Can you say VETO?

Great. As Waters would say:

"Bring the boys back home"

Way to support and fund the troops Congress. Let's see if our President is interested in doing so as well.

"I will use my veto power to insure no major medical breakthrus happen on my watch. Fuck stem-cell research"

"I will use my veto power to remind Congress that I am CIC. Fuck money for the troops"

That is going to look great in the history books.

Great plan. Just pull out now. That way all the lives that have already been lost will have been in vain.

YEAH!

Anyone wonder why four years into a project, the project architect is still asking for "emergency funding"?
It's because he had no plan, no analysis and no contingency prepared!
Anyone wondering how an MBA seems to know so little about how things are done in the real world?
Its because he is no MBA, but simply a overly affluent loser who coasted thru life letting everyone else do the work, take the responsibility and was never held to account for any of his actions!
How anyone can admire, let alone respect this piece of human garbage is beyond comprehension!

Way to support and fund the troops Congress. Let's see if our President is interested in doing so as well.


So playing politics with the lives of soldiers is "support".

I'd fucking hate to see it when they decide to not support them.

Great plan. Just pull out now

can you quote the part of the bill that says this, or is your head just stuck in your own nether regions?
Much as it pains you, you righties are gonna have to start joining the reality-based community eventually.

NOT signing the bill will equate to playing politics.

Bush asked for money, they gave it to him with conditions. He doesn't get any more money without conditions. He has pissed away enough already. Congress is doing their job and holding him accountable.

Congress is also supposed to dictate domestic spending. Killing 2 birds with this stone.

Now Bush is the one running around spouting about politcal parties. He is making this political, and yes, he is doing it with lives on the line.

Presidential? You decide.

Anyone wonder why four years into a project, the project architect is still asking for "emergency funding"?
It's because he had no plan, no analysis and no contingency prepared!
Anyone wondering how an MBA seems to know so little about how things are done in the real world?
Its because he is no MBA, but simply a overly affluent loser who coasted thru life letting everyone else do the work, take the responsibility and was never held to account for any of his actions!
How anyone can admire, let alone respect this piece of human garbage is beyond comprehension!

Redneckville, you made Bush's point! Let General Petraeus make these complex military decisions, of course, subject to Bush's approval. What's more fascinating about your statement is how it's self defeating. If we take your argument as logically true; then Congress has NO business trying to dictate a withdrawal timeline b/c after all they're overwhelmingly just MBAs, lawyers etc and NOT military experts. Way to go!

I got it Redneck. Further explanation might be need in the corner. CoCo doesn't understand that you were talking about fiscal repsonsibility.

Right over his head.

Surprised? You decide.

NOT signing the bill will equate to playing politics

Posted by Manypaths at 2007-04-26 03:12 PM

As opposed to sending a political bill for him to sign?

As direct representatives of the people, it is the duty and responsibility for Congress to provide checks to the Executive branch, including setting the conditions for allocating money to any war effort.

They are doing their jobs. Finally.

If Busch vetos the bill, he will be responsible for not funding the troops. He wants congress to roll over and play his way. That is not their job.

If anyone does not like this development, call or write your congressman.

Somehow I find that taking a vacation while the funding bill sat on a desk waiting and then spending more time talking and posturing before finally getting a vote to send the bill to the President more than a little disgusting.
Oh and now the rumor is to have the bill sit a few more days so as to cash in politically by sending the bill to the WH on the anniversary of "Mission Accomplished" if true that is disgusting.
Meanwhile nearly 100 soldiers have lost their lives this month while were getting battling press conferences!
There is absolutely NO leadership in DC>

If anyone does not like this development, call or write your congressman.

Posted by MasterCheat at 2007-04-26 03:19 PM

You must mean the ones who were bribed into voting for the withdrawl measure because they got money for a tourist center?

Did they provide the money requested?

Funding this war is not the only role Congress has. To include other funding issues is reasonable. Other shit needs funding too. Maybe you and Bush have forgotten this.

Did they provide the money requested?

Funding this war is not the only role Congress has. To include other funding issues is reasonable. Other shit needs funding too. Maybe you and Bush have forgotten this.

Posted by Manypaths at 2007-04-26 03:22 PM

You seemd to forget this was an emergency bill funding the war. Tell me how it is an emergency to open up a tourist center? BTW are all you libs here that partisan that you don't have a problem with being lied to by Dems. You know the campaign promises of no more earmarks? Fiscal spending? Where is the outrage????

I'm sure that the vacation and other work that Congress was doing is more important than the military needs when people are dying!
This s all Politics on both sides and it it Disgusting!

Fiscal spending?

You are seeing it and bitching about it. Face it, you cannot be pleased!

It has been done. The only thing left to see know is will Bush fund the troops or will he use this as an opportunity to make a political statement at the expense of our troops.

Time will tell, but for our troops sake, I hope Bush does the right thing and provide them with the funds that Congress have made available to them.

bingo.
they know full well that he'll veto anything with a timeline, yet they're sending him a timeline anyway, so they can accuse him of not supporting the troops.

either send him the funds or don't. both sides are playing games.

Meanwhile nearly 100 soldiers have lost their lives this month while were getting battling press conferences!

Baldeagle, the lie you're spreading has gotten old and boring.
No soldier died this month because a Democrat denied him armor or ammo. No current funding for the troops has been held up. The military is still running on last year's funding.

Yes soldiers are loosing their lives needlessly, and it's on Bush's head. He's the one who surged against the will of the American people, and the one who's going to veto the military funding for next year rather than accept reality.

If Congress had sent the bill to Bush two weeks ago, the same soldiers would still have died. It's on Bush, and no one else.

And they are saying you can't have money without a timeline.

It is their right to do so.

You expect Congress to concede but not the President. Justify?

Washington is a 2-way street now. You guys and this Admin need to start coming to grips with that fact.

You know the campaign promises of no more earmarks?

No answer Many?

They were BRIBED by pork. How in the fuck can you say that is acceptable?

both sides are playing politics

No answer Many?

Addressed CC. I can't help it if you bring it up afterwards.

Funding this war is not the only role Congress has. To include other funding issues is reasonable. Other shit needs funding too. Maybe you and Bush have forgotten this.

Do keep up......

You expect Congress to concede but not the President. Justify?

Washington is a 2-way street now. You guys and this Admin need to start coming to grips with that fact.


Posted by Manypaths at 2007-04-26 03:33 PM

Doesn't this sound familiar 32 years later? We all know what happened in 1975 after our final troops and equipment was withdrawn. Do you think maybe a timeline back then was wrong?

He doesn't get any more money without conditions.

Don't hold your breath.

will he use this as an opportunity to make a political statement at the expense of our troops.

What do you call approving a bill that you know the President won't sign?

"You seemd to forget this was an emergency bill funding the war. Tell me how it is an emergency to open up a tourist center?"

Funny Crispee, but I don't remember seeing you post your outrage when the previous "emergency" spending bills were rubber stamped by a Republican Congress with as much or more pork in them.

Is it Just me or does Harry Reid look like the old farmer in that famous painting where he is standing next to his wife and holding a pitchfork

both sides are playing politics

Posted by truthhurts at 2007-04-26 03:34 PM

My head hurts, TH and I have agreed twice today.

:)

Norm

"If Congress had sent the bill to Bush two weeks ago, the same soldiers would still have died. It's on Bush, and no one else."
=========

Your absolutely right. Politics on both sides.
However this is an emergency funding bill.

Do you think maybe a timeline back then was wrong?

No. My dad came home. Good!

What, do you want to still be there?

How's that place today?

Addressed CC. I can't help it if you bring it up afterwards

Do keep up......

Posted by Manypaths at 2007-04-26 03:36 PM

Maybe in your own mind. I didn't see anything written by you about earmarks on a emergency spending bill.

What do you call approving a bill that you know the President won't sign?

We don't know he won't sign it. We know he doesn't want to, but we don't know that he won't.

Maybe he'll get out that veto pen and then find he can't do it, and sign the bill and fund the troops.
I know, I know, that would take a conscious, but we can hope can't we?

"patdollard.com

Posted by LastAmerican"

I'm not picking a fight with you today LA, but I just wanted to congratulate you on 2 things.

1. Posting that same lame link over and over and over, on every thread topic you click on
2. Having 14 of your posts deleted in a single day. Is that a record?

Funny Crispee, but I don't remember seeing you post your outrage when the previous "emergency" spending bills were rubber stamped by a Republican Congress with as much or more pork in them.
Republican deflection.

What do you call approving a bill that you know the President won't sign?

NOT A RUBBER STAMPING.

Doing their job.

Holding him accountable. Trust me, he needs it.

What if Bush takes the money, then doesn't withdraw the troops? What happens then?

My head hurts, TH and I have agreed twice today.

:)

Posted by Rightocenter

I agree with Truth too. And both sides are making me sick. Time to get these career politicians out of Washington.

However this is an emergency funding bill.

It's emergency funding in the sense that the money is not included in the regular budget. It is not emergency in the sense of time. The money isn't needed yesterday.

He'll sign it with a signing statement negating the timeline.

Jesus guys, have I been the only one watching this guy?

The only thing left to see know is will Bush fund the troops or will he use this as an opportunity to make a political statement at the expense of our troops.

Nice spin. Too bad all your statement amounts to is spin though.

He isn't MAKING a political statement... he is going to VETO one. It is the Dems that played politics with this one.

When the bill was first introduced as it currently is, before the first vote, Bush already let it be known he would veto it. Knowing that the funding would not go through in the present form of the bill, the Dems decided to go forward with it anyway. Now they sit on things and hold it over just to make sure it gets there on Monday (just to invoke some percieved irony). It is the Dems that have been playing politics with the funding since Bush announced he would veto this bill and they went forward anyway.

I agree with Truth too. And both sides are making me sick. Time to get these career politicians out of Washington.

Would you also agree that one side is trying to stay the same course and the other trying to make a change?

What if Bush takes the money, then doesn't withdraw the troops? What happens then?

Then Bush wins and the troops lose.

Doing their job.

Holding him accountable. Trust me, he needs it.


Posted by Manypaths at 2007-04-26 03:42 PM

I agree that Bush needs to be held accountable. But he has said, in the clearest possible language, that he will veto the bill, and they aren't even close to having the votes to override. Usually when that happens, the bill is modified, in committee (if possible) to make it acceptable or it is killed. Sending it on is nothing more then a political statement.

Neither happened in this instance, and just like the Repubs in the government funding mess in 1996, Congress will most likely lose this battle.

Tim Russert: The House voted for funding for the war with a date certain, March of '08, to begin a withdrawal of U.S. troops. But in that bill was $20 billion of so-called pork: money for cricket infestation, tours of the capitol, security at the national convention, peanut crops. Why would the Democrats put that kind of money in such a serious bill?

Rep. Charlie Rangel: Because they needed the votes. That bill, we lost so many Democrats, one, because people thought we went too far and other's because we didn't go far enough. So a lot of things had to go into a bill that certainly those of us who respect great legislation did not want in there ... And I didn't care what was in that bill if there was anything to slow down, to say what the American people said in the last election, get out of Iraq.'"

So uncle Charlie, if the American people said it in the last election, why did the democrats have to be payed for their vote? They obviously felt a lot of risk associated with the vote. The culture of corruption lives!

It is not Congresses job to placate to the wishes of the President.

I know you guys have forgooten that with 6 years of this happening, but it is not the way our system was set up.

2 way street. Once you admit that, you can see that Congress is doing their Job.

He is NOT the Decider anymore. He has to be accountable and since he cannot be, I can understand why that bothers some of you.

Would you also agree that one side is trying to stay the same course and the other trying to make a change?

Posted by Manypaths

No, I would agree that we should not be telling our enemies what we intend to do. If Bush and Congress could work on something with out having indiviual press conferences every time, I think they could get something done.

It is the Dems that have been playing politics with the funding since Bush announced he would veto this bill and they went forward anyway.

Moomanfl,
So by your logic, we should always negotiate with terrorists?
If someone seizes hostiges and demands money, and the police refuse to pay, the cops are playing politics with the lives of the hostiges?

Bush put a gun to the head of our troops and said "Give me the money or they get it".
And we're supposed to go along with that?

And Congress has said as clearly as possible that any bill will have timelines. Why are you giving Demand Power to the President alone?

2 way street guys. I still do not see acceptence of this fact. You are all talking about a one way crash track.

Redneckville, you made Bush's point!
Posted by cc40988 at 2007-04-26 03:14 PM

YEAH!

We already know ---- he's stupid. It's his favorite and most used excuse!

He is the Commander in Chief who is in actual Command of nothing!

And of course the Military was never calling the shots for the past four years and only since congress changed hands have these issue manifested!


If we take your argument as logically true;
Posted by cc40988 at 2007-04-26 03:14 PM

YEAH! Ifn we take my argument as true, then the board of directors (us) should have canned his incompetent, business ruining, jackleg conman ass long ago!

"They were BRIBED by pork. How in the fuck can you say that is acceptable?"
Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-04-26 03:33 PM
YEAH! Excuse me while I whip this out (old ladies grimace)

"Its was acceptable to you when the republican majority did it" for ten long years!

Why the outrage now? Was that "principle" broken all this time and you just now got it out of the shop?

Would you also agree that one side is trying to stay the same course and the other trying to make a change?
The tatics and strategy have been changed. Petraeus said alot of progress is being made in the area of local politics and security. This is why the dem leadership is desperate to force the veto in order to change the debate. "Why won't the president support the troops?".

He'll sign it with a signing statement negating the timeline.

Posted by Manypaths at 2007-04-26 03:43 PM

Don't think his people haven't thought about that one, especially since it is only a guideline now. However, too much is riding on this bill (politically and in terms of lives) for that type of maneuver to happen.

What if Bush takes the money, then doesn't withdraw the troops? What happens then?

Posted by rightisright at 2007-04-26 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

The true corporate capitalist comes through.

Break the laws but don't expect accountability to be held, it is lots of money already spent.

The real open ended flaw of Capitalism, lost money doesn't require punishment.

Many, even Russ Feingold admits we just can't pull the plug on Iraq. I blame Bush for not siting down with Congress. There should have been compromise on this. But don't make a firm date and publish it on the front of every newspaper.

No, I would agree that we should not be telling our enemies what we intend to do.

Since we are monitoring a civil war, your argument has holes.

What we are saying is to the Iraq Government. "We are leaving so get your shit together."

Our enemies, the 'terrorists' that are fighting us will get their asses handed to them by the winner of the civil war.

ManyPaths, I think it actually went over your head. If Bush shouldn't be left to decide war spending because he's not a valid MBA, as RedneckVille claims, then Congress should not be left to decide when to withdrawal because they, for the most part, are not military experts.

In other words:
If A can't exercise reasonable judgement w/ regard to X due to insufficient training, then A should not make such decisions.

A can be the President or Congerss. X = war spending when A = President and X = withdrawal timetable when A = Congress.

It is not Congresses job to placate to the wishes of the President.

I know you guys have forgooten that with 6 years of this happening, but it is not the way our system was set up.

Posted by Manypaths at 2007-04-26 03:47 PM

Our system wasn't set up for gutless politicians to run from their vote when things are bad instead of taking responsibility. Just like they shouldn't be dancing a jig if this war becomes succesful.

What if Bush takes the money, then doesn't withdraw the troops? What happens then?

Do you oppose this or are you for this action?

Democrats said the bill was on track to arrive on the president's desk by Tuesday, the anniversary of Bush's announcement aboard the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.
==============

Yea no gamesmanship here 5 days to get the bill to Bush.
They must be using the US Postal System.

Break the laws but don't expect accountability to be held, it is lots of money already spent.
The bill does not require a withdrawal of troops. Congress telling the president to withdraw troops would be against the constitution. They only control the funds and organization. Not the execution. Don't need 400 CIC, eventhough thats not stopping them.

Once you admit that, you can see that Congress is doing their Job.

He is NOT the Decider anymore. He has to be accountable and since he cannot be, I can understand why that bothers some of you.

How is this bill holding him accountable for anything? What are the consequences on him?

This is like telling your child they have a 10:00pm curfew when that child is 25, lives in their own place, and makes more money than you. If you can't enforce what you say, then you can't assign consequences. No consequences, then there is no "holding accountable".

That makes this bill, a pure political statement from Dems that don't have the cajones to actually defund outright, yet can't override the impending veto either.

I don't know why YOU can't see THAT, ManyPaths.

Pulling the plug? This is an 19 month process.

"Here is the money. Now do everything possible to get all combat forces not used to portect americans or train Iraqis out by the end of 2008."

What is the problem with that?

major combat operations in Iraq had endedWhich is a true statement.

" Petraeus said alot of progress is being made"
Posted by slicksterWilly at 2007-04-26 03:50 PM

YEAH!

So how does this differ from the 75 to 100 times we have ALREADY been told this only to find out later it not to be true?

The bill does not require a withdrawal of troops.

Then what's the problem? If the bill doesn't make Bush do anything, if it's just the wish of Congress, then what possible reason does he have to veto it?

Bush truly is playing politics. He has no cause to veto the bill, other than to throw a temper tantrum.

Our system wasn't set up for gutless politicians to run from their vote when things are bad instead of taking responsibility.

Remember, we threw a lot of those out CC.

There is a new Congress in town boys. Learn to deal with it.

So by your logic, we should always negotiate with terrorists?

If someone seizes hostiges and demands money, and the police refuse to pay, the cops are playing politics with the lives of the hostiges(sic)?

No, but then it wasn't Bush going to Syria was it? ;-)

Regardless... You are talking apples and oranges. The troops aren't hostages, they are doing their job. In the course of doing their job, the president asked for the money to pay them and fund their job WITH THE TROOPS ALREADY IN THE FIELD. The Democrats have played politics with the funding to try and score a political point without actually having the cajones to back it up.

There is a new Congress in town boys. Learn to deal with it.

Posted by Manypaths

Albeit a slow moving one. Get the bill to Bush today. Let's get on with this.

So how does this differ from the 75 to 100 times we have ALREADY been told this only to find out later it not to be true?

How many times has Petraeus said it? Are you saying no progress has been made, or just not the progress you expected?

They are letting him think about it Wiz. Got to like that!

Great display of equal power. Neat little reminder to this Admin.

" Petraeus said alot of progress is being made"
Posted by slicksterWilly at 2007-04-26 03:50 PM

Everytime I see post like this I have to laugh. Nothing about caring for truth, just political party hacking panderer.

Has electricity improved?
Has water supply improved?
Has infrastructure improved?
Has safety improved?

It is so sad, WWII was already over and improvements in the reconstruction was farther along by far than the same time this messed up iraqi adventure has been.

Yet, here we sit with republicans calling themselve conservatives while not demanding accountability for the amount of money being spent. Are these the same conservative CEOs that are running our American dreams in the ground, ask any soldier, they want to come home.

Even then they aren't all coming home a reduced force would stay to focus on training Iraqi troops and police.
Boy I wonder how you pull that assignment!

""Yea no gamesmanship here 5 days to get the bill to Bush.
They must be using the US Postal System.""

Gee, since they don't have the votes to override a veto, the president is playing politics, and the only way to change course is to change public opinion then YES, of course it is gamesmanship. It's called politics.
When Republicans did the exact same type of thing, and way worse, during the years of the Republican controlled Senate and House I didn't hear any of y'all WHINING that the Republicans were anything but sincere public servants....which was ridiculous considering the corruption that was revealed and is being revealed about them during their reign of terror for the middle class.

When Republicans did the exact same type of thing, and way worse, during the years of the Republican controlled Senate and House I didn't hear any of y'all WHINING
Posted by danni

And Danni, do tell us what war you are referring too?

It is so sad, WWII was already over and improvements in the reconstruction was farther along by far than the same time this messed up iraqi adventure has been.

Do you actually believe this analogy is valid or were you just trying to be funny?

Germany (and Japan) didn't have factions of people trying to throw it back into chaos. How do you figure your analogy is valid? Do you actually believe that all situations are, or even SHOULD be, considered equal or the same? The Japanese actually had honor to fight like that after surrendering. The Germans were just too beat up to even consider it.

Corky, it's a smart idea to listen to Obama on war planning b/c he's an expert.

Does anyone find it strange that dems are attacking the President by saying he's going against the will of the people? Polling aside (whether it's accurate or not). After all, if the president is always supposed to reflect public desire then why do we have a president?

MoneyWar said: It is so sad, WWII was already over and improvements in the reconstruction was farther along by far than the same time this messed up iraqi adventure has been.

Well yeah, but when you carpet bomb indiscriminately you break the will of the insurgents to fight b/c eventually nothing is left to fight for. Do you advocate carpet bombing Iraq to create a similar situation?

Congress does have the Will of the People on their side. Any weight to that?

Careful, trick Constitution question....


Asked which side they take in the standoff between Congress and President Bush, the result is not close: 60 percent of Americans side with the Democrats in Congress and 37 percent with the President.

That 37 percent is a persistent figure.

-- 37 percent say if President Bush vetoes the Iraq funding bill, Congress should pass a bill with no timetable for withdrawal. 48 percent favor another bill with a timetable, and 13 percent want Congress to cut almost all funds for Iraq by next year (making a total of 61 percent who favor restrictions on funding).

-- 37 percent want the U.S. to keep troops in Iraq as long as they are needed. 35 percent want the U.S. to begin withdrawing immediately and 26 percent want to see all U.S. troops withdrawn by next March (making a total of 61 percent for withdrawal within a year).

This war was doomed when Baghdad fell and the politicians, yes Republicans were in power, took over the job of running the war instead of leaving it to the military.
Just like Vietnam

Gee, since they don't have the votes to override a veto, the president is playing politics

Nice way of trying to say that day is really night.

If they knew a veto was going to happen on their current course, and they knew they couldn't override it, yet they went forward anyway.... that means they weren't actually interested in accomplishing anything. That is the definition of playing games.
Now they have a choice... take ownership by refusing further funding of the troops (in other words, put their money where their mouth is), or actually send up a bill that will pass the veto test.

Well yeah, but when you carpet bomb indiscriminately you break the will of the insurgents to fight b/c eventually nothing is left to fight for. Do you advocate carpet bombing Iraq to create a similar situation?

Posted by cc40988

Or maybe he thinks we should have nuked Iraq in 2001. By God, we could have been building schools housing etc. 30 days later.

What a nice piece of logic.... the dems are playing politics because they are trying to pass legislation they know the president won't sign...

So lets just say the next time we have a superbowl the team with the lowest odds of winning should just forfeit? Why even play right?

Hell since were using this logic, then why not leave iraq now, since as it seems our odds of turning that into a democratic stronghold are pretty low...

Or maybe some of you forgot that congress is more than just the rubber stamping arm of the white house.

Mafia extortion can only last so long, pretty soon the surrounding players begin to fight back.

Look around Iraq, the takeover extortion regime will never get a foothold, too many players don't like the scheme.

The real funny part about this is who is using their finances with results? who is not?

So lets just say the next time we have a superbowl the team with the lowest odds of winning should just forfeit?

Your logic is screwed.... The vote vs. veto situation isn't a matter of "odds". They don't have the votes. Period. They had to bribe just to get enough votes for this to pass as it is right now and it STILL wasn't enough to get enough support to override a veto.

If they knew a veto was going to happen on their current course, and they knew they couldn't override it, yet they went forward anyway.... that means they weren't actually interested in accomplishing anything. That is the definition of playing games.
Now they have a choice... take ownership by refusing further funding of the troops (in other words, put their money where their mouth is), or actually send up a bill that will pass the veto test.

I don't think you understand, congress doesn't have to change a thing.

Keep sending the same old bill and if Bush wants the money he will eventually sign on.

Each time he vetos the bill shows congress he doesn't need the money. It is not in Bush's court, congress just needs to hold their ground.

So Moomman want a Congress that will only take actions approved or promised to be approved by the President before hand.

I have no idea why he hatets our democratic-3 party system.

If you want to be led by a dictator, you do have choices, just not here.

Your logic is screwed.... The vote vs. veto situation isn't a matter of "odds". They don't have the votes. Period. They had to bribe just to get enough votes for this to pass as it is right now and it STILL wasn't enough to get enough support to override a veto.

So let him veto, wait another month and submit it again, if he vetos wait another month and submit it again.

At some point all those who are politicing for this cabal of misfit cronies will decide they need to do what the bill asks if they are to get the funds.

end of story.

Are you saying no progress has been made
Posted by slicksterWilly at 2007-04-26 04:05 PM

YEAH!

Um, a 6 fold increase in Global Terrorism and a 30 fold increase in violence in Iraq is not "progress" by any standard!

Having the situation in a permanent freefall isn't "progress" fool!

Any business owner, MBA or borderline retard will confess, after four years of implementation, emergency money injections and mutating "strategy" resulting in a negative isn't a sign of "progress" but proof of miserable failure!

YEAH! I say NO PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE and the results are evident in the returns: Six times the amount of Global Terror attacks since invading and a 30 time increase in deaths since the beginning of the "surge"!

How the fuck you can argue that THIS is progress?!

Halliburton will eventually put enough pressure on the President to sign it. They need their money, and aren't going to let the puppet Bush keep them from getting it.

I still haven't seen a response to this.

If the funding bill does not force Bush to withdraw troops on the timeline, then what is the justification for a veto?
Why would Bush veto a bill that doesn't make him do anything?

Really, Bush could be the big man here if he just signed the bill.
He could say "The bill does not force me to remove the troops, I'm not going to remove the troops, and I'm going to sign their funding bill and give the Democrats their hollow, meaningless political victory."

Why would he veto? He has no cause. What Bush is doing is having a megalomanical diva fit temper tantrum over nothing.

So Moomman want a Congress that will only take actions approved or promised to be approved by the President before hand.

No, but nice try at a strawman. I never said that. In most cases you don't have an overt statement from the President on whether he will sign or not, and many times the President can be brought around to either sign or not based on politics. This, however, was CLEARLY not one of those times.

This was clearly a case of Congress spinning their wheels and trying to convince people that are going somewhere. Looks like you fell for it, MP.

Each time he vetos the bill shows congress he doesn't need the money. It is not in Bush's court, congress just needs to hold their ground.


I disagree. He shows no such thing.

It's like a poor man who owns a house that is paid for, but has no money for food. Then benevolent Moneywar walks along and offers him 3 months worth of food, but in return the poor guy must give Moneywar his house. No way.


Basically, the Democrats are painting themselves into a corner here. They badly want to end the war. However, they claim they support the troops, but not the mission. They don't have the power to end the war, so they cleverly tie support of the troops (approving additional money) with ending the war. Bush says no way and the Democrats end up under-funding the troops, for their own partisan reasons.

As long as the troops are there, they should get what they need. Hell, how much uproar did Rummy's "we go to war with the army we have" comment generate from "pro-troop" Democrats?

Yet, here we are and the Democrats are making troop support contingent upon their own political agenda???


You are wrong, $War. The Dems are looking bad on this one. Real bad.

So if the President says no, Congress should drop the issue?

The President dictates what Congress should pass or attempt to pass?

The Republicans voting on stem-cells was wrong? Same situation.

This was clearly a case of Congress spinning their wheels and trying to convince people that are going somewhere. Looks like you fell for it, MP.

They have the will and support of the people Moonman. You are in the minority.

As the screw get tighter on the financial end the less republicnfundie supporters will post.

They are no longer making money of our government so they will want out.

You are wrong, $War. The Dems are looking bad on this one. Real bad.

See the polls Jeff. You couldn't be more wrong. And with the support they are getting from the people on this issue, the power that you mention is getting closer to hand all the time.

"instead of playing this game, bush could sign the bill."

"instead of playing this game, congress could pass a bill without a timeline...or not pass any funding."

you decide.

It's like a poor man who owns a house that is paid for, but has no money for food. Then benevolent Moneywar walks along and offers him 3 months worth of food, but in return the poor guy must give Moneywar his house. No way.

You made my point exactly, Iraq IS NOT OUR HOME!!!!!!!

They have the will and support of the people Moonman. You are in the minority.

Keep telling yourself that, MP. They only had the support of the people they could bribe. Once it becomes clear that the earmarks will never make it through the President, watch the support go "bye-bye". I don't think we will be seeing this idea of sending the same bill back over and over again come to fruition.

This Legislation has now been passed. It funds the troops and has no binding troop withdrawal.

The one who can keep it from becoming Law, who can refuse to fund the troops, is the President.

It is not ME that I need to tell this to. I get it. I can read. It is the dense people that need to keep hearing it BECAUSE IT IS THE TRUTH:

Asked which side they take in the standoff between Congress and President Bush, the result is not close: 60 percent of Americans side with the Democrats in Congress and 37 percent with the President.

That 37 percent is a persistent figure.

-- 37 percent say if President Bush vetoes the Iraq funding bill, Congress should pass a bill with no timetable for withdrawal. 48 percent favor another bill with a timetable, and 13 percent want Congress to cut almost all funds for Iraq by next year (making a total of 61 percent who favor restrictions on funding).

-- 37 percent want the U.S. to keep troops in Iraq as long as they are needed. 35 percent want the U.S. to begin withdrawing immediately and 26 percent want to see all U.S. troops withdrawn by next March (making a total of 61 percent for withdrawal within a year).

I do not know how I can make it any more clear for you.

You are wrong, $War. The Dems are looking bad on this one. Real bad.

Who are they looking bad to?

Those 26% who want to continue this wasteful spending because those are the few who are making money from this.

Get real, and frankly am surprised you who say your conservative could actually defend Bush here.

Wars never make smaller governments, always larger ones. The difference is who makes money off of it and who doesn't.

If congress holds their ground, they will look like champs. If they wishy washy around on this issue they will surely look like idiots and political hacks.

Hold the line to the bill and Bush will look quite foolish.

See the polls Jeff. You couldn't be more wrong. And with the support they are getting from the people on this issue, the power that you mention is getting closer to hand all the time.

Posted by Manypaths

I have see no poll indicating support for under-funding the troops.


You made my point exactly, Iraq IS NOT OUR HOME!!!!!!!


I did no such thing. It was an analogy.


We are just over a year and a half away from a new presidency. Iraq will be a HUGE issue on the minds of the voters. I fully expect the presidential candidates to make their intentions clear; and the public will vote accordingly.

I don't think we will be seeing this idea of sending the same bill back over and over again come to fruition.

No, next time I want them to reduce the dollar amount and speed up the time line.

instead of playing this game, congress could pass a bill without a timeline...or not pass any funding

This is the action that really should be taken.

but politics get in the way negatively of smart decisions.

I have see no poll indicating support for under-funding the troops.

Well then look up a about 10 inches. All I can do is provide them. I can't help it if you don't look at it.

"instead of playing this game, congress could pass a bill without a timeline...or not pass any funding."

you decide.
Posted by handsome_rob at 2007-04-26 04:38

YEAH!

I don't know about you but timelines and benchmarks don't scare me. I work under them everyday!

I don't now about you but I am not worried with someone measuring my performance, I get feed back from the people I serve and an evaluation by my superiors every year!

I don't know about you but I have never participated in a project of any scope that didn't have a plan, a contingency plan to the plan and benchmarks to assess progress and establish roll-back points in the event of an unforeseen occurrences

But them again, I have been successful in my projects and I actually take responsibility for my actions and inactions and don't fear them being examined

Why do you think they scare the WH so much?

Who are they looking bad to?

Anybody who feels that the troops should get what they need while they are there. That would pretty much be anybody who calls themselves 'Pro-troop'; unless of course they are lying.

No, next time I want them to reduce the dollar amount and speed up the time line.

Good luck on getting enough votes for that one. :-)

Who are they looking bad to?

The 37% among us. We all know who they are. See poll numbers supplied above.

Twice.

37 percent say if President Bush vetoes the Iraq funding bill, Congress should pass a bill with no timetable for withdrawal. 48 percent favor another bill with a timetable,


That's 85% who don't appear to have a real problem with this bill being vetoed.

"Anybody who feels that the troops should get what they need while they are there."

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked.

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want," Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld's response to the question drew quick criticism from one Democratic legislator.

Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut said he sent a letter to Rumsfeld asking whether the military met a self-imposed July 31 deadline to fully armor the troops.

"I understand how you may be forced into a situation earlier than you'd like where you might not have everything you want, but it's now going into the third year," Dodd said.

We are just over a year and a half away from a new presidency. Iraq will be a HUGE issue on the minds of the voters. I fully expect the presidential candidates to make their intentions clear; and the public will vote accordingly.

This issue should not become an election issue, it is counter productive in determining what candidate is going to be best for the nation.

Get a clue, making this an issue for our next president just lays a problem at his feet that this current president should have taken care.

The worst part of any corporate business and money waste is pushing a problem to someone else. Everyone just wipes their hands that push the problem and says woo! glad I don't have to deal with that anymore. It takes guts to deal with failing problems and not push them onto someone else.

That's 85% who don't appear to have a real problem with this bill being vetoed.

And 85% that feel the troops should be funded.

37 percent say if President Bush vetoes the Iraq funding bill, Congress should pass a bill with no timetable for withdrawal. 48 percent favor another bill with a timetable,

Did you fail Math or comprehension Jeff?

Now lets look at that as the whole it was presented to you. You feeble attempt to skew the truth is very telling.

-- 37 percent say if President Bush vetoes the Iraq funding bill, Congress should pass a bill with no timetable for withdrawal. 48 percent favor another bill with a timetable, and 13 percent want Congress to cut almost all funds for Iraq by next year (making a total of 61 percent who favor restrictions on funding).

Ok, 37%, wow there is that number again, think that the President should have his way. Where in your ass did you pull 85% from?

61% favor restrictions.

Anybody who feels that the troops should get what they need while they are there. That would pretty much be anybody who calls themselves 'Pro-troop'; unless of course they are lying.

So how is your dictatorship!!!!


So removing the troops from a bad situation is not supporting the troops?

It would appear in your example I should get a home loan with no strings attached.

Hans,

I think the best, and FAIREST analysis of the equipment situation would be to take the starting point and then measure the improvements made - where did we start and how far have we come.

About 6 months ago I saw some key members of the Pentagon under Congressional inquiry. They laid out where we started and HOW we've advanced. The advancement was rapid and well within reason IMO. I wish I had a transcript to link, as I don't recall the exact figures that were cited.

yes 85% feel it should be funded yes, me included.

Only 37% feel with no restricitions.

The President is playing to the minority and Congress is doing what the majority of us want.

Congress has the Will of the people. Bush has his remaining hang ons. 37%, just like his approval rating. We can never help those remaining 37%.

This issue should not become an election issue, it is counter productive in determining what candidate is going to be best for the nation.

Get a clue, making this an issue for our next president just lays a problem at his feet that this current president should have taken care.

...

It takes guts to deal with failing problems and not push them onto someone else.

So then, if this will be a major problem if not concluded, then why would it not be an election issue? Particulary when you use strong language that "it takes guts" to deal with it...


ManyPaths, if I read the posts above correctly, the 85% they recited was in regard to vetoing THIS bill. Not so much the timetable.

"I think the best, and FAIREST analysis of the equipment situation would be to take the starting point and then measure the improvements made - where did we start and how far have we come."

This reminds me of the story of the 18th century sailor who, in the middle of a terrible storm at sea, rushes up to the deck to grab and secure a loose cannon which otherwise threatened to sink the ship.

The next day the captain brought the entire crew up to the deck where he gave the sailor a medal, then had the sailor hanged from the yardarm.

Why?

Because it was the sailor's responsibility to make sure the cannon was properly secured before the storm.

So removing the troops from a bad situation is not supporting the troops?

Yes, if in the time between now and removal their needs are not met.



It would appear in your example I should get a home loan with no strings attached.

Not at all. Bush, for all of his faults, is holding to his principle. Make troop support and a push for a timeline seperate issues, as long as he remains in office. Like it or not, the Dems lack the power to force an end before Bush's term expires. Therefore, the direction we go in Iraq will become a major campaign issue. In short, the will of the people will largely determine who sits in the Whitehouse starting '09.

In a war of choice there was no reason to need "advancements."

That doesn't make sense. "Choice" doesn't determine the current state of our military. It is what it is.

So then, if this will be a major problem if not concluded, then why would it not be an election issue? Particulary when you use strong language that "it takes guts" to deal with it...

The key is not concluded, which it should have been concluded long ago.

This issue is being forced to the next election not because they are unable to conclude it, it is being forced to gain some measure of more republican votes. That's it.

We are wasting soldiers and money for political hacking.

Gotta run.

My son has soccer practice and then I'll be watching the Red Wings.

Good discussion, all.

huh?

The question was:

"If Bush vetos the funding question....."

What should Congress do?

37% feel Congress should roll over and do what Bush wants. No timeline.

48% suggest sending the bill right back at him with the timeline.

13% want funds slashed.

85% of us want Congress to give Bush the money he asked for, me included. But a majority of that 85%, almost 60% of them want a timeline attached to it.

Tenet came out against the Bush Admin today? Wow. I might read that book.

Go Wings!

"That doesn't make sense."

Of course it does, JeffJ.

We chose the war. We chose when to attack.

Couldn't we have chosen to do it when we were ready?

As in our troops were armed and ready, aleviating the need for an "advancement was rapid and well within reason"?

Hans

Not at all. Bush, for all of his faults, is holding to his principle.

And what principle is that?

You are just shouting out hacking rhetoric that has no backing or actual meaning. Typical.

Stay the course is not a principle, and the fact you think it is opens ones eyes to how truely YOU ARE NOT A CONSERVATIVE, but just another Repofundie hack!

Most people who are in control of funds and push policies for those funds expect data to re-inforce that those funds are doing what is expected. I think the free wheelin war is coming to an end, as it should have at least 2 years ago.

We are doing nothing there but wasting money and lives, if this was a business advanture the funds would have stopped long ago and lay offs would have been complete.

We are still hiring for this, that's your conservative value at work. Do you even understand business practice?

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) missed the vote while on a presidential campaign swing

How convienent.....

That doesn't make sense. "Choice" doesn't determine the current state of our military. It is what it is.

Each time we get a little more insight to the conservative mind, and it get more frightening and less and less business savy.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) missed the vote while on a presidential campaign swing

How convienent.....

And talking about a waste of time.

McCain and campaign......

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) missed the vote while on a presidential campaign swing

And this baghdad bob wants to be our leader!

Surely we can chose people who have the CHARACTER and COURAGE in their CONVICTIONS to stand up for what they think is COMMON SENSE for a COMPETENT vote leading us with CHARISMA through this CRISIS.

Apparent John(baghdad bob)McCain doesn't have these qualities.

"Great plan. Just pull out now. That way all the lives that have already been lost will have been in vain"

Great plan! Pullout responsibly and ASAP. That way no more lives will be lost in vain.

The world simply will not stand by and let the US continue to occupy the ME until the oil runs out.

Learn that.

On Topic?

Good on the Dems for sending Dumbya this funding bill replete with withdrawal date.

If Dumbya doesn't sign it and instead vetoes it, then he is singlehandedly taking America down the wrong path and the blame is solely on his administration.

Despite all right wing talking points to the contrary.

Go get him, Dems!

Be Well.

"patdollard.com

Posted by LastAmerican"

I'm not picking a fight with you today LA, but I just wanted to congratulate you on 2 things.

1. Posting that same lame link over and over and over, on every thread topic you click on
2. Having 14 of your posts deleted in a single day. Is that a record?

Posted by SanAntonioRogue


Yeah, everyone lost something in that encounter. You included. We all lost dignaty.

Hans got a dump, though. He must be devastated.

I was angry and I apologize to all involved; also glad RCade deleted all the posts from when Hans joined the thread.

Damn, did I miss a good knock down drag out LA?

I think it's time to start making the popcorn and break out the beer. Who wants some?

If only Bush 41 had pulled out in time back in '47

"I think it's time to start making the popcorn and break out the beer. Who wants some?"

Ooh! Spud is luff popcorn and Beer.

Wot are we watching here?

Be Well.

Wot are we watching here?

"...but looks like that is a no go...what's a girl to do?"

Perhaps he's just trying to keep hold of what's left of his "dignaty."

"LOL"

Hans

TREES

There's a live feed from MSNBC.com

LOSTAMERICAN

You didn't take my advice about 'Dictionary.com' or writing your posts in MS Word so you can spell check.

'Relavent'? Uh huh. You're really a pimply faced 17 year old aren't you?

AA,

Internet filters, I already tried that. :( :( :(

I'll just have to live vicariously through the postings on the debate.

'Relavent'? Uh huh. You're really a pimply faced 17 year old aren't you?

It must be an emergency, the terrorometer is still reading orange.

well it only took two posts to get them both out...
bush doesnt support the troops because he will veto this surrender....
and all along the dems have been told that if they WASTE ALL THIS TIME that he will veto it and they KNEW THEY DONT HAVE THE VOTES to override it.....and yet they went through it anyway.......and for what...POLITICS!.........and then if there are things that our soldiers need and cant get because of delays in funding they will blame bush for that too......

and this reminds me of something else in another time.....

on the deck of the uss missouri.........japan surrendered......and now the congress of the united states has surrendered....thank God that George Bush is there to tell them no.

If He doesn't sign the Bill for troop funding with Timetable attached how can You declare that Dubya supports the troops?? You can't now can You?? If Dubya isn't doing the will of the people that want to spare more lives lost for naught how can You declare Dubya supports the troops?? Remember this We ARE Dubya's boss. Some people seem to conveniantly forget that I wonder why??

Larry

not politics you say........

well in the grand tradition of dick gephart......when he said that with every percentage point that the market goes down they pick up another house seat...

harry reid has been quoted as saying that the dems will win seats with bad news from the war front...........

and there are alqaida ALL OVER IRAQ who are seeing victory within thier grasps.....even though it will be vetoes they now have the congress of the US on thier side....

despickable and disgusting.......and that starts with a D and it rhymes with Glee.....and its DEMS........

well well......look who is up and about in the dead of night......I would like to tell you that I just got in from a wild night on the town but the truth is that the aches and pains woke me up.,....its hell to get old but it beats the alternative.......

look from the BEGINNING he said that he would veto any bill with that language in it.....and the dems went right through with it for JUST THE REASON YOU ARE SAYING.....they could pin this on him and it would work IF we were still in the land of chronkite where the right just kept bending over and taking it..........

so your spin wont work............

and I still dont for the life of me understand how you can say that people who sign off on the defeat of the american military support them when thier commander in chief doesnt........
more ludicrus political nonsense......

The only WIld Time You have at night is stroking Your remote control and fingering the hole in Your LazyBoy.
As to Your post and somewhat On Topic Yeah it's difficult for Me at times so bare with Me. You are like those in the Vietnam era that didn't want to admit that the United States Fucked up. You continually try and salvage any Face that was lost but can not do so. I know it's difficult for You BLT to acknowledge that this whole shabang is lost down the proverbial shitter but to allow more to die in vain isn't supporting the troops at all. How can You ask the last man to die for a grave mistake BLT?? You tell Me that??

Larry

larry......do you know anything about nam other than textbooks or the liberal media recalling events?

I understand from a couple of shows in cspan and others that there might be a compromise in the offering......where they dont give any dates for surrender but rather some more detailed events or the like to happen at certain times
or something like that........
I was distracted by the film of gere kissing on the muslim babe.........and I see why.....she is not the usual muzzeled muslim women.......

just take some time and listen to general pretorius....he was on charlie rose last night and on the news all over from his breifing.....this war is not lost.....

well it wasnt until congress surrendered last night.

pain medication taking effect..........

am gettinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggg
g


sleeppppppppppyyyyyyyyyyyyyy


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

what????

now I know I have to go....

lauren freeman.....a news babe is on and then there is jennifer the traffic lady....
only reason to kick either out of bed is that there is more room on the floor......

woof!!!!!!!!!!

later

""harry reid has been quoted as saying that the dems will win seats with bad news from the war front...........""

Perhaps a link????
I need to see that before I take your word for it.

"lauren freeman.....a news babe is on and then there is jennifer the traffic lady....
only reason to kick either out of bed is that there is more room on the floor......

woof!!!!!!!!!!

later Posted by bushlovertwo"

Somewhere just now an unexpected chill ran down both of these ladies spines causing them to shudder with some vague sense of impending horror. LOL

"I was distracted by the film of gere kissing on the muslim babe.........and I see why.....she is not the usual muzzeled muslim women......."

You must be really overmedicated this time BL2. She's an Indian actress - not a Muslim woman.

a waste of time for everyone concerned -political posturin
jasman

Danni,

harry reid has been quoted as saying that the dems will win seats with bad news from the war front...........""

Perhaps a link????
I need to see that before I take your word for it.

Posted by danni


Hannity was talking about it on his radio show last week. I only caught a few minutes of his show and he was already in mid-tirade over Reid's alleged words - I presumed at the time that he played a sound-bite first (Hannity has a lot of sound bites) and then responded. I just went to his web-site and wasn't able to find a transcript. Sorry, no link.

well I heard someone say that Cheney laughed at teh death of US soldiers, saying and I quote "SUCKERS!"

JeffJ - Here is what Reid actually said - from the WSJ:

"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding."

--Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, April 12.

Nothing sinister there, except in people like Hannity's minds. Seats were gained in '06. He's stating that the continuation of the war will result in more seats gained in '08. True dat.

Sanantonio,

Thanks for that.


I can easily see how someone who views the Democratic party through a lens of cynicism could find Reid's comment offensive.

I heard bush say about Jeff Gannon and I quote:

"mmmmm Manflesh!"

"Fuck money for the troops

That is going to look great in the history books."
--MANYPATHS

Why won't Congress just cut funding themselves instead of trying to get Bush to do it for them?

Oh wait, I forgot, they're playing politics with the lives of our troops.

Sanantonio,

This is one instance where text doesn't do the quote justice. Vocal inflections would go a long way in helping assess where Reid was coming from.


Was he simply making what he felt to be a factual statement?

Or did he get some perverse sense of glee that bad goings-on in Iraq would result in more power for his party?


Actually, I don't know if hearing his words would help much, given how monotone his delivery is.

Hey I heard someone say that Condi said and I quote

"Al Sharpton is one nappy headed ho"

I heard bush say about Jeff Gannon and I quote:

"mmmmm Manflesh!"

That's not what I heard....
It was more like

"How many licks does it take to reach the creamy center of a Jeffy-pop?

One...two...three...(SPLOOOOGE !!!)
Three!!!!

See, I did learn something at Yale....

"Oh wait, I forgot, they're playing politics with the lives of our troops."
--MYSELF

Not that Bush and the republicans aren't doing the same.

I think he would earn a purple heart for that.

"Actually, I don't know if hearing his words would help much, given how monotone his delivery is."

You might be right about that Jeff. He's not exactly a firecracker of a speaker.

However, I think what you said initially about viewing the statement through a cynical lens (as Hannity often does) is probably appropriate in this case.

However, I think what you said initially about viewing the statement through a cynical lens (as Hannity often does) is probably appropriate in this case.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue


It all depends on which side of the aisle one resides, Rogue.

I've seen many comments, on both sides, draw ire that were probably undeserving.

"Actually, I don't know if hearing his words would help much, given how monotone his delivery is."

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2007-04-27 12:51 PM

What is it with the Dems choosing who should lead the Senate? Both Daschle and Reid have got to be the most feminine, soft spoken Mr Rogers like bores in the Senate.

BTW SanAntonio I went back and looked at a post correcting my statment regarding the appointing of Kenneth Starr. Wanted to let you know you were 100% accurate.

Thanks Crisp.

I don't know what it is with these political leaders either. Frist and Dole were pretty bad too, as was George Mitchell. What happened to the days of the real firebrands in the Senate like LBJ and Mike Mansfield?

Thank you congress for listening to the American people.
And this will be the only time you see me say this, THANK YOU GWB for promising to veto. If you don't do it now, you are weak and the dems walked all over you. If you do veto you ensure a dem victory in 08 by going against the American public, so please keep towing the line for you 30% base, so the rest of the 70% of America can make the change in 08 for something GREAT.

It's a WIN WIN for DEMS.

"What happened to the days of the real firebrands in the Senate like LBJ and Mike Mansfield?"

If you are a real firebrand then sometimes you make off the cuff remarks which just don't float in the PC world we are in today. Right or wrong that is where we are. The real shame is where have all the great speakers gone. I found it interesting watching the dem debate review last night and everyone on the panel was saying "imagine what Clinton would have done here". I have to agree, he was great with his words(except a little fib). He spoke and many a person listened and still do.

Agreed Lib. He was really the Great Communicator. Obama has some of that when he gives a speech, but it was really lacking last nite. Richardson seemed really uncomfortable for some reason. But Gravel was the star of the evening!

take a good look at this bill 79 billion out of 125 billion goes to continue the war the rest is pork -that fact alone should get this bill vetoed -the deadline and withdrawl issues are non bindin -are they jus a suggestion ?
jasman

take a good look at this bill 79 billion out of 125 billion goes to continue the war the rest is pork -that fact alone should get this bill vetoed -the deadline and withdrawl issues are non bindin -are they jus a suggestion ?
jasman

""It's a WIN WIN for DEMS.""

It's still a lose lose for our troops in Iraq.

"take a good look at this bill 79 billion out of 125 billion goes to continue the war the rest is pork -that fact alone should get this bill vetoed"

If you really believe that Jas, then the previous 2 requests rubber stamped by a Republican Congress should have been vetoed too, right? For example:

The president's 2006 request last year for emergency war spending included such things $2.3 billion for bird flu preparations. This was only 1 of many pork attachments.

The 2005 emergency war-spending bill had attached to it $12.3 million for the Architect of the Capitol, in part to build an off-site delivery facility for the Capitol police, and $104 million for watershed protection -- the lion's share meant for repairing the damage to waterways in Washington County, Utah, at the request of the state's Republican senators. Again, just a couple of the many pork projects included.

What say you?

WE wouldn't even be having this conversation if Bush/Cheney hadn't rushed to war. George Tenet, former CIA head says (see thread) 'Slam Dunk' was 'distorted' by Bush to mean something other than intended. Meanwhile, the real war on terror suffered:

"The book recounts C.I.A. efforts to fight Al Qaeda in the years before the Sept. 11 attacks, and Mr. Tenet's early warnings about Osama bin Laden. He contends that the urgent appeals of the C.I.A. on terrorism received a lukewarm reception at the Bush White House through most of 2001.

"It's still a lose lose for our troops in Iraq."

You are absolutely correct Danni, and I would never try to marginalize the troop loss. I think it's shameful(and damn near borders on a war crime) if info was purposely manipulated and twisted to create a case for this war(as I believe was done).

When Bush (I'm assuming there is no IF) vetoes the bill, it returns to the Congress.

Bush may suffer in the news about his veto, but the next news story will be Congress trying to overturn it.

If the Democrats want the war to end, what will they promise the Republicans in Congress that isn't in this bill?

They bribed their own party members to vote for it, what will they offer the R's?

Where do you stand?

Soapbox #1: No matter what - withdrawal now -no waiting. This means, withdrawal before end of May 2007.

Soapbox #2: Maybe we'll win with what is in Iraq. Maybe not. Either way, we'll leave someday before the 08 elections. Even if there is great progress and the country is just about to survive on its own and control the country-we will be out of there no matter what.

Soapbox #3: We're there so we might as well make the best of the situation.

Soapbox #4: Win and spend what ever it takes to do it.

I hate hearing politicians say that we're not getting the right results. If you want results, then you shouldn't be looking at withdrawal but overpowering the enemy.

If you don't want results, good or bad, withdrawal by the end of May 2007.

"This was only 1 of many pork attachments."

You can't expect anything else from people who have the power to tax our incomes without regard to enumeration to provide for the general welfare. Politicians must have these powers under a liberal mindset. Complaint against it does nothing to change it. removal of the power is the only remedy, but that would also dis-allow all the social programs every liberal loves. So, it's a necessary evil.

Whose Side Is Pelosi On?

Nancy Pelosi and her band of impostors masquerading as congressional lawmakers should resign in shame after adding all that pork to the military appropriations bill to get votes. Congress may call it partisan gamesmanship but they sold their votes! I feel they are guilty of bribery.

The congressional armchair generals want to publish a pullout date for our troops so that terrorists will know when we will leave for Kuwait. I think the terrorist factions will be right behind us all the way to Kuwait, inflicting as much damage to life and equipment as possible. The road to Kuwait will be a rocky one. What would make one think that terrorism will stop at the Kuwait border? Thank you, Nancy Pelosi and crew, you have done a wonderful job of trying to guarantee failure.

"They bribed their own party members to vote for it, what will they offer the R's?"

Dems won't have to, the American public will do what they did in the last election and hand them a one way pass out of congress.

You also forgot

Soapbox #5 Spend whatever, stay however long, fight a fight that is always going to be there.

Soapbox #6 Return home, improve/create security here, put a person with a brain in white house. Watch terrorist screw with other countries, take out terrorist at opportune times, re-earn our standing in global community, get true coalition together to eradicate terrorist.

But hey, when you have tunnel vision like GW those boxes that get thought in are pretty small, huh.

JJ,

Lay of the rush kool-aid, but your post did make me laugh. It's probably teh type of dreams Karl Loathe has every night(at least after the Gannon, Bush, Loathe wobbly-H one).

LM

"You can't expect anything else from people who have the power to tax our incomes without regard to enumeration to provide for the general welfare. Politicians must have these powers under a liberal mindset. Complaint against it does nothing to change it. removal of the power is the only remedy, but that would also dis-allow all the social programs every liberal loves. So, it's a necessary evil."

Righties talking bout pork(watch out teh Muslims will get you), by the way have you righties got your Bridge to Narnia built yet??

Or the people in power who have the ability to wage irresponsible and illegal wars, spend money recklessly so your children are slaves to china, outsource our securit so the terrorist can walk into America un-impedded.

Again now who is Loony??

SanAntonioRogue
for health reasons a lot of people don't eat pork ---almost any bill that goes up to pres contains large amounts of pork -pork is used to bribe the other party reward your particular area ---why don't you think the pres.don't have a line item veto-most governors have a lo and behold states run surpluses-
it's not one party but both parties who spend money to keep their voters in line and drinkin the koolaid
jasman

Great plan. Just pull out now. That way all the lives that have already been lost will have been in vain.
Posted by the_nether

Losing a mate, a child, a grandchild, is terrible... a burden that will always live with a family.

Something over 50,000 soldiers died in Vietnam... another politically staged conflict...