House passes war appropriations bill - Chimpy throws a hissy fit

^^^
Total sack of lies right there, folks. Congress authorized the war, including many Democratic Congressmen. The burden of proof was on Saddam, not us to confirm that there were no WMD. He didn't prove it, didn't cooperate, and the US did the only thing they prudently could, which was they wisely didn't take him blindly at his word (how quickly the libs are willing to blindly follow the words of a tyrannical murderer...).

Instead of waving the white flag and handing victory to the terrorists on a silver platter, how about we allow the surge to work, finish the job, and secure our position in the Middle East? How about supporting the troops by encouraging them, not criticizing their every effort? How about not attempting to bring the US Military down from within by spreading negative propaganda based on lies and half-truths?

Revisionist History. It's easier to make up lies that fit your thesis than to accurately report history

 

What does the reason for the war have to do with what we do from here on out? If they had found a nuke in Saddam's palace, would this bill not exist? Would things be so different in Iraq? Arguing about whether we sould have gone to war in the first place is pointless, as we already did it. The reasons for starting the war don't matter any more. Now, we should make decisions based on what we want to happen from this point forward. If you think that Iraq will best be served by America pulling out now (or in Oct. '08 for some reason) fine. Maybe you think that Iraq will not be better off, but it is not worth the money, or the soldiers to stay, and that is your prerogative. I think we should persevere. Either way, the bill is not about funding the troops, it is a decision on continuing the war (and lining the poockets of some contributors), the funding was just tied to it to coerce the president into signing it. That line-item veto would look really good right now. Make two bills, one for funding, the other for the pullouts, and I guarantee that Bush signs the funding bill.

 

If the current admin even had an exit strategy, I would not support this bill as fully, but by all accounts, there is not an exit strategy in place and as such, a timeline is appropriate.

 

He can sue Congress which would be a very cumbersome way of addressing it when he has the veto pen.

 

Even if it were, it would be FAR more accurate than anything we were told by the admin when they were drumming up support for the war.

Yep, the Dems failed in their oversight before the war started. Their opposition would not have made much difference given the GOP rubber-stamp Congress, but miracle of miracles, you have found something that we agree on.

And he was in the middle of "prov[ing] it" and had weapons inspectors in country verifying what we finally found was true: There were no WMDs in Iraq. He was cooperating, but we kicked the inspectors out in order to invade.

pru·dent /ˈprudnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prood-nt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. wise or judicious in practical affairs; sagacious; discreet or circumspect; sober.
2. careful in providing for the future; provident: a prudent decision.

Based on that definition, the prudent action would have been to allow the weapons inspectors to finish their work, report on the state of WMD activities in Iraq, and act based on complete information.

Instead, we kicked out the weapons inspectors and invaded.

Words that proved more accurate than anything GWB said in the lead up to the invasion. It must suck to revere a man who has been proven to be less honest than Saddam Hussein.

I forget, is this about setting up a secure country or "secur[ing] our position in the Middle East?" After Iraq is secure, it is pretty evident that the Iraqis will not want us based there.

How about supporting the troops by providing for their medical care when they get wounded, not deploying them into combat four and five times, and not serving them with stop-loss orders after their enlistment term is up?

Yes it sure is. I wish the GOP would stop doing that s***.

 

...
If there is a conflict, the courts will resolve it. That is their place in our system.[/quote]

If these bills pass I would like to see them taken up by the courts as I feel this is a very important Constitutional point regarding the seperation of powers. I don't feel it will as the veto pen is the easiest and most direct way for the Executive to challenge it. If the Veto could be overridden I would like to see the courts address it.

They might've been elected to end the war but their oath is to serve the Constitution. I don't believe they are serving the Constitution by overstepping the separation of powers. As I said though there are Constitutional ways of doing so.

 

Or, he could sign it to get the money for the troops, then allow the case to move through the courts over the next 18 months. They are not talking about pulling troops out tomorrow.

 

You are correct. I was sloppy with my language and should've said "strategy."

That said the bills as is do interfere with battlefield strategy as logistics have to be considered as part of strategy. Because logistics are limited the timing of achieving any objective is very determinate on the logistics. By setting a deadline and / or battlefield objectives Congress is interfering with battlefield strategy.

The problem is that Congress might not be giving them enough time to implement a strategy that the generals think will work. They might feel that in that timeframe it is logistically impossible to implement a successful strategy.

 

lo·gis·tics /loʊˈdʒɪstɪks, lə-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[loh-jis-tiks, luh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun (used with a singular or plural verb)
1. the branch of military science and operations dealing with the procurement, supply, and maintenance of equipment, with the movement, evacuation, and hospitalization of personnel, with the provision of facilities and services, and with related matters.
2. the planning, implementation, and coordination of the details of a business or other operation.

_______________________________________________________________


I don't think logistics have anything to do with it either and I continue to dispute your notion that a timeline interferes with setting strategy for operations. What this bill does is simply start a countdown. If things improve and we just need some more time, I am certain that Congress will respond and extend the date. If things stay the same or get worse, we should begin leaving.

 

Its funny you should bring up revisionist history.

Let me take you back to Fall of 2002 and winter of 2003. Cue the Outkast and Blink 182 Soundtrack.

The UN Security Council in the Fall passed Resolution 1441 that sent weapons inspectors into Iraq. Saddam Hussein complied and the inspectors were given unprecedented access to Iraq. After a few months the inspectors were prepared to present a report saying that Iraq had been substantially disarmed but were also willing to plan on staying and continuing further investigation. Under the terms of 1441 the Security Council was required to have another vote on the findings of the inspectors and on whether Iraq had met the terms of 1441. The US, Britain and Spain fearing that they could not outrightly win a vote and would be forced vetoing a vote where they were the minority instead pulled out of the process and decided to go through with an invasion. The UN pulled out the inspectors when it was clear they weren't going to be allowed to finish their jobs because the US Coalition was going to invade not because Saddam wasn't cooperating.

The point of the trip down memory lane is that it was the US Coalition and not Saddam who stopped the process begun under Resolution 1441.

 

Logistics by the definition provided has everything to do with it as all of those things cited have to do with the timing of getting supplies and personel. For instance both Hitler and Napolean thought they could defeat Russia but were undone because their intended rapid time frame didn't allow for sufficient resupply in comparison to how far they planned on striking into Russia.

Now Petraus has to consider the rotations of bringing in more personel in country and maintaining adequate resupply, maintanance and training to adequately carry out a successful mission in Iraq, logistics. He might not be able to accomplish that in the time frame given to him. Yet Congress is forcing him to make that decision and as so interfering with his battlefield strategy.

 

They might have sweared to serve the Constitution. But who decides whether they serve the Constitution? Apparently Bush doesn't think the Congress passed an unconstitutional bill. Otherwise, he should take it down thru other route (what route?) instead of a veto.

 

You're such a silly little wanker, Trader_J, you poor thing. Sishir posted what I would have, in the main, so I won't bother.

Cheers!



D&D. Space Cadet.

 

Deckard,

Email me through the site.

HS

 

I don't think the name calling was necessary.

 

"Total sack of lies right there... "

"how quickly the libs are willing to blindly follow the words of a tyrannical murderer... "

"waving the white flag and handing victory to the terrorists on a silver platter... "

"How about not attempting to bring the US Military down from within by spreading negative propaganda based on lies and half-truths?"


You're right. His language was unnecessary.



D&D. Hollow Spaces.

 

Did you get that from Wonkette?

I thought it was hilarious.



What's he doing over there?