank Bushy for making us less safe in the world.
Ah no. I like Redking and agree with him more than often than not but he is an ideologue. Now thats not a bad thing we need them but politics is the art of what is possible. There are times, and I have said so before, to stand on principle and fight the fight that needs fighting regardless the consequences and there are times to be like the willow in the storm not the oak. Bend rather than break. I can see what the Dems are doing, I cant say I am not dissapointed that they didnt stand on principle this time but its THEIR game and I understand. What is also intellectually dishonest, which you excell at, is pretending that just because a liberal takes up a position for HIS reasons means it cannot be a rightwing talking point. OF COURSE IT CAN and in this case IS. The dems DONT have the override votes. That doesnt mean if they dont draw a line in the sand this time they cant line them up for next time. YOU may not be bright enough to get what is going on and Redking is too outraged to look at the longterm tactic. That doesnt mean there ISNT one or that your talking points isnt EXACTLY that because it is.
Oh, I see the "long-term tactic". I see Dems consistently voting FOR the war crime over and over again, with plans for "redeployment" to keep US troops there forever. The Dems do NOT want to end the war crime....this is why they are not trying to do so. It's very simple. Just follow the money back to AIPAC and the military/industrial complex. All will be revealed.
redking is anything but "intellectually honest". he continues to make the claim that there are no differences between the democrats and republicans. there may not be a big enough difference for him, but to claim they are the same is false.
Redking's assertions that there is no difference between Gore and Bush is just politically infantile. There's no nicer way to say it.
Red King is not a liberal.
He's a libertarian. He attacks Democrats just as strongly as he attacks Republicans.
Try again.
No, I'm a liberal. A Green. I'm far too socialist to be called libertarian. But you must understand that Democrats aren't liberals. They are conservative, establishment, status quo, etc. They do not push a liberal agenda, they pursue a right-wing program. Hence, I despise them as much as Republicans....I just don't like fascists, period.
Rino,
After all that talk about the Constitution last week, I thought you would remember that each house needs a 2/3 majority to override the President's veto. The Democrats have nothing close to that.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/override_of_a_veto.htm
All right. I have to admit I'm a little confused on that issue, so maybe you can educate me. Congress just passed a Suplemental spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If all the Democrats in Congress had voted against the bill, the bill would not have gone through to the President's desk. Correct? Wouldn't that cut off funding for the wars with only a majority vote?
Hypothetical for you:
Let's say congress didn't pass a supplemental spending bill. What would Bush do? Would he use the remainder of the previous funding to bring the troops home, or would he let them languish in Iraq without funding to hopefully make a political point, to use them as martyrs for his legacy?
I'm not asking for predictions, I'm just suggesting you picture in your mind all possible scenarios, and choose the one that seems most likely, based on what you've seen from this petulant spoiled little brat so far.
RINO:
So, if the Dems really wanted the war over, they would cut off funds immediately? I guess if your daughter was over in, say, Milan Italy, and you wanted her to come home, and she was charging everything on her MasterCard, the way to get her home would be to just cancel the card. That way, she'd have no money. Right? But then ... how would she get home? Planning a move and making it takes MONEY.
And in the instance of Iraq, the monumental task of planning the safest way for our troops to get out is the responsibility of the Commander in Chief ... who is vehemently AGAINST their coming home. Congress COULD just cut off funds, but that WOULD leave our soldiers stranded and at the mercy of a president who has NO regard for their well being.
In addition, this would play into the Republican's greatest wish, and that is to BLAME THE DEMOCRATS for the horror that is the Iraq War. "We were WINNING, but the Democrats cut off funding and surrendered, waving the white flag while cutting and running. Republicans were WINNING, but the Democrats gave up." would be their new rhetoric, absolving Bush, Cheney, and the GOP majority congress from ANY responsibility whatsoever.
THOSE are the realities of the "choices" the Democrats have, with a president who thinks nothing of holding the troops hostage to threats of their being left in place in harm's way EVEN IF there is no funding.
In 2006, the GOP took a bad drubbing, but there were simply not enough seats up for grabs for the Dems to be given a VETO-PROOF majority, which is what is necessary to overrule Bush's terrible actions and plans. Of course, in 2008, the Dems WILL attain that veto-proof majority, but by then it won't be needed for President Hillary.
Until then, this war, and all the casualties and maimings and disasters which result, are firmly and solidly the BLAME of Bush and the GOP. They do not get to lay the blame off on the Dems; all that unnecessary blood is on the GOP's hands. Sorry.
"Of course, in 2008, the Dems WILL attain that veto-proof majority"
Veto proof majority? Are you kidding me? The Democrats would have to gain 16 seats in the Senate for that to happen. That's almost impossible. The Republicans aren't very popular right now, but neither are the Democrats. Congress currently has a 35% approval rating, which is about the same as Bush's approval rating. The last time I checked, Democrats controlled the Congress. The American people aren't in love with the Democrats the way you think they are. They're disgusted with both parties right now.
,,nay Bush's approval rate is a whopping 28%. We need a new crop of legislatures. I'm looking for some very strong non-incumbent Democrats. Apparently Republicans will only put the Republican Party first and America second. They have shown us just what they’ do when in charge, and based on the rhetoric I am hearing from the Republican politicians and talking heads in media, a new crop of them would mean more of the same. It's very disturbing but they appear to enjoy warring for war’s sake. You're Republican presidential contenders are completely nuts. So those guys are scary and dangerous. Unfortunately, the current crop of Dems are scared of their shadows and that behavior isn’t representative of the traditional mainstream Democrat, so I think we need to elect people who are stronger and more representative of the Democrats out here in the real world. I think a fresh infusion of Democrats will be the only thing that will reign in our fearless leader and his court, and maybe they can lead the current weakling office holders by example. Additionally, as previous posters have said they will have a VETO PROOF majority so Big Chief George No talk can’t simper and posture about vetoing things he doesn’t like on the evening news, if there was ever a human being in need of humbling for his own good, it's him.
Good points, Lynn. 28% approval is even more astounding when one considers that that means, essentially, Bush has a 78% disapproval rating.
Ugghh....72%.
The dems may pick up some seats and they may get the presidency but 16 seats in the senate?
talk about delusional
Tex, the GOP is going to blame the Dems no matter what they do, they are going to portray the Dems as being weak NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO, so the best thing Dems can do is to NOT BE WEAK, but the fact is that they caved on what they were elected by the left to do which was to get us out of Iraq ASAP. Your version is just sugarcoating the actions of a spineless Democratic leadership, and I'm taking my opinion from Rachel Maddow who said just that after the Iraq bill was passed.
BRUCE:
My major concern is the troops. What becomes of them, as a result of this conflict between Congress and the Administration? I firmly believe Bush would cut off his own nose to spite his face (a phrase my grandma used), and would petulently leave the troops in Iraq to be killed even if Congress voted to end the funding.
Yes, Dems were elected largely to change direction on this war on terror, and to remove troops from Iraq ASAP. But the operative letter is "P" ... what is POSSIBLE, and in an accountable and responsible way. Simply cutting off funds immediately would be irresponsible and possibly catastrophic, considering the occupant of the White House.
But it would be satisfying from a purely POLITICAL standpoint, to finally deny Bush his way. It would feel great. But it would be irresponsible.
Sadly, Bush is STILL the Commander in Chief, and HE will continue directing our troops, horrible as he has proven to be. Congress cannot micromanage defense forces.
I personally believe the answer is immediate action on impeachment, first on Cheney, then on Bush. There are more than enough solid grounds for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Barring that, the Congress must procede with great care, because they are dealing with a lunatic as president. The president has proven time and again he cares NOTHING about the troops, so Congress has to take that responsibility, and do everything they can ... which is sadly limited.
The PROBLEM here is a president who was installed in the White House, who governs without reason or compassion, and against the will of the American People. It's easy, of course, to begin shifting blame to a Congress without the ability to override presidential vetoes, but it's not rational. ALL THE BLAME is on Bush, and any prolonging of the death and destruction in Iraq is ALL on the President. Remember, Congress SENT a bill with timelines in it by law, and Bush vetoed it. BUSH wants the dying to continue.
Non-binding timelines....that Bush could have ignored at will. Please don't try to make it look like the Dems have ever tried to stop this. They haven't.
Rino, the bill did not come with an explanation. You get to vote either yes or no.
Unfortunately the Republicans who voted no on the first bill voted not to fund the troops. The bill included funding for the troops and a timetable. The dems who voted yes on the first bill voted to fund the troops with a timetable.
You do remember Kerry and his voting that the Republicans made such hay about "I voted yes before I voted no". Well the Republicans now find themselves in the same position. They cannot make any hay out of what the Dems did because they are in the same position. Nice try on the spin for them but it won't wash.
You are either being intellectually dishonest or are completely brainwashed. BOTH bills contained funding for the troops. One wanted a timetable to bring them home. The other didnt have one. Both times different people disagreed about the timetable. Either voting against EITHER funding bill defunds the troops or it doesnt not it does when YOU agree with the bill and doesnt when YOU dont. That is ridiculous.
I say no decent politician votes for a bill that will get as many Americans killed as they possibly can. Just because YOU like the idea doesnt make it a good one. Hopefully eventually good sense will out and we will bring the troops home no matter how many Americans YOU and Bush want to see dead.
"Hopefully eventually good sense will out and we will bring the troops home no matter how many Americans YOU and Bush want to see dead"
That's absolutely insane and outragous. Nobody wants our troops to be killed. That's a very hateful and atrocious comment. Those of us who don't want to surrender to Al-Quaeda in Iraq simply realize that withdrawing troops right away would increase the threat of terrorism and jeapordize our national security. If we left right away, Iraq would descend into chaos and Iraqis would be slaughtered by the thousands. So much for "compassionate liberalism." Al-Quaeda would then have a safe haven in Iraq much like they did in Afghanistan before we invaded there. They would get a huge amount of money from Iraq's oil supply in which to fund their organization. They would become much bigger and much more dangerous. Those of us who don't want to surrender to Al-Quaeda don't support "the killing of U.S troops. On the contrary, we support the troops and their mission that they VOLUNTARILY signed up for.
Rino,
I don't want this to sound personal, but what would you sacrifice in order for Iraq not to fall into the hands of Al Qaeda. You seem to be a lot more worried than most people on this board about what might happen.
For the record, I am terribly disgusted with the Democrats. They blinked first when they should have stayed strong. We didn't vote for them to back down. It would have been really interesting to see what would have happened had they kept pushing the American people's agenda for them.
SO its outrageous for ME to mischaracterize the issue as YOU wanting Americans to die but not YOU to mischaracterize it as wanting to surrender to terrorists. Grow up. If YOU are going to mischaracterize the debate for YOUR emotional blackmail I will do the same. As for your GUESSES about what will happen WHEN we leave Iraq they are as worthless as all the other guesses you guys have been SPECTACULARLY wrong about over, and over, and OVER again. Simply put your crystal ball isnt worth diddly. YOU dont know what will happen and since OUR side has a much better record on predicting what will happen you dont mind if I take this opportunity to laugh in your face for even having the GALL to throw out another GUESS after all your others have been so completely and utterly WRONG. There is no reason to believe al Queda will take over Iraq or be given safe haven there. We can easily make it clear we will not tolerate that as if they dont know that already. Fact is you have NOTHING so you have to desperately pull these scenarios right out of your ASS to scare people who arent bright enough to see them for what they are DESPERATION for those desperate to keep getting Americans killed to satisfy their endless bloodlust.
SOLON:
AMEN! the unmitigated GALL of these NeoCons and their rightwing warmongering sycophants to keep casting out "predictions" as if they have an IOTA of credibility.
But, let's be fair. Let's BET. Let's look back at the last PREDICTION made by, say, William Kristol. It must be a PREDICTION that can be verified by reality which followed as either TRUE or FALSE. OK, what're the odds? Which way would you BET, if you were "betting the farm"?
The only rational bet would be, Kristol was DEAD WRONG. And you'd retain your farm. These guys are so PREDICTABLY WRONG, it's almost a sure thing. Bush has said for YEARS we are "making progress" in Iraq. Dead wrong; all conditions are worsening by the day.
“I think it will be rather clear in the next 60 to 90 days as to whether this (Bush's "SURGE") plan is going to work.” REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH) Feb 11, 2007. 110 days ago.
The examples are legion. Anyone giving credence to what a rightwinger might say about ANYTHING is either a moron or a fool. If a rightwinger ... politician, pundit, or blogger ... says it ... it's WRONG. Take it to the bank.
It was almost exactly 2 years ago that Cheney said they were in their last throes.
He could not have been more wrong. The evidence at the time didn't indicate that, and a fair assessment of the history of the area as well as a reasonable appraisal of the future didn't indicate that as a possibility either.
An intelligent review of the past, present and future for the region showed almost all of us progressives that the Iraqi invasion was idiotic. We are called sympathizers of terrorists, or surrender monkeys, or a variety of other unfair smears, when we should be lauded for our foresight, and given the reins to try to regain whatever we can! I believe the American public will give us the reins after what they've seen the Republicans mishandle in almost all areas of governance.
Safe haven?
You mean like the safe haven they're enjoying in Pakistan as we speak?
Your post started by saying that "nobody wants our troops killed" and ended by saying that those troops volunteered. That doesn't excuse the way our leaders have used the military to settle old scores with Iraq, while new enemies regroup in countries supposedly aligned with the US.
I'm really curious why you still haven't answered Friedbergboy1422's question. This isn't the first time that he or someone else has asked you, "What are you willing to sacrifice in order for Iraq not to fall into the hands of Al Qaeda?".
You and many others on the right have been saying for a long time that this is the fight of our lives. Our leaders have said that this is more important than any danger that our nation has ever faced.
If it is, why are we fighting it with only 150,000 people? If so why are we not re-instituting the draft? If so why are those on the right still clamoring for tax cuts, while we swim in red ink and mortgage our future to a nation which until recently was our avowed enemy since 1949?
Your side refuses to define victory or to show how victory is to be recognized. Your side has been wrong 100 % of the time so far, yet you still demand absolute allegiance to "stay the course".
It's not working. It never has worked. So, Solon's comment is accurate. We are in a quagmire and our leaders, and their supporters have chosen the status quo which is to remain in the crossfire of a civil war.
Those in support of the war and the way it's been prosecuted so far, have chosen to allow more Americans to die.
"I'm really curious why you still haven't answered Friedbergboy1422's question. This isn't the first time that he or someone else has asked you, "What are you willing to sacrifice in order for Iraq not to fall into the hands of Al Qaeda"
The simple answer is that it doesn't matter. Every American has the right to voice his or her own opinion on national security issues regardless of whether they've served in the military or not. What Friedergboy and many other liberals continually do is simply engage in ad hominem attacks when they can't debate the actual issue. They try to discredit those who don't want to pull out immediately by trying to discredit the person through ad hominem attacks. The reason that we don't have a draft in this country is because we don't need 5 million soldiers over in Iraq. That would be way too many soldiers for the mission, and an all volunteer army is also much more efficient and effective. If you had a draft, you would obviously have a lot of people fighting that didn't want to be there, and they wouldn't be very good fighters. It would make a lot more sense to have people who volunteered for the mission and believed in the mission.
As for the tax cuts, Bush's tax cuts after 9-11 gave a huge boost to the economy when we were going through an economic slow down. 9-11 was a huge dagger for the economy, and we needed the tax cuts to help speed up the economy. If Bush would've raised taxes as you suggest, we would have went into a deep recession. But I guess maybe that's what you want. Misery is all right as long as it's spread equally. It's always been the case that if you put more money into the economy, the economy will speed up. That's exactly what happened after Bush's tax cuts. We've had four years of steady economic growth and job creation.
You should be ashamed of yourself for selling those who've been drafted into the service of our country short.
I'll have to tell my surviving uncle who was drafted during WWII and my cousins who were drafted to fight in Vietnam that we weren't very good fighters.
You still haven't answered the question of why we're fighting such a limited war, with such a limited force if this is the fight of our lives
Please enlighten me. Point out where I said that Bush should have raised taxes after the attacks on 9/11/01.
I mentioned that the right wants more tax cuts NOW, as we borrow money from China to pay for your war. So your point is, that you prefer others to both fight and pay for what you believe in.
Well done.
"You should be ashamed of yourself for selling those who've been drafted into the service of our country short"
Do you seriously believe that an army that came from a draft would be just as effective and efficient as an all volunteer army? I'm sure that there are many soldiers who were drafter who were very good fighters. But don't you think that there were many people who didn't really want to be there and didn't perform up to par because of that? I simply believe that an all volunteer army is more efficient, because those who sign up to fight believe in the mission and are also generally more physically fit. Most military commanders also agree that an all volunteer army is more efficient. As I said, it would actually be detrimental to the war effort if we had a huge amount of troops in Iraq. With the new kinds of technology we have today, we don't need the enermous armies that we've needed in the past.
Also, conservatives simply want Bush's tax cuts made permanent. They don't want "new" tax cuts. Not making Bush's tax cuts permanent would have the same affect as a tax increase. So yes, you were implying that you want Americans to pay higher taxes than they're paying right now.
You can dance all you want.
You can say what you THINK about those who were drafted, but you've got some set of balls to imply that when they were in combat that they were less willing to fight than those who enlisted.
I'm sure that the families of those draftees whose names are etched on that wall would disagree with your assessment of their family member's valor.
I'll say it again, you should be ashamed of yourself. To denigrate others who've fought and died so that you can validate your political opinion is pathetic.
Then I guess you disagree with the military commanders who believe that an all volunteer army is much more efficient than an army that was drafted.
No, I disagree with your statement that draftees "wouldn't be very good fighters".
I've seen the bravery of draftees. You or any military leader who disparages our sacrifice is a disgrace and cowardly.
WORRIER:
RINO is completely consistent with rightwing beliefs and the Bush Administration. There is NO respect for the troops, NO respect for decorated war vets, NO respect for injured soldiers. The Chickenhawks of the right have forever treated our armed forces as mere cannon-fodder and necessary idiots. Inadequate armor, inadequate health care, used for photo ops, sent into harm's way with too-few numbers and no plan.
Bush doesn't acknowledge the dead in combat; they are shielded from the view of the American people by Administration blackout edict.
RINO's disdain for Americans who were drafted into service is typical; we all know that WWII was won by brave soldiers many of whom were drafted. John Kerry, Murtha, even McCain are routinely smeared as cowards and liars by the partisan rightwing chickenhawk crowd.
Bottom line; the Rightwing do not have any regard for our troops, except as they can be used to die for corporate profits. (It's astounding, in PAST wars, war profiteers were treated as traitors and punished for becoming wealthy on the misfortune of the nation. Today, war profiteers make up Bush's BASE of deep-pocket supporters. They LOVE Bush, as he is filling their coffers with gold. How times change.)
Rino,
We went over this before, its not a personal attack. If you are not willing to go, that is your right, but when troops hold fundraisers for armor, shouldn't we, as a country, help them out with higher taxes (or some way to help?)? When tours are extended from 12 to 15 months after the soldier has signed up, should not someone step up to take their place who believes in this mission? When former army officers suggest that the military is close to its breaking point, should we not find reinforcements among those who believe in the mission? When our troops think they are in Iraq to avenge 9/11 attacks, should we not educate them?
All I am asking is what sacrifices are you willing to make for the troops who put themselves in harm's way so we don't have to. I am not asking you to go fight, but I am asking you what you are willing to do for those who are
You gotta love it when the Righties dismiss the hardship on our troops by blurting out "Well, they volunteered, didn't they?" Aren't these the same people who were so worried that our domestic debate over the war would "demoralize" the troops?
Here's a quote from someone whose opinion I trust:
"I would just like to know what is the true reason we are here? This country poses no threat to our own. So why must we waste the lives of good men on a country that does not give a damn about itself? Most of my friends here share my views, but do not have the courage to say anything."
Any of you Troglodytes want to call him a "Surrender Monkey?" I think you can find contact information at the bottom of this article:
[link to www.clarksvilleonline.com]
If we left right away, Iraq would descend into chaos and Iraqis would be slaughtered by the thousands.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
...and exactly what do you think is happening now??
didnt the pentagon admit that there was enough money around to run the war well into next year ?
Yes, I believe they did. Apparently, President Numbnuts lied....again.
Is this guy related to Mike wallace? The chin and forehead seem similar. The area arround the eyes is differant, Mike seemed to be looking at the world. Though this guys eyes protrude a bit, he seems to be looking inside, Indegestion?
He's Mike's son.
Mike needs to take him over his knee.
Well, it should be up to Democrats who allow themselves to be interviewed by Wallace to point out A) how he's being such a blatant whore for the GOP; B) that, if anyone did, it's Bush who denied the troops funding; and C) that the GOP had four years of war to make sure the troops had the funding they needed for body armor, the VA and hospitals, so it's disgusting that it has to be placed in a supplemental now.
Chris, you willfully ignorant prig. This is how it is: Bush is the betrayer in chief. Bush has betrayed the troops. It is the President's Constitutional duty to carry out the mission set by Congress. For six years, with the Republican Congress, the mission was militarism. Now, the Congress is reflecting the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans and Bush is defying us by defying Congress.
"She was voting to actually let the money run out for the troops on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan."
This is about as bald-faced as a lie gets. Glenn Greenwald has an excellent article up at Salon about this blatant lie:
[link to www.salon.com]
Your link doesn't work, Clams.
It might be because Salon requires either an account with them, or a daily 'read this ad' admission.
Here's the link to the site pass
http://www.salon.com/src/pass/sitepass/spon/sitepass_2.html?http://www.salon.com/
Then">[link to www.salon.com] you can click on Glenn Greenwald's columns on the left hand side.