Fox's Griffin reported that Democrats "stalled" funding on Afghanistan, but not that GOP blocked bill
On the December 4 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, while reporting on the increased levels of violence in Afghanistan, national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin claimed: "The Pentagon has requested $30 billion for the war in Afghanistan, but the funding is currently stalled by Democrats in Congress who are trying to pressure the president to pull troops out of Iraq." However, Griffin did not note that on November 14, the House passed a $50 billion supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other military operations until February 2008 that would require President Bush to begin pulling troops out of Iraq. Bush -- who had not requested a separate funding bill for Afghanistan but had asked for $196 billion to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and other operations through fiscal year 2008 -- threatened to veto the House bill, and Senate Republicans successfully blocked it on November 16.
Media Matters for America previously noted that on the November 29 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, congressional correspondent Ed Henry reported that President Bush "ripp[ed] into Democrats for dragging their feet" on passing a funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, but Henry did not note the bill was passed by the House and blocked by Senate Republicans.
From the December 4 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume:
GRIFFIN: A suicide bomber rammed a NATO convoy shortly after Defense Secretary Robert Gates drove down the same road in Kabul earlier today. Twenty-two Afghans were wounded. The last two years in Afghanistan have been the most violent since the Taliban were overthrown by Coalition forces in 2001.
GATES [video clip]: I have been concerned about the fact that there has been a growing level of violence here in Afghanistan over the last couple of years.
GRIFFIN: Which Gates attributed to the coalition forces' increasingly aggressive pursuit of the Taliban. A new poll showed just over half of all Afghans think the U.S. and NATO can provide them with security, down from 67 percent a year ago. Afghanistan's army chief asked Gates for more forces to train the Afghan army. Right now, the U.S. has sent 70 trainers. The Afghans say they need 2 to 3,000.
GATES [video clip]: There is more that can be done. And we will do our part to do that.
GRIFFIN: The Pentagon has requested $30 billion for the war in Afghanistan, but the funding is currently stalled by Democrats in Congress who are trying to pressure the president to pull troops out of Iraq. Some in Washington are asking whether Afghanistan needs a surge similar to the strategy that's been so successful in Iraq, an extra 30,000 troops to fight a growing insurgency. Those who recommended the Iraq surge to President Bush say it would take probably double that number of surged troops in Afghanistan.
Why can't they separate the spending bills?
The ONLY person that is 'stalling' is Bush. He has vetoed every spending measure related to Iraq that has been sent to him by this Congress. At least the bills ARE being sent to him so the Dems have done their job. Bush hasn't... just like a petulant crybaby.
At least the bills ARE being sent to him so the Dems have done their job. Bush hasn't... just like a petulant crybaby.
If I didn't do MY job, I'd be fired.
So why haven't the spineless Dems in Congress impeached (fired) this guy and his psycho veep? Wait... I think I answered the question when I said the word 'spineless'. Sorry.
Carry on...
At least the bills ARE being sent to him so the Dems have done their job.
False. Neither party is doing their job unless they are sending bills that will actually pass, or have a chance of passing. Else its a waste of time and taxpayer money. Sending through bills of any nature based on a one sided political viewpoint, especially when you are well aware that they wont pass, is not doing your job.
Not sending anything at all is better than giving Bush a blank check for what he wants.
Not sending anything is just as bad as sending a bill that you know wont pass. This example has to do with Bush vetoing the bill - but this is the same junk that each party has been doing year and year after year for a long time.
I meant the same thing in terms of not sending anything vs. sending something you know won't pass. Doesn't Bush deserve some blame in vetoing? Congress isn't meant exactly to serve him.
Democrats (for the most part) want to end the war and bring the troops home. Republicans and Bush want to continue it indefinitely and want funds. How about agreeing to a bill that does both, like what the Dems have here. Democrats only have a 51% majority in the Senate and a 53.9% majority in the House. I'm not fully clear on the rules of the House but in the Senate it takes 60 votes for a bill to even be considered and 67 to override a veto. Before the 2006 elections, Democrats were branded as obstructionists whenever they were successful with a filibuster or blocking a bill, and now they are viewed as "dragging their feet" but no one gives Republicans the same flack today. It's not very fair in my opinion.
What to do? Your solutions?
Well in all honesty, you're correct in the way that the Democrats were branded at that time - and its no different than the way republicans in congress are branded right now - not just with the veto of the war funding bills, but SCHIP, and others as well.
The system we have put in place is there for a good reason - not to give the congress too much power, and not to give the president too much power. One is the backbone of the other. The goal is to do something that is agreeable for both parties - since the parties represent the wants of the people. In every bill that is going to be passed or rejected, we all can agree that each party or person out there will see something in the bill that they dont like.
In this case, the only thing i would like to see is immediate funds made available for the troops because they come first before each parties political agenda. then have both parties work together to establish some kind of time contraints for the iraqi government. I dont want to be there forever, but i absolutely hate that the congress needs to play games with a timetable while bundling that in with what the troops need to survive.
the only thing i would like to see is immediate funds made available for the troops .... then have both parties work together to establish some kind of time contraints for the iraqi government.
How is that different from giving Bush exactly what he wants? There is absolutely zero reason to believe that once Congress caved in to him as you propose that he would then enter into serious discussions of withdrawal timetables.
The time for discussions and compromise is when both parties have something to offer, not when one party has already given the other side everything they want.
Well in this case, im not concerned with what either side wants. Im more concerned with making sure our troops know we are behind them while they are there - and that starts with giving them the funds and things necessary to stay alive and defend themselves while our two sides bicker back and forth.
I don't know how to read your statements other than that you believe Congress should give Bush exactly what he insists on and completely disregard the desires of the voters who elected them.
That is the exact result of what you are saying. Do you believe that Congress should have nothing to say when there are military actions taking place?
One more point: Refusal to pass this funding bill will not result in our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan going without food, weapons or supplies. Funds and resources are available that can be redirected. Several funding bills would have to be held up before it would affect those troops. No troops will do without because Congress is trying to get Bush to work with them.
Oh I have no problem with Congress abiding what the rules put in place, and trying to pass what they think the people they represent want. It just happens that in this instance, I dont agree with what they are doing. Thats all.
I think we all know that and the end of the day, the military would not be denied funds because not a single person in congress could afford the hit they would take for something like that.
You can take my comments whichever way you choose, as im not pro-war or anti-war. Im just take things case by case, and in this case I just happen not to agree with their course of action.
For two straight replies you've disregarded my main point. Passing a funding bill without any provisions for withdrawal is giving Bush everything he wants. When the next supplementary funding bill comes along the situation will be exactly the same. And it will be the same for the one after that. And the one after that. And on and on.
By your reasoning Congress should always simply pass these supplementary funding bills exactly in the form that meets White House approval. They should never assert their positions when voting on them if it would meet with a veto.
Roll over. Play dead. Good boy! That's a good Congress!
No, I never concluded any of the above. If anything, all it goes to prove is that you do not believe in compromise or negotiations within the house. This is part of having a president that is of a different party than the senate majority. I am not for unlimited power in the war, which is what Bush is asking for, but i dont think putting withdrawl dates on the bill is going to make any headway in what the main issue is. The democratic senate can delay the inevitable all they want, but until there is some give, it will not pass.
I didn't say you concluded that. I pointed out that the inescapable result of your position is that Congress must consistently give the White House exactly what it wants. What in the case you presented gives a different result? You put the entire responsibility on Congress to provide a bill that Bush won't veto.
Where is there any incentive for the White House to work with Congress? If we follow your philosophy Bush can simply veto every single bill that has any small feature he doesn't like and it will be considered Congress' failure. Where is there room for the compromise you mention?
In my earlier post I wasn't stating that the funds for the troops would be there because Congress would eventually pass a funding bill. What I meant was that if this bill was held up because the White House won't negotiate or compromise that there are funds in the Defense Department that can keep the troops supplied for many months. Congress can make a stand against an inflexible White House without it depriving the troops.
As an aside, Free, what are you doing personally to help the troops? Sending equipment? Voting for those who take care of the troops when they come home? Just curious.
Actually, for the past 3 yrs, my family has joined an organization where we take in a family whos husband/wife is in Iraq for christmas, have them over for christmas dinner, and buy many gifts for their kids so they can try to enjoy the holidays.
I also send care packages to my friends and family who are overseas on the war - i have several friends and cousins in the war currently. And I've donated much money to organizations within my work to help out. I work for a non profit childrens hospital, so much of my time is already donated to helping kids who are less fortunate.
Democrats only have a 51% majority in the Senate and a 53.9% majority in the House. I'm not fully clear on the rules of the House but in the Senate it takes 60 votes for a bill to even be considered and 67 to override a veto.
And just an FYI on how it works. In the senate & the house, in order to overturn a veto, you need a 2/3rds vote. I pretty sure that if you did not vote in your own party to pass or not pass a bill originally, you cannot vote to overturn the veto.
Also, in terms of bush being responsible for branding the democrats as anything, really is not true. Its quite the opposite in regards to him. The knock on Bush, especially from the Republicans is that he is not vetoing hardly any bills - and spending like crazy, unlike a conventional fiscal conservative. Bush Sr vetoed 44 bills, Clinton vetoed 37 bills, and GWB has only vetoed 6 bills in a matter of 8 years (5 of which have been since May 2007). So in turn, he hasnt denied spending but once from 2001-2006. Any gripe on that would be in response to the opposing party in congress denying the spending bills, not the President. Think about how difficult it was in the past, when FDR vetoed 635 bills!
I know about the 2/3 vote. I'm just not sure about the numbers. But now that I've looked it up, as it stands since November 27th, a 2/3 majority would be 288 in the House. Not gonna happen either.
So are you saying that the Democrats should just give up until they pick up more seats in Congress and/or gain the White House?
You're forgetting that Bush and the Congress are equal banches of gov't with equal power. One says they want conditions, one saas they want a blank check - both are equally responsible if noting gets done. Putting aside that this isn't how itr's being reported, why can't the will of the american people be the tiebreaker here? Conservactis alwasy accuse liberals of being "elitsts" yet here we have one man (a moron, no less) who think he knows better that hundereds of millions of people. And he killed thousand sf our own in maintainence of this opinion. This is not "congress's" fault. This is Bush's fault for puruing a pointless war to support a failed foriegn policy and then defying the will both of the congress and the american people who want it ended.
FYI - both sides of congress do not want it ended. And both sides of congress voted to go to war - the blame goes equally across the board.
You are picking and choosing what events & what people you want to take blame, and it doesnt work like that.
For the ZILLIONTH time... BOTH sides voted for it based on faulty intelligence and raw emotion - not very smart, btw - right after 9/11.
The Iraq War is a textbook example of people rushing into a situation that was completely avoidable had those people relied on GOOD INTELLIGENCE and logical, not emotional, thinking. This is why people must question things and not simply be 'yes-men'.
Congress blew it. Indeed, they share blame along with Bush and Cheney. But Congress now has a different position thanks to the majority of the American people who VOTED for change.
WTF? W\It doesn't matter that "both sides don't want it ended." That's irrelevant. Enough of congress wanted it ended to pass the legslation, and enough of America wanted it ended to put that majority (wsitching the status quo) into congress. Bush's Veto defies both. How can you deny this? Is this not a democracy?
both sides of congress voted to go to war - the blame goes equally across the board.
Not quite. A majority of Democrats voted against the authorization. Republicans were nearly unanimous in favor of it. There are a number of Democrats who can share in the blame, but it isn't even close to "equally across the board."
Neither party is doing their job unless they are sending bills that will actually pass, or have a chance of passing.
Wow. You really need to browse that Constitution thingie we've got. You know, the one that lays out the roles of the branches of our government.
It is fully within the purview of Congress to pass or not pass anything. As the party in power, the rules of our Congress allow Democrats to control what bills make it to the floor or not. And Republicans are fully free to block them by whatever tactics are available to the minority party (though they weren't so comfortable with that when they were the controlling party.)
But you know all that, right, cuz you graduated from high school?
The problem here is in how the story was told. There's a bias. A conservative bias. And MMFA was right to point it out.
The particular discussion at hand in this specific thread has nothing to do with accusing anyone of "stalling", so go back and re-read...since im at least HOPING you made it through high school.
Also, no one is claiming that the the democrats are in violation of anything. What is being said is that they are wasting valuable time & taxpayer money throwing around bills that they know wont pass just to try and make a statement.
Also, no one is claiming that the the democrats are in violation of anything. What is being said is that they are wasting valuable time & taxpayer money throwing around bills that they know wont pass just to try and make a statement.
So they're not in violation of anything except wasting time and money and trying to make a statement?
Or did you mean they're not doing they're job?
Neither party is doing their job unless they are sending bills that will actually pass, or have a chance of passing.
Dude, keep up with your own comments, okay?
my statement of "not doing their job" wasn't meant as a literal comment. it was meant in the terms that goal of congress is to establish bills that meet the wants of all the people - which means working together. neither side has been working together at all, and thats exactly why they are hovering with a 22% approval rating.
Dont start with mocking about making comments, as you couldnt be civil in your opening remarks.
You're right. I was a bit heavy with the sarcasm. I'll try and reign that in.
it was meant in the terms that goal of congress is to establish bills that meet the wants of all the people - which means working together.
That's idealistic, but not accurate. People are voted into Congress by people who want their to see their own agenda pursued. I can't imagine a single bill passed that met the needs of all people. Heck, even today, you couldn't even get a majority to vote for the First Amendment.
It just doesn't work that way, as nice as it sounds. It's a battle the whole way, and somewhere, between the push and pull from both sides, a compromise is struck. And that's what's being worked out.
At this time, polling suggested the majority in Congress was put there by people who want this occupation to come to a close. Democrats are using their majority to try and affect that; Republicans are in the position of blocking that. Because Democrats don't have enough votes to override Bush's promised vetoes, they're playing a balancing act of trying to satisfy those that want something done NOW and actually being able to do anything in the face of Bush's vetoes.
If it was purely about giving the people what polls suggest they want, the troop pullout would have begun months ago.
Very true, i will agree with all of that. And yes, i am being a bit idealistic in what congress should do - because you're right - its a representative government. The people i vote that i think represent my wants, do not necessarily represent yours.
I just think there is so much blame and flaming done on the respective people in office who are doing what they think should be done - and we are the ones who voted them into office based on the belief that our agenda is their agenda.
Its been like that since it was established, and is not going to change. Its all about power and personal agenda. If we look at the polls out there and if the government truly did what majority of the people want, then things would be much different. The troops would have been back home already, we would have a national sales tax as opposed to a federal income tax, and many others. But its about power & personal agenda.
Thats why I get ticked off when people start yelling that the government works for the the people. Because technically, thats not true. The people in government represent the people, not work for the people.
And where did I say anything about "stalling?"
you said: There's a bias. A conservative bias. And MMFA was right to point it out.
What MMFA is pointing out is not exactly what we are discussing in this particular thread. MMFA is talking about "stalling" as a conservative bias. I have not accused them of "stalling"
I'm not exactly following. I'll say that I'm not accusing you of saying that Democrats are stalling.
I think it is biased for a news organization to say that Democrats are holding up the legislation when there is obviously opposition (with filibustering ability) standing in the way as well.
I agree, its a tug of war on both sides. Whether I agree with whats in the bill or not doesnt matter, its just a mess in congress right now. You'd think with a 22% approval rating that both sides would be working together more than they are to get this running smoothly. Its pretty sad that the only think we hear about the senate is always negative.
Yo, congress, the president all people in the goverment work for who? That's right, the citizens. They are supposed to negotiate and compromise and get something done, not constantly bicker over minor differences. Obviously, a vast middle slice of the citizens wants to see the occupation of Iraq wrapped and sooner rather than later. Apparently the military and the president have forgotten that they are supposed to do the will of those who they represent!!
Yo, congress, the president all people in the goverment work for who? That's right, the citizens.
The people in government - the congress & president - do NOT WORK FOR YOU. They REPRESENT you. Big difference. The country voted for people who they believe will represent their beliefs & wants. But they government does NOT work for you.
Methinks the world has gone off its rocker...Insanity abounds. Bush in now insignificant in our country. His lies just made that President of Iran look like a good guy. And anyone who believes anything that comes from the mouth of any White House employee is insane. It is not Georges' money. The troops will get the money,every one settle down.
His lies just made that President of Iran look like a good guy.
Whoa, whoa. Not sure where you fell off the rocker on this one, but thats pushing it. The intel that was announced yesterday is by no means fact. They are opinions based upon the 16 groups who are analyzing the data. However, I would rather trust the intel of the Israelis over any intel that the White House can collect on data about the Middle East.
Yes, because their intel was so good at identifying the USS Liberty as an American ship. I don't see how their data would be more trustworthy.
Which has exactly what to do with establishing data on middle east countries? Nothing.
I highly doubt Israel's data would be objective.
Bush's accusations and the Neo-cons' accusations about Iran as a nuclear threat is in no ways a fact either.
Thats exactly correct - neither the claim that Iran does or does not currently have motives for weapons, or even that they actually halted their weapons program are a fact. Only time will tell as to what the true story is.
But it go without saying that Israel has much more at stake in this subject - especially with Amidinjead (or however you spell his name) wants to wipe them off the map.
However, I would rather trust the intel of the Israelis over any intel that the White House can collect on data about the Middle East.
Why?
What was the Israeli intel on Iraq? Haven't heard about that? And why would we doubt the 16 packets of Intel or were they wrong before after they were right?
Thinker, why is the world would the Russians, Germans etc., side with the Iranians before this came out. Because they KNEW we were lying. Simple.
There were not 16 packets of intel - its was "new" intel (where it came from, who knows) that was analyzed by 16 areas of the intillengence departments and came to a compromised decision that they think Iran has shut down its weapons program. But none of it is fact either way. The fact is the white house has no idea on what Iran is really doing, and has no proof if Iran shut down its weapons program in 2003 or not.
The Israeli's highly disagree with our new intel. I havent heard anything about the Germans viewpoint on this, but as for Russia - I hope you are joking. Russia is the one who is actually helping them build the nuclear facilities & Putin is ex KGB, China is building them new warplanes, and Iran is buddy-buddy w/ the dictator Huge Chavez. Those three alone would lead me to not believe anything Iran says.
Nor do you believe our Intel...but you'd believe Bush/Cheney....Google- Team B-Can't believe those guys either.
I pray the Democrats can keep this up but I'm afraid they won't.
I dont think "stalling" is a word I would choose in this case. But sending through bills that you know will be vetoed does no one any good. The reason we have a mixture in congress is so they can work together to come to a happy medium. Writing and sending through bills when you know will be vetoed is just another waste of taxpayer money - regardless of what the bill is for.
Vetoing bills that represent the will of the people does no one any good.
A bill that represents one political side does not mean it represents the people as whole.
You're right there, we've had close to seven years of experience with that. But as for the war, it's not a party issue when over 60% of the country want out. Unless you are saying that 60% of the country now swing democratic?
I want to see the statistics that 60% want an immediate withdrawl.
I think 100% of the US wants the war to be over because I dont think any of us want war - but as for immediate withdrawl, im not buying it.
Nice try, but nobody but you said "immediate" withdrawal.
Most want a clean, orderly withdrawal on a reasonable time-frame. Your effort to mischaracterize what the majority wants is typical of someone parroting right wing talking points.
Is it possible for you to have a discussion without flaming or trolling, complaining about bias and acting like everyone is out to get you?
Where did I do any such thing?
YOU inserted the word "immediate" into phrases used by others. I pointed out that that is a tactic used by conservatives, particularly in the media, to skew the discussion. I did not say you were doing it purposely. But if YOU want to have a real discussion about this, then I suggest correctly framing the arguments of others in a way that isn't intellectually dishonest.
As for "bias", I commented on that earlier in another post (I forget why) because that was the issue the article was making. I wasn't accusing you of bias per say. Frankly, YOU are entitled to your biases, as is everyone. Our media purports, however, to try and strike a balance, and shouldn't be making clearly biased statements when reporting the news.
I think 100% of the US wants the war to be over because I dont think any of us want war - but as for immediate withdrawl, im not buying it.
At this point, is it even a 'war'?
What is immediate withdrawal? Tomorrow? Six months? Six years?
That's a clever way to insert a swear word. But you forgot to put the comma after "people".
That reply is for Freethinker's comment. God, I can really be an "as whole".
Ah NO. That view makes Congress a rubberstamp. THEY control the purse. It is THEIR decision how money is spent. Thier obligation is to send what THEY think is the correct spending priorities not to knuckle under to whatever the president tells them to do.
The Dems aren't stalling, they're playing politics. Unfortunately for our men and women in harms way, it's too long a process. They have to send something to Bush, and thankfully they refuse to give him another blank check. In the end, our troops and the Iraqi people will suffer till Bush is out of office or the Dems can pass something veto proof.
In the end, our troops and the Iraqi people will suffer till Bush is out of office or the Dems can pass something veto proof.
But in the meantime, we all know that an immediate pullout is neither feasible nor a good alternative - and this has been claimed by all sides. Playing politics is doing nothing but gaining distrust of our military.
Distrust of our military?
Which military people would that be?
The ones who now have to serve 18 month tours?
The ones on their third and fourth tours?
Don't assume to know how those in the military are thinking.
Aren't you the guy from the other thread that was telling one of our Vietnam Vets that he didn't speak for the military?
If he can't then you certainly can't.
First, im not sure what you're talking about with the vietnam vet thing. I havent posted on any such topic.
Second, they are 15 month tours, not 18 month tours.
Third, I didnt speak about what is best for the military, and i dont think you should too.
Fourth, its gaining mistrust in our military because idiots in congress are playing politics when it comes to funding them for their essential needs when they know they are not coming home any time soon. Dont play politics when it comes to giving them the things they need to survive.
I know that there are many serving those 15 month tours who support those who want to bring them home as soon as possible.
"Are you in the military? Im not. And unless you are, I would not even begin to start speaking for the military on what "unit morale" is.
- FREETHINKER123 / Wednesday December 5, 2007 03:39:13 PM EST
The above was Cut & Pasted from the Savage thread. You castigated a veteran who you accused of trying to speak for the military, yet you did the same thing when you mentioned we will earn the distrust of the military.
The previous post was in regards to someone saying that the military current accepts an open sexuality policy. I said that I do not know if they do or not, but a poll shows that only 32% do.
However, I have no way of knowing whether that person was a Vietnam Vet or not, and frankly someone in the military 30 yrs ago does not speak for the current state of acceptance for the military either.
Im not going to apologize for what I said - but if it was that important that he was a vietnam vet, he could have claimed that in his post when giving his opinion. If he did it after the fact, then I dont know, becuase i havent looked at it since.
Both of your comments were about "unit morale".
Your comment here implies that we will earn the distrust of our military . We'll do no such thing by opposing the continuation of a failed policy.
The mistrust statement had nothing to do with a failed policy.
The mistrust statement had to do with congress playing politics games in regards to holding troop funding for ransom. Make the money available to them so the troops know they are being supported. Make the timeline a separate issue. If the money that was allocated is not spent, then great. But it looks absolutely stupid to waste time, effort, and potential troop morale playing political games on US soil while the troops are overseas depending on funds for their survival.
Most of the Democrats, particularly the front-runners, are not advocating an immediate pull-out. But they want to send a message that the US will not stay there indefinitely and that some plans in the near future (perhaps in the next year or two) for withdrawal must begin.
Yes. Because we all know how straightforward Bush has been concerning this war.
Why is it Congess that is playing politics but Bush isnt? Its a BS frame. Congress is under NO obligation to send Bush whatever he wants because he threatens a veto. The American people want us out of Iraq, the troops IN Iraq want to come home. Bush is the one playing politics when he wont accept what he is given by the very people who were assigned the power to decide spending priorities by the Constitution
But in the meantime, we all know that an immediate pullout is neither feasible nor a good alternative - and this has been claimed by all sides.
I'm sorry but I don't agree with that statement. While it's true that some of the Dem candidates may not be in favor of immediate withdrawl, and support keeping troops over there, not all of them do, along with a majority of Americans.
Why isn't it feasible, or a good idea? To me the best way of supporting the troops is getting them out of harms way. I've heard Bush and company predict gloom and doom if we pulled out of Iraq, but I also heard them predict that Iraq had WMD's...oh and also till recently, hell bent on striking Iran. With the surge at an end, the best we can do for our people in the line of fire is get them home, the sooner the better.
I'm sorry but I don't agree with that statement. While it's true that some of the Dem candidates may not be in favor of immediate withdrawl, and support keeping troops over there, not all of them do, along with a majority of Americans.
Im okay with you disagreeing, as thats everyones own viewpoint. But it is NOT fact that a "majority of Americans" want an immediate pullout. In fact, polls across the board show that people believe the surge is in fact working. Please show me some recent polls or data that prove your statement.
You're right, while there isn't a majority of people calling for an immediate withdrawl, the majority is still there for us to begin withdrawing our troops. So in that regard, you are correct. The majority of people wanting us to begin withdrawing our troops is still there, as indicated by this ABC poll. Sorry for the crudeness, I'm still working out how to post links here .http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=3822935&page=1
As far as the surge working, can you show me polls or data that show that people across the board believe the surge is working in all of it's aspects? From my understanding, the "surge" was done to give the time to give the Iraqi government time to get their act together. This hasn't happened, so overall the surge failed.
I think withdrawling them in a progressive manner is good - as long as the violence there stays constant or decreases. But if withdrawing the troops comes at a price of an increase in violence, then i dont think its a good idea to keep withdrawing.
Im going to try and find that poll that just came up in the last week or so that stated that 33% of democrats (up from 16%) believe the surge is working, and that 74% of republicans (up from 54%) think the surge is working. Over all, its a good sign that things are looking on the up and up over there, and with less violence as the weeks pass. If we are going to be there anyway, I think its great that things are turning around.
Whether or not a military tactic is working wasn't the point of the "surge." The point of the surge wasn't the surge itself. It was to give the Iraqi government an opportunity to get established. Instead, it went on vacation. It met not even a quarter of the goals put before it. So the "surge" may have worked militarily, but the overall goals were missed.
We screwed up the country, but it's time to get out of there. Hand it over the UN if peace-keeping is necessary. But at this point it's clear that the goal is to establish permanent bases and a permanent presence in that region. And a country with the ideals of the US doesn't get to do that by force.
We screwed up the country, but it's time to get out of there. Hand it over the UN if peace-keeping is necessary.
I dont agree with that. Its our mess no doubt about it, but we still need to clean it up. It would reflect worse on us if we just picked up and left them hanging.
But at this point it's clear that the goal is to establish permanent bases and a permanent presence in that region. And a country with the ideals of the US doesn't get to do that by force.
Please tell me you dont think that just becuse of the Iraq War. I think that was part of the goal - prior to the war even starting. As far as not being able to do it by force, thats incorrect. We still have a presence in Japan and Germany ever since WWII - and that was by force.
It would reflect worse on us if we just picked up and left them hanging.
Well, you've got a more optimistic view of world opinion than I do then.
It was not our job to unseat Saddam. While I do agree that it's our fault the country is a mess, I don't think a military occupation of the country is the way to pursue a "fix" for that mess. I think an orderly handover to the UN is appropriate, and would actually IMPROVE our standing in the world as it would demonstrate we're not just there for the oil.
And we can't bankrupt our own country with this indefinite occupation. That doesn't serve the needs of our citizens, and while it might sound selfish, our citizens and not Iraq's are the first responsibility of our government.
Oh trust me, im with you on parts of that. I dont think the reason we went to war was justifed at all, since we were mislead on the intial reason, but i still think we need to slowly backout of there while continuing to fight the extremist and establish government. I still think there is too much extremist action going on to just drop in peacekeepers, but hopefully that will change soon.
But yeah, im more concerned with our country's economy than I am the iraq people or their government, and i dont care if thats selfish or not. But as much as im concerned with our economy over their situation, we started a fight and need to finish it to at least save face with the iraqi people. I just hope we turn down their request to stay longer in exchange for money or oil aid.
we were mislead on the intial reason [for going to war]
The initial reason? What reason were we not mislead about? We've even heard now that Saddam was trying to backchannel a way to leave Iraq before the invasion. We were never given a single valid reason for invading Iraq.
but i still think we need to slowly backout of there while continuing to fight the extremist and establish government.
We can't establish a government there. The Iraqis have to. And yes, we should carefully pull out. That doesn't mean staying there indefinitely, as Bush would have us do.
save face with the Iraqi people
When Turkey decides to crack down hard on the Kurds, it's over. The only respect we had from any Iraqis will be flushed.
You are truly delusional.
We set up PERMANENT BASES in Japan and Germany AFTER peace treaties were signed, ending hostilities.
Once the treaties were signed, the war was over. Notice we don't have any bases in Vietnam. When we left, we left for good. That's the only way we'll extracate our troops from the civil war that we're sitting on in Iraq.
Do you think that the hostilities in Iraq between Sunnis, Shia and Kurds will end because of anything we might do?
Permanent bases in Iraq means permanent War in Iraq.
we all know that an immediate pullout is neither feasible nor a good alternative
There ya go, stuffing your argument full of straw again. Nobody is talking about an "immediate pullout."
72% of those serving in Iraq want to be out of Iraq within a year so you are just stating as FACT what you WISH were true. Bush doesnt get another blank check. He doesnt get to throw tantrums and get his way. He can sustain a veto but it is HIM holding up the progress when he does. Congress is doing what they were ELECTED to do. Rein in this out of control administration.
Think you missed an important "the" in your post. Our troops have shown more intelligence than you have so far. Whose getting contributions from the troops these days, the Dems.
I get all of my news from Countdown with Keith Olbermann and I learned that George Bush hates our troops and wants as many of them to be killed as possible. So I think its a good thing that the Democrats are keeping the money away from him.
Well thats your problem. You can hate on Hannity, Rush, whoever else....but when you starting taking all your poltical information from a sportscaster, it shows you have about as much common sense as he does.
Oh, come on. The 'sportscaster' thingy is dumb and you know it. That was just a 'shot'. It has zero relevance to anything. Keith can have his opinions about politics and the political process regardless of his 'profession'.
Keith Olbermann said last night that Iran has stoped trying to build a nuclear bomb. This was good news to me. The president should have shared the good news with the American people as soon as he knew it and we could all have felt better. He also said in words only Keith can put togeather that Dick Cheney is pure evil, he hates everyone and wants them to die. I think it has to do with his heart condition that makes him feel this way. It would have been nice if the president of Iran has just told us 2 years ago what that they had stoped and all of the people in both countrys could have rejoiced togeather over the good news.
Despite the facts that Al Quida is on the run, Sunni-Shia relations are improving, military and civilian attacks are down, troops are being cycled back to the states and that General Petraeus's plan is working the democrat party is still looking for a way to get out of Iraq and stealing defeat from the jaws of victory. The democrat party is invested in defeat thus we have Pelosi visiting with Kurdish Commies while in Syria, probably encouraging the fomenting Kurdish nationalism against Turkey, deperately trying to offend the Turks and cut off our supply lines to Iraq from bases in Turkey by having the congress declare that they had committed genocide 90 yrs ago so why wouldn't they rush to bring troops home just as the surge is working.
The bill had little to do with supporting the troops, just attempting to undermine them by giving our enemies a timeline to wait out, then come back to fill the vacuum.