House passes war appropriations bill - Chimpy throws a hissy fit

So we should just allow this to be a complete mess until the next pres?

 

well the mess doesnt automatically go away in a few months.

wouldnt it be nice if he/she set their own withdrawl plans?

 

when did an exit strategy become the defining element of military doctrine? i'm reasonably certain clauswitz, alexander, sherman, patton, zhukov, et al, never gave a fig about any "exit strategy" short of "victory".

 

I agree. I think that months of massive sustained losses followed by a flanking manuever will really whip that Iraq place into shape and force the opposing army to flee in chaos.

PS - Chuikov was the real hero of Stalingrad as far as generals go. I guess you fall for propaganda regardless of who's pitching it, no?

 

yeah, who needs an exit strategy? I mean even calling it "strategy" is questionable. There is nothing non-strategic about getting in, and having no idea of how to get the troops out. What could be wrong about that.

Of course the Generals you mentioned weren't in a comparable situation, so talking about their exit strategies or lack their of is irrelevant.

 

By all means, basso. Bring up some great strategists from World War II, along with von Clausewitz, of the many wars against revolutionary and Napoleonic France, and Alexander, for whatever reason, unless you meant the British general, Field Marshal Harold Rupert Leofric George Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis, KG, OM, GCB, GCSI, GCMG, GCVO, DSO, MC, LL.D, PC. Whatever. Why not Earl Alexander? After all, he led the retreat of the British forces to Dunkirk, and was the last British soldier to split. Highly appropriate. In fact, I would say he was one of the finest examples of a leader who knew when to leave. Good show.



All due credit to Wikipedia for the full name and honors of General Alexander.



D&D. A Room Full of Idiots.

 

Of course, ALL of those generals actually had a definition of "victory." If we even had that, the Democrats might not feel it necessary to put some limits and accountability into a supplemental funding bill.

Personally, I think there should be limits and accountability attached to each and every dollar the government spends.

 

dont you find this statement a tad hypocritical, given that anytime someone compares iraq to any other military venture (vietnam?) you get your panties all in a wad?

how do you define "victory" in iraq?

and you do realize that the majority of troops and the american public want to end this asap?

 

Ron Paul's take on this version, plus the Constitutional solution, if anyone cares:


Getting Iraq War Funding Wrong Again

April 30, 2007

This week, Congress finalized the controversial $124 billion Iraq emergency supplemental spending bill, with the House and Senate both voting in favor of final passage. The majority of my Republican colleagues and I voted against this measure, and the president has vowed to veto the legislation.

In this final version, the House leadership retained billions of dollars in pork meant to attract skeptical votes, retained a watered-down version of the problematic “benchmarks” that seek to micromanage the war effort, and continued to play politics with the funding of critical veterans medical and other assistance. In other words, this final version was even worse than the original in almost all respects.

As I wrote when this measure first came before the House, we have to make a clear distinction between the Constitutional authority of Congress to make foreign policy, and the Constitutional authority of the president, as commander in chief, to direct the management of any military operation. We do no favor to the troops by micromanaging the war from Capitol Hill while continuing to fund it beyond the president’s request.

If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense. If one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war, without a constitutional declaration, voting against funding for that war makes equally good sense. What occurred, however, was the worst of both. Democrats, dissatisfied with the way the war is being fought, gave the president all the money he asked for and more to keep fighting it, while demanding that he fight it in the manner they see fit. That is definitely not a recipe for success in Iraq and foreign policy in general.

What is the best way forward in Iraq? Where do we go from here? First, Congress should admit its mistake in unconstitutionally transferring war power to the president and in citing United Nations resolutions as justification for war against Iraq. We should never go to war because another nation has violated a United Nations resolution. Then we should repeal the authority given to the president in 2002 and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then we should start bringing our troops home in the safest manner possible.

Though many will criticize the president for mis-steps in Iraq and at home, it is with the willing participation of Congress, through measures like this war funding bill, that our policy continues to veer off course. Additionally, it is with the complicity of Congress that we have become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrolled spying on the American people. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true.

link to genius

 

this guy would make an excellent president. he is so right on just about everything - if only he had more exposure.

 

A great read....bring em home and defund the war.

DD

 

I like Ron Paul. I met him once at the college where I work, he gave me an autographed pocket Constitution. I would vote for him, but he is too libertarian to get the GOP nod.

 

does anyone know how likely it will be to get the veto overturned? is there any chance at all?

 

AP story lead ...

Bush Vetoes Troop Withdrawal Bill

Such complete and total ownage by the WH wrt message. Bush vetoed a troop funding bill that included a call for accountability.

 

Look at the title of the article. Bush vetoed a troop withdrawl bill that included troop funding, not a funding bill that included a call for accountability. The solution is simple, since everyone wants the troops funded. Send two bills, one with the money, and nothing else, the other with the withdrawl timeline and whatever other crap they want to tack on, if such a bill would even have the votes.

 

Look, TJis just having a hard time with girls. When eventually a girl says" "I'm not busy doing my laundry etc" and goes out with him, he will like girls again.

Give him a break.