House passes war appropriations bill - Chimpy throws a hissy fit

because actually trying to get them home wouldn't be best?

 

seeing how the vast majority of troops want a timetable, it would seem that it is the democrats who are actually trying to do whats best for them. it is bush who is playing politics with this issue.

the majority of iraqis, american troops and american citizens want to end this illegal and immoral war - it is you and bush who are in the minority and the ones going against the troops.

 

Except that the bill doesn't really set a timetable. It puts a date for withdrawal, but it has so many ways around it that it basically says, "Bring the troops home, unless they should stay." And to get that "withdrawal date" put into the appropriations bill, the Democrats had to bribe their congressman and a few Republicans with pork. It's a purely political issue on both sides. Pelosi might be the only person in the world who deals in rhetoric more than Bush.

 

Spin, spin, spin...

 

not necessarily. not when you look at the long term.

the vast majority of troops probably want a keg and some strippers...it doesnt mean that you give it to them. troops are troops. they serve and do what they are told. its not a democracy.

lol. thats some good spin. do you write for politicians.

excellent points. But people dont want to hear valid points, they want to toss around words like immoral, illegal, lies, etc etc

 

getting off topic a bit. this thread is about a bill that was proposed, right? not about the justness of the war. but about what to do about it now as far as the bill is concerned.

 

why is that, because bush has screwed this thing up so badly that they might have to be sent back? because if your argument is that they might have to be sent back, I hope you acknowledge why that is.

 

Cynic's Guide to this issue:

Everyone knows Bush's vision of the war will not come to pass. Everyone knows it is a huge cluster and there are no good options and certainly none that meet the administration's idea of "victory."

The war is, on an individual level, identified solely with Bush and on a group level, primarily with Republicans and is bogging down Repubs tremendously while setting them up for a return to the minority that will last a political generation.

Given this, odds are good that a Dem will be the next President.

The only way to keep the GOP from getting completely tarred with Iraq for the next several election cycles is to have the Dems take ownership of it. The only way that will happen is if there is still a war when the Dem Pres is sworn in. That Pres will have to pull out and anything bad that happens after that, even if predicted beforehand, can be blamed on the Dem President and give the GOP room to sow confusion in the next cycle.

Bush and Co. are trying to extend the war through the next election for that reason. Dems are trying to end it before Jan. 2009 for that reason. Some sane Repubs (Jim Baker ) wanted the war gone before the 2008 election to give Repubs a better chance, but they obviously lost the argument.

 

a lot of people made mistakes and bad judgments about this war, lets try not to pretend this was all b/c of one man...but i've had this talk with others and it fell on deaf ears. I guess people just feel more assured by having a face as the cause of a problem

not b/c they might get sent back, which could very well be the case in another 10-15 years, but its that the success or failure of iraq to sustain a relatively free country is very important not only for itself but for the middle east in general.

 

A lot of people did make mistakes. But the responsibility of it falls on one man's shoulders. furthermore when it became apparent that all of the others made mistakes, one man refused to hold them accountable. He even rewarded and promoted some of them.

 

i dont know why you post these quotes, its soapbox fodder with some catchy rhetoric...no doubt a 'skill' loved by many on here.

 

I agree with your analysis. The problem is is that GW Bush is still head of one co-equal branch of government and as long as he remains so the situation isn't likely going to change.

I don't like the dragging out of the war but I don't think Congress can succeed now in ending the war and have already stated the problems I have with the current Senate and House bills. At this point what I would like to see is passage of funding along with a sense of Congress resolution, which cannot be vetoed, stating that US troops should be withdrawn. To me while the war ends up continuing at least Congress is on record regarding the war.

 

the true irony is that the same people who want to spread blame around are the same people in this very thread even, who say war is the presiden's responsibility.

 

what?!?! a grin?!?! string him up!

 

dont call me skippy. but i should expect such class from you.