House passes war appropriations bill - Chimpy throws a hissy fit

when the majority of the iraqis want us to leave are we not giving them a big "f-you" by continuing to occupy their country?

i know how much you dislike "polls", but they show that the vast majority of americans, iraqis and american military want to leave. you and bush are in the minority.

 

how do you prove that you dont have something? i suppose since we cant prove that leprechauns and unicorns dont exist, by tradertexx and bush's standards they must.

criticizing bush does not equal criticizing the troops. you know this. it is you, tradertexx, who is not supporting the troops. you are advocating for policies which the majority of the troops are against. you support a president who cuts veterans benefits. you support a president who puts people thru mulitple tours of duty without proper rest. my cousin is getting ready to leave for his 3RD TOUR in afghanistan. that is more demoralizing to him than anything any "liberals" say. you slander the families of troops who have been killed in battle, like the tillmans. you are pro-torture, which the military says is harmful and not an effective way to gather info.

 

I don't agree with his characterization of the actions of the anti-war crowd, but why lower yourself to the name calling level, especially taking your erstwhile catchphrase into account. I'm going to drop this, because it isn't that big of a deal, it just seemed out of character.

 

Typical Deckard. I don't call him names, he then responds by calling me juvenile names, then he attempts to retreat to the 'moral high ground'. That's a very strange line of reasoning on his part...

 

Well, I didn't realize "wanker" was so god-awful. One would think being accused of aiding the enemy, lying and the like was quite a bit worse, but I understand where you're coming from and will keep it in mind, even if it is Trader_J and his slanders that are the subject of my rebuttal.



D&D. Slander in Space.

 

Hey Leprechauns exist and I got proof here:

 

It's not so god-awful, it's Limey for jerkoff.

 

the bill is also a wakeup call to any of those who wish to gain power in iraq...just wait a little while longer and the US will be gone. Its never a wise idea to tell enemies what you're going to do and when. and i think thats what it ultimately comes down to.

 

War powers
President Bush has no reason to object to a tentative timetable for getting our troops out of Iraq.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4685919.html

THE U.S. Constitution dooms Congress and the White House to tussle over foreign policy. The contention has rarely been more visible.

President Bush wants Congress, now controlled in both houses by Democrats, to authorize the spending of about $100 billion in new money on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the president threatens to veto any bill that cuts off funds at a certain date, sets a timetable for withdrawal or "tells our generals how to run a war."

The last objection is curious, given that Bush and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld overruled the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and invaded Iraq with about 150,000 troops instead of 400,000. Neither the House nor Senate version of the war funds bill dictates strategy or tactics, although each seeks the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by either April or September 2008.

As a Chronicle editorial noted last year, a flexible, nonbinding timetable for withdrawal would serve useful purposes: It would let the Iraqi government know it couldn't postpone indefinitely the serious negotiations and political accommodation necessary to end the insurgency and sectarian murders. Also, a timetable would assure all Iraqis and the rest of the world that the United States has no intention of permanently occupying Iraq. Even Saudi King Abdullah, ostensibly a U.S. ally, recently disapproved of the U.S. occupation, now in its fifth year.

Bush says a timetable would undercut support for our troops. It is difficult to see how limiting our troops' exposure to harm's way and returning them home to their families is less supportive than keeping them indefinitely at risk from bullets, roadside bombs and suicide fanatics that U.S. forces have been unable to defeat.

Few things show the chasm between rhetoric and reality better than the recent visit of a congressional delegation to a Baghdad market. Accompanied by 100 U.S. troops in armored vehicles and attack helicopters, senators led by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., pronounced the market normal and safe. As the local merchants pointed out, if it were safe, extraordinary security precautions would be unnecessary.

What the president wants is support for his conduct of the war, support that only a few Americans still extend. The votes they cast in November gave Democrats the political power to exert constitutional authority to declare war and end financial support for it.

Bush is correct to reject Democrats' inclusion of billions of dollars of domestic pork in the war-spending bills. In conference committee, the participants should pare this spending or forfeit the ability to criticize the administration's policy of borrow and spend, and the resultant deficits. If Democrats want a voice in foreign policy, they shouldn't mix war and withdrawal with pork and partisanship.

 

they had a good discussion about this on larry king live, with lou dobbs as the host. It was refreshing, not too much finger pointing, just good solid analysis of the situation. But i was glad to see that others were frustrated that this political game was being played with funding.

 

On my local NPR station they are currently having a call in show on this subject with guest Larry Korb Senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a senior adviser to the Center for Defense Information and former assistant Sec. of Defense and Thomas Hammes retired Marine Colonel. I posed the question regarding how Constitutional it was for Congress to write in timelines and benchmarks into legislation regarding battlefield strategy and here was there reply.

They both felt Congress had the right to do it but weren't sure that they should. Larry Korb put it that Congress is Article I and the President Article II so Congress takes precendence over the Executive he had some reservations though. Hammes said Congress has the right and added that Congress had made a moral mistake to cede war making powers to the Executive in 2002 and now needed to address that but he said that he didn't feel this was a good instrument to address this but also didn't feel that timelines were a good idea.

I didn't ask a followup question because I wanted to hear their answers and they were running out of time for that segment but I don't agree with Korb's view that because Congress is listed first in the Constitution while the President second that Congress has precedence over the Presidency. They are co-equal branches with the Judicial branch. Hammes didn't explain what he thought was a better instrument to address the situation than these bills and in my question I did mention that to me the Constitutional solution would be to rescind authorization. I'm not sure if they caught that and were just considering the funding questions.

[edit]I mistakenly had their positions reversed. Larry Korb thinks we should withdraw. Col. Hammes while thinking that the occupation is very problematic is leery of withdrawl due to possibly bigger problems.[/edit]

 

If so, it also gives time for the neighborhood-by-neighborhood security push to work. If the terrorists do try to wait it out, it'll give the Iraqi government a chance to establish order. Once that order is established, if the terrorists do try to attack again, the Iraqi government will be more ready to defend itself.

 

Except that the President is the Commander and Chief not Congress and the Executive branch is set up so that the Pentagon answers to the Secretary of Defense who answers to the President. The Pentagon doesn't answer directly to Congress.

The election in November didn't give the Democrats constitutional authority. Congress always had the power to declare war and to end financial support the question is though in what way to do it.

 

thats a good point as well, although will 'more ready' still be enough?

 

good points sishir

 

Mrs. rimrocker: AIIIEEE! He's figured out a way to come out in the sun!

 

or, come to the white house so you can actually do whats best for the troops, not your elections next year.

that seems to be the bottom line, and its hard to find fault in that statement. even for the most rapid opponent