House passes war appropriations bill - Chimpy throws a hissy fit

I agree completely. This Presidency has abused the Constitution. Just because he has doesn't mean that Congressional Democrats should.

 

Do you know how many RPGs or IEDs 20 large will buy?

I still can not see the BFD of saying "we have been in Iraq 4 years and plan to leave in 2 years". If we really can not get it done in 6 years, adding more years is not a solution.

I actually like the idea that the Congress is telling Bush that he is responsible for cleaning up his mess before he gets out of office. His legacy will depend on how his plan going forward works out. Bush being held responsible for his actions? Nothing short of being a failed President would force his hand of "stay the course".

Worst President Ever.

 

you dont - but it should be taken into consideration. the fact that a vast majority of the troops serving want to end the occupation should be a pretty clear indicator of how the people who are there see the war going.

ok - so what about my first point. a vast majority of the iraqis want us to leave asap. if it is a democracy - their democracy, shouldnt we respect their wishes?

a democracy is about following the wishes of the majority and a clear majority of the iraqis, the american public and the american military want to end the occupation.

 

yes he has, and if this country really followed the rule of law he and his entire administration would already be in prison. bush has violated the constitution which he took an oath to uphold. by definition, he has committed treason.

torture, lying us into a war, illegal spying and wiretapping, north american union, amnesty for illegals, the military commissions act, $2.6 billion on fake news stories and propaganda (each one of these hundreds of instances is a felony, if im not mistaken).

 

In the W's signing statement to the above oath, the statement said that he was just kidding. Executive Privilege has its rewards.

Worst President Ever.

 

Just a refresher for everyone...

 

^ Thank you Rimrocker for posting that as I was going to post some of those exact same citations myself. All of those still support the Constitutional argument that Congress can start, and end, a war but they shouldn't dictate battlefield strategy. Those citations affirm that Congress has the right to review and if they decide to to terminate military action but still emphasize that the President is Commander and Chief.

 

Yep, which is what they are doing, well part of what they are doing.

DD

 

To elaborate further I did want to address a few things in the Federalist Paper's citation.

The limits on this power have been superceded by the War Powers Acts which grants the President the power to use military force in the case of an emergency without Congressional resolution. This is a limited power though and the President still has to submit to Congressional authorization within a 100 days but with the War Powers Act the President for all practical matters does have command of the militia (military since there was no standing army at the time of the Federalists Papers) at all times.

Quoted for emphasis regarding that the President is the one who determines battlefield strategy and not Congress.

Addressing the other portion. "Raising" pertains to a draft as the power to press people into service wasn't considered something that could be left to the executive. "Regulating" is more complicated and from the Constitution and the other Federalist Papers seems to imply that it has to do with providing a legal framework for the military. IE uniform code of military justice and also vesting a legal basis for use of the military. It doesn't though seem to apply to specific strategy and off the top of my head I can't recall an instance where Congress passed a resolution dictating battlefield strategy. I could be wrong but am not aware of that ever happening.

 

The American people elected the democrats with a clear agenda, bring our troops home

i dont believe that to be so. I think america elected democrats b/c they were not bush. simple as that. people are so blindly anti-bush they dont care what the other side is.

 

Certainly so - and that's going to be the case no matter what, unfortunately. But I feel you're reducing the next President's options if you withdraw troops, especially by September or October as the House proposed (I believe). If nothing else, from a political perspective, the month after we withdraw is going to be the worst. If I were Iran, I would send in troops two days after the US left. They'd either have free reign in the country, or we'd have to turn around and go right back in, which would be a huge embarassment to the US, and in particular, the Democrats who forced the withdrawal.

The entire political campaign will be irrelevent and simply turn on what happens in October in Iraq - and regardless of whether withdrawing will be good in the long-term, it will be ugly in the short-term. So I don't see how that turns out well for Democrats. I think they are shoing themselves in the foot.

 

I agree on Iraqi oil - my question is the rest of the region. Iran has wanted influence in and control over Iraqi for 40+ years now. The minute we leave, they are going to get more involved. Saudi Arabia has already said that they'll defend the Sunni's in Iraq if the US leaves. This could become a regional conflict, with Iraq being the unfortunate victim of a power struggle.

Consider that oil shot up $5 on a bizarre rumor of a shot fired by Iran against a US vessel. A conflict there leads to potentially $100 oil, and potentially a global economic disaster. Unfortunately, the stakes are absurdly high - that's part of the reason never to go into there in the first place. But now that we're there, leaving a massive power vacuum isn't the best idea.

That's not to stay Iraq couldn't be stabilized by late 2008 making it possible to leave. But the US Congress can't predict that 18 months out, and to make decisions like that 18 months in advance from the comforts of Washington is just a terrible idea, in my opinion.

 

It doesn't take blindness to oppose Bush policies, all it takes is a basic understanding of the facts and the ability to maintain a degree of intellectual honesty.

 

the fact that a vast majority of the troops serving want to end the occupation should be a pretty clear indicator of how the people who are there see the war going

how are you so sure its the 'vast majority'?

also, army's are not democracies and people know this when they sign up



It doesn't take blindness to oppose Bush policies, all it takes is a basic understanding of the facts and the ability to maintain a degree of intellectual honesty.

still, you dont agree that its very 'vogue' to just bash bush wildly? Time after time you see people blaming bush for this, blaming him for that yet these people never offer something else...just finger pointing.

and unfortunately people dont want honesty. they want pretty pictures and playful puppies.

iraq is a strategical move. Move the fight to the middle east. Make terrorits, extremists, insurgents..whatever, make them fight soldiers with bodyarmor and tanks rather than civilians taking a plane trip.

the military war planning runs through thousands of scenarios with some great minds, from generals to game theorists, and despite the problems that have occurred i think it doesnt take much intellectual honesty to realize that there was a bigger and longer term goal for iraq.

 

No, I just believe that after 6 years of abject failures, the American people have finally woken up from the fear induced coma they have been suffering through since 9/11/01.

Other things have been offered up as better ideas...

Don't torture people...

Don't invade a country that isn't a threat...

Don't wiretap without a warrant...

Don't hold people indefinitely without a chance to defend themselves...

Don't cut taxes during a time of war...

Take care of veterans if they are injured, particularly if they are injured in battle.

How do you know we don't want honesty from Bush? He has never deigned to give it to us.

Iraq is a clusterf***. According to the CIA, Iraq has been the best recruiting tool the terrorists have ever had. Al Qaeda did not have any operations in Iraq until we went there. We should have done the job right in Afghanistan (where the Taliban has regained control of vast regions of the country), gotten OBL, and maintained the good will we had from the entire world after 9/11.

That is not what we were told. If that was the case (as many of us believed it to be before the war ever started), then they should have sold it that way rather than having Rummy say, "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Add that to the fact that the "great minds" who gave HONEST assessments of the situation in Iraq, people like General Shinseki who said we should be sending at least 300,000 troops, were forced to resign so that the Perle/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld cabal would not have any opposition to their "plan."

If this was to be a long term venture from the start, it should have been approached that way from the start. If the real reason for deposing Saddam was human rights, the emphasis should not have been on WMDs and bogus uranium purchases.

Wake up, dude.

 

"iraq is a strategical move. Move the fight to the middle east. Make terrorits, extremists, insurgents..whatever, make them fight soldiers with bodyarmor and tanks rather than civilians taking a plane trip."

This argument is weak. Didn't we create a battlefield called Afghanistan before Iraq? Many hard core terrorists already ran there to fight us. Why do we need to create another battlefield?

 

So which is it? Are we encouraging democracy in Iraq or are we encouraging terrorists to fight us in Iraq? These two are not compatible. It is incredibly arrogant and selfish to suggest that we need to occupy a country and turn it into an escape valve war zone and subject the people there to much anguish and death to protect our interests. At the same time, it's cynical beyond belief that we do this while saying we are furthering democracy.

On the other hand, if you say we're building democracy, you can't use the same country as a military buffer against your threats because then it's not really pursuing democracy, but it truly only exists for you to extend and protect your national interests.

If we're building a democracy, we need to pursue policies and actions that would make that happen, which would probably include a dramatic reduction in US troops to remove the destabilizing force the occupation has become and let the Iraqis settle things within certain parameters.

If we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here, we need to be honest with the Iraqi people and tell them they and their country are being sacrificed for the safety of the US. Sorry folks, but our lives are more important than yours.

 

Have you considered why people are anti-Bush to begin with?

 

My guess is his response will be "the liberal media".