NationStates Jolt Archive

As promised, president bush has vetoed the spending bill passed by the democratic held congress. Now it is back to Congress to pass a new bill.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/congress.iraq/index.html)

Anyone surprised he did that? The big question is can there be a agreement between the two parties on wording? I guess they will work it out eventually. They always seem to make it work in the end.

dklvnslcvndsC
'VNdsVIHB KEATOUGEGVAV'OJKLO[JNVSVOBNvs{os"gvN UUHOvGOB

That was me smashing my face into the keyboard.

Not only is the idea of a timeline for surrender inherently laughable, but the preposterous bill was replete with various pieces of pork. The Democrats even had the nerve to parade around in front of cameras to make a media event out of signing such an unpatriotic piece of legislation, and, sadly, much of the American public gullibly swallowed it up.

Gee, I guess the President wants to withdraw in June, since he's vetoed the spending for his bill.

I say, give him one more chance and send this bill back, and then let him try to go beg on the streets for his funding.

Not only is the idea of a timeline for surrender inherently laughable.

Personally I find seeing my friends alive again more laughable then sitting through their funerals.

Not only is the idea of a timeline for surrender inherently laughable, but the preposterous bill was replete with various pieces of pork. The Democrats even had the nerve to parade around in front of cameras to make a media event out of signing such an unpatriotic piece of legislation, and, sadly, much of the American public gullibly swallowed it up.

Yeah. Damn that pork. Like funding equiptment and training for our troops that the traitors in the DoD keep lying about.

Yeah. Damn that pork. Like funding equiptment and training for our troops that the traitors in the DoD keep lying about.

No, I'm referring to inclusions in the bill which are completely unrelated to the military. Take a look at the last bill to be approved.

http://www.examiner.com/a-640957~Senate__emergency__war_bill_has_almost__20_billion_in_domestic_spending_tacked_onto_it.html

It is rather unusual for Mr. Bush to veto a piece of spending legislation.

No, I'm referring to inclusions in the bill which are completely unrelated to the military. Take a look at the last bill to be approved.

http://www.examiner.com/a-640957~Senate__emergency__war_bill_has_almost__20_billion_in_domestic_spending_tacked_onto_it.html

Oh dear lord! How Dare they try and clean up in New Orleans or releive struggling farmers! The very nerve!

Go back to your cave, troll.

Not only is the idea of a timeline for surrender inherently laughable.

Personally the thought of seeing my old high school budy alive is more laughable than sitting through his funeral.

dklvnslcvndsC
'VNdsVIHB KEATOUGEGVAV'OJKLO[JNVSVOBNvs{os"gvN UUHOvGOB

That was me smashing my face into the keyboard.

Judging by the spread of those keys, your face is about 8 inches wide provided that it is completely flat. I don't want to get people measuring their faces but that is huge. I would venture to say that you wrote that with your hands. Liar.:p

Judging by the spread of those keys, your face is about 8 inches wide provided that it is completely flat. I don't want to get people measuring their faces but that is huge. I would venture to say that you wrote that with your hands. Liar.:p

He never said he only did it once. :p

Judging by the spread of those keys, your face is about 8 inches wide provided that it is completely flat. I don't want to get people measuring their faces but that is huge. I would venture to say that you wrote that with your hands. Liar.:p

I planted my head into the keyboard then went from left to right hitting the capslock and space along the way. Although my ego is a tad inflated. :D

Well, I declare that he is committing treason. By not funding the troops, he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy!

Judging by the spread of those keys, your face is about 8 inches wide provided that it is completely flat. I don't want to get people measuring their faces but that is huge. I would venture to say that you wrote that with your hands. Liar.:p

I planted my head into the keyboard then went from left to right hitting the capslock and space along the way. Although my ego is a tad inflated. :D

Also I had my hands on the keyboard.

Well, I declare that he is committing treason. By not funding the troops, he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy!

Not only is the idea of a timeline for surrender inherently laughable, but the preposterous bill was replete with various pieces of pork. The Democrats even had the nerve to parade around in front of cameras to make a media event out of signing such an unpatriotic piece of legislation, and, sadly, much of the American public gullibly swallowed it up.

Unfortunately, quite a few of the pork items were removed by the Democrats late in the bill's development specifically because they wanted to avoid giving people like you an excuse to veto it. Plus, it is highly ironic that you should try to split political hairs about funding the troops now...after all, was it not Republicans who were (last year) making this very same argument about Democrats? How there was no room for equivocation...you are either with us or against us, and that no matter what you feel politically that the troops must be supported at all costs. Tell me...how is it that a conservative can argue that merely to speak out against the war is to "aid and abet the enemy", yet landing a veto on funding for our troops is not? What's more, how can the President decry the efforts of "Washington politicians" to "manage" the war in Iraq when he himself is a Washington politician in his role as commander-in-chief? It was all about unconditional support so long as Republicans were in control of Congress. To speak against what was going on was nothing short of treason in your collective opinions. Indeed, I was called a traitor on this forum several times by various persons who said that if I really supported the troops, I should drop my petty politics and just support the troops unconditionally. Yet now the President can afford to veto a bill for the troops on political grounds. The President alone can set conditions? Isn't that just the same type of moral relativism that you accuse liberals of? If Republicans really meant what they said, they should have supported the bill as it was....even though they didn't like it, this WAS funding for our troops. You can't flip-flop back and forth from one philosophy to the other and back again based on what is politically expedient at the time.

If I were a Congressman, I'd reintroduce the same bill, word for word, tomorrow, and tell Bush that it's this or nothing. If he wants a war, he'll have to do it this way. That's not going to happen, of course, but it would be nice.

That said, I'm finding it interesting the way bloggers are digging up all these juicy quotes from Republican congressmen talking shit about withdrawal from foreign soil, the need to get out now, the insistence on more than just timelines, but on full withdrawal. The difference? It was Haiti. It was Somalia. It was the Balkans. And the big difference--it was a Democratic president.

I'll spit on anyone who claims this is a case of the Democrats cutting off the troops--Bush had a bill which funded them, and he vetoed it, and the dumbest part of all this is that Bush did it to himself. If he hadn't insisted on keeping this war off the books, thereby making his budgets look smaller than they were, he wouldn't need this supplemental. Lies on top of lies on top of lies.

Is this like a budget? What happens if it doesn't get overridden?

Is this like a budget? What happens if it doesn't get overridden?If it doesn't get overridden and nothing else passes, the troops in Iraq run out of money in about 2 months and have to come home. For the Democrats, it's a win-win if they have the stones to see it through. Bush needs the bill more than they do.

I hope that Bush refuses to sign this. We'd get the troops out of Iraq, as Nazz has adroitly analyzed, AND we'd starve the beast a little.

If it doesn't get overridden and nothing else passes, the troops in Iraq run out of money in about 2 months and have to come home. For the Democrats, it's a win-win if they have the stones to see it through. Bush needs the bill more than they do.

Or money is taken out of the regular military budget to pay for the war. Disclamer: I do not think that this is a good idea.

Or money is taken out of the regular military budget to pay for the war. Disclamer: I do not think that this is a good idea.

That would be unconstitutional. Between SCOTUS rulings and the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the President would be in violation of the law to do so.

I say, give him one more chance and send this bill back, and then let him try to go beg on the streets for his funding.

"brother, can you spare a dime for a disastrous imperialist adventure?"

DON "VETO" CORLEONE:

http://taskboy.com/img/BushFinger-1.jpg

If it doesn't get overridden and nothing else passes, the troops in Iraq run out of money in about 2 months and have to come home. For the Democrats, it's a win-win if they have the stones to see it through. Bush needs the bill more than they do.

Sounds good to me.

They really need that money to fight... so I guess Bush doesn't support the troops.

That would be unconstitutional. Between SCOTUS rulings and the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the President would be in violation of the law to do so.

Wasn't aware, can you link me?

That would be unconstitutional. Between SCOTUS rulings and the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the President would be in violation of the law to do so.

And would that stop him? Won't he just slap a signing statement on it and go "Nyah"?

And would that stop him? Won't he just slap a signing statement on it and go "Nyah"?

He could do that, but that would get his ass impeached.

Wasn't aware, can you link me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974

Essentially, the President has to spend the money that Congress allocates, and he must spend it on what they allocate it for. One of our lawyers can probably provide more context.

And would that stop him? Won't he just slap a signing statement on it and go "Nyah"?

Signing statements don;t have the force of law. It's just an interpretation of the law, not law in and of itself.

Don't you people get it? Bush was appointed President by God. He's infallible, and knows what he's doing. All of you hethens and heretics will see the error of your words when you're burning in the everlasting flame of hell.

Don't you people get it? Bush was appointed President by God. He's infallible, and knows what he's doing. All of you hethens and heretics will see the error of your words when you're burning in the everlasting flame of hell.

YAY! I brought s'mores! :D

YAY! I brought s'mores! :D

TO COOK IN THE ETERNAL FIRES OF HELL?!?!?!?!?!?!

TO COOK IN THE ETERNAL FIRES OF HELL?!?!?!?!?!?!

Makes them nice and toasty. Mm...and we can melt the chocolate at the same time. This is a win-win!

Makes them nice and toasty. Mm...and we can melt the chocolate at the same time. This is a win-win!

Who ever knew sin was so tasty? :D

Who ever knew sin was so tasty? :D

I did. Those hellfire lakes make for piping hot coffee.

It is rather unusual for Mr. Bush to veto a piece of spending legislation.Its only the second time he's vetoed anything.

TO COOK IN THE ETERNAL FIRES OF HELL?!?!?!?!?!?!

Wouldn't you?

So Bush only pulls out the veto pen to deny funding for potentially life-saving research and to deny funding to our troops. How nice.

So Bush only pulls out the veto pen to deny funding for potentially life-saving research and to deny funding to our troops. How nice.

Bush clearly has no respect for the sanctity of life. Frickin liberal bastard! ;)

So Bush only pulls out the veto pen to deny funding for potentially life-saving research and to deny funding to our troops. How nice.You don't think the Democrats actually thought that there was any way Bush might not veto the bill?

If I were a Congressman, I'd reintroduce the same bill, word for word, tomorrow, and tell Bush that it's this or nothing. If he wants a war, he'll have to do it this way. That's not going to happen, of course, but it would be nice.

It would be nice...

That said, I'm finding it interesting the way bloggers are digging up all these juicy quotes from Republican congressmen talking shit about withdrawal from foreign soil, the need to get out now, the insistence on more than just timelines, but on full withdrawal. The difference? It was Haiti. It was Somalia. It was the Balkans. And the big difference--it was a Democratic president.

Indeed...I'm convinced that the Republican party's recent success (only recently reversed) can mostly be attributed to the short memory of the average voter.

I'll spit on anyone who claims this is a case of the Democrats cutting off the troops--Bush had a bill which funded them, and he vetoed it, and the dumbest part of all this is that Bush did it to himself. If he hadn't insisted on keeping this war off the books, thereby making his budgets look smaller than they were, he wouldn't need this supplemental. Lies on top of lies on top of lies.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

I wonder just what Bush's mindset is...does he really think he can keep these wagons circled for the next year and a half??

I believe both houses of congress should be impeached and all legislative branch powers transfered to the President for the rest of his term so he can do stuff his way. Hail President Bush.

I believe both houses of congress should be impeached and all legislative branch powers transfered to the President for the rest of his term so he can do stuff his way. Hail President Bush.

So this means you won't bitch and whine when Hugo Chavez does the exact same thing in Venezuela?

;)

So this means you won't bitch and whine when Hugo Chavez does the exact same thing in Venezuela?

;)

Of course i will. Because bush=good and chaves = baaaaaad. And President Bush would use his dictatorial powers wisely. And it isn't permanent. Only for 21 months.

And President Bush would use his dictatorial powers wisely.

He hasn't even used his constitutionally granted powers wisely.

Can I have some of whatever your smoking? It must be some good shit.

I wonder just what Bush's mindset is...does he really think he can keep these wagons circled for the next year and a half??

I don't think he plans that at all. I think, and this seems to be what he's doing now, he's going to characterize everything that happens from now until then on the Democratic congress. I think that the hope is that he will paint the problems not as something he's caused or is stalling the repair of, but rather a failure of the Democrats so that those with short memories will put the Republicans back in.

Man, whatever he's smoking, I'll pass. I'm not a big fan of going on wild drug-induced dreams.

I watched the reasons that bush gave for why he vetoed the bill. They're awful. The democrats could just send the bill right back with a little footnote as to why they think the President's reasons are shit.

Veto reason 1
Mandating a rigid deadline for withdrawl is nothing the Republicans haven't ever done during a Democratic Presidency. What the President means when he says that a rigid deadline is bad is not that withdrawing the troops is bad itself, but that he does not think the military will be able to hand over security operations to the Iraqi forces by said date. This is a huge failure on the part of the republican administration. If the President is so patronising towards the Iraqi people that he cannot envisage a time when they can defend themselves against the terrorists, then the President should freely admit this and not hide behind the words 'support our troops'.

Veto reason 2
As with veto reason one. The President does not think the Iraqi people will ever be able forma sovereign government able of defending itself. The President is saying he does not see a time when our troops will ever be able to withdraw. What the President is saying is the he has permanently destabilised Iraq, but that he just doesn't want to admit it.

Rules of Engagment are always dictated to the military. The job of the politician is to give its military a set of objectives. These objectives can restrict the way in which the military engages the enemy, but that is part of the objective. If limiting the RoE is objectionable, then it is because the President does not think Iraq will ever be able to take care of itself and that are military is stuck in Iraq for the forseeable future.

Veto reason 3
I bet you wish you hadn't objected to the line item veto now, suckers! And I bet you wish you hadn't tried to cook the books, by not including the war in the budget.
(I don't what this 'non-emergency' funding is, so I can't really argue the case)

If the President wants the deadline moved, then he should say what is preventing the Iraqis achievement of sovereign government, what mistakes he has made in the Iraq war that lead to the current predicament, what does he think needs to be done to give the Iraqis the tools they need to defend themselves, and when does he think it could be possible for the Iraqis to achieve this independence - 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years or longer?

heheheheh I don't smoke anything. Or drink alcohol. I'm fully in control of my mind when i'm saying this :p

The President has been proven right every time. When he makes mistakes it is the congress's fault. So time we get rid of the congress and then he can do things right.:mp5: :gundge: :sniper:

heheheheh I don't smoke anything. Or drink alcohol. I'm fully in control of my mind when i'm saying this :p

The President has been proven right every time. When he makes mistakes it is the congress's fault. So time we get rid of the congress and then he can do things right.:mp5: :gundge: :sniper:

Hehehe...cute...Bush has been right everytime. Funny...

Hehehe...cute...Bush has been right everytime. Funny...I wasn't sure if he was being sarcastic or not... :confused:

I wasn't sure if he was being sarcastic or not... :confused:

He has been right every time, and the only times he has been wrong it was congress's fault. :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

He has been right every time, and the only times he has been wrong it was congress's fault. :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

Ahem...

http://www.findingrhythm.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/mission-accomplished.jpg

...or did Congress make him do that, too? :rolleyes:

No, I'm referring to inclusions in the bill which are completely unrelated to the military. Take a look at the last bill to be approved.

http://www.examiner.com/a-640957~Senate__emergency__war_bill_has_almost__20_billion_in_domestic_spending_tacked_onto_it.html

I'd consider that a valid criticism of Democratic policy if not for the fact that Republicans did not do the slightest bit to eliminate pork from legislation.

The Democrats are arguably less able to dispense with pork than the Republicans. The Republicans were more hierarchical when in power, and held a greater margin of power. Democrats need to win support from Republicans. That means pork.

As promised, president bush has vetoed the spending bill passed by the democratic held congress. Now it is back to Congress to pass a new bill.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/congress.iraq/index.html)
Why does President Bush hate the troops?

I watched the reasons that bush gave for why he vetoed the bill. They're awful. The democrats could just send the bill right back with a little footnote as to why they think the President's reasons are shit.


Veto reason 2
As with veto reason one. The President does not think the Iraqi people will ever be able forma sovereign government able of defending itself. The President is saying he does not see a time when our troops will ever be able to withdraw. What the President is saying is the he has permanently destabilised Iraq, but that he just doesn't want to admit it.

Rules of Engagment are always dictated to the military. The job of the politician is to give its military a set of objectives. These objectives can restrict the way in which the military engages the enemy, but that is part of the objective. If limiting the RoE is objectionable, then it is because the President does not think Iraq will ever be able to take care of itself and that are military is stuck in Iraq for the forseeable future.

You forgot to mention that Bush has been a more meddlesome politically-minded micro-manager than the Democrats have ever been. He wanted to invade with 100,000 troops. Generals who told him that they'd need at least 500,000 troops were hounded out of the military.

Remember Fallujea? The Generals wanted to go in, but the President made them wait until the day after the election because he was afraid it would cost him votes. Never mind that his meddling is costing lives.

President Bush arguing that Democrats should not "tell Generals how to do their jobs," is like President Bush refusing to cooperate with the Democrats because they are tounge-tied and ineloquent.

Why does President Bush hate the troops?
Pfft, real patriots allow the troops their right to get killed. They sign up knowing that they're going to fight and possibly die. Obviously, they love to face death every day, even if it's for a lost cause! Why would you deny our brave soldiers this? :p

Why does President Bush hate the troops?

Because he's jealous of their freedoms.

Seriously though, this bill seems to have turned into a game of chicken. The only thing remaining is to see who flinches first and what the damages will be.

If I create a mess, I have to fix it, or pay someone to do it.

Since the US created a mess, they'll have to either fix it, or pay someone to fix it.

I've been against the war since I found out the plans, but since it has been initiated, it has to be fixed, withdrawing now would only create more problems than pre-existing problems.

there's blood on the administrations collective hands, and there will be much more blood before they've corrected the problems thir "little" wars has created.

If you start shit, finish it, or it'll haunt you for a long time.

Why does President Bush hate the troops?

Because they remind him of just how inept and incompetent and impotent he is as a male of the species?

Why does President Bush hate the troops?

You do know what happens in real life, don't you? The troops in Iraq will not have to come home, they won't stop getting food and ammo; if fact they probably won't even notice that the funding isn't there.

What will happen is that all the other programs that DoD administers will get cuts. Some will be canceled. But the bottom line is that money to fund the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan will be found.

Oh dear lord! How Dare they try and clean up in New Orleans or releive struggling farmers! The very nerve!

Go back to your cave, troll.

That kind of spending belongs in its own bill. The Treason Party only included it in this bill for the crassest of political reasons. The Treason Party wants to force republican candidates to vote to uphold the veto, and then they can run their ads in the fall of '08 stating how "Rep. X voted AGAINST cleaning up New Orleans". Playing political games with this spending bill is disgraceful and un-patriotic. The President is the Commander in Chief and the only person constitutionally authorized to conduct this operation, not Pelosi, Reid, Murtha and the rest of those cowards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974

Essentially, the President has to spend the money that Congress allocates, and he must spend it on what they allocate it for. One of our lawyers can probably provide more context.

You do know what happens in real life, don't you? The troops in Iraq will not have to come home, they won't stop getting food and ammo; if fact they probably won't even notice that the funding isn't there.

What will happen is that all the other programs that DoD administers will get cuts. Some will be canceled. But the bottom line is that money to fund the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan will be found.

Unless Bush takes to stripping for cash in some of DC's seedier clubs, then he won't be finding the money.

Unless Bush takes to stripping for cash in some of DC's seedier clubs, then he won't be finding the money.
I would think the first quote just means that DoD can't take money from the hallowed poor to fund troop activity. I'm sure they can take money meant for a production or R&D program within R&D to fund shortfalls elsewhere. I've been on both ends of that deal.

I would think the first quote just means that DoD can't take money from the hallowed poor to fund troop activity. I'm sure they can take money meant for a production or R&D program within R&D to fund shortfalls elsewhere. I've been on both ends of that deal.

I doubt it--if that were the case, it would have come up in the larger discussion of the issue, if not here, then elsewhere. Besides, the enormity of the numbers seems to make it clear that Bush needs this money in this way in order to keep his war going.

Unless Bush takes to stripping for cash in some of DC's seedier clubs, then he won't be finding the money.

Having seen his dancing skills recently I think he would struggle to make any money.

Having seen his dancing skills recently I think he would struggle to make any money.

Agreed, Yeltsin was a better dancer (even if he was drunk).

I doubt it--if that were the case, it would have come up in the larger discussion of the issue, if not here, then elsewhere. Besides, the enormity of the numbers seems to make it clear that Bush needs this money in this way in order to keep his war going.
I'll let you know how our bookings for DoD programs go. I fully expect to see some of them canceled if the appropriations aren't made to Iraq. Why? The government program managers have told me so.

Things like this are the reason we need to institute a line out veto.. that way the president can go "Okay... so I don't like this, or this, or this, or that, or this..."

So for instance a bill that reads

Fund Troops
Raise Congress' Pay
Throw Money at Unfreindly Nation in hopes of making it freindly
Increase spending for monthly GOP pizza party
Declare nudeist day a national holiday
Pay of Ted Kennedy's hooker debts before his wife finds out

Will Read
Fund Troops

And that would be the signed and resolutioned bill... then congress can attept to overide the rest.

Things like this are the reason we need to institute a line out veto.. that way the president can go "Okay... so I don't like this, or this, or this, or that, or this..."

So for instance a bill that reads

Fund Troops
Raise Congress' Pay
Throw Money at Unfreindly Nation in hopes of making it freindly
Increase spending for monthly GOP pizza party
Declare nudeist day a national holiday
Pay of Ted Kennedy's hooker debts before his wife finds out

Will Read
Fund Troops

And that would be the signed and resolutioned bill... then congress can attept to overide the rest.
It's been passed and tried before, and SCOTUS found it to be unconstitutional. It was during the Clinton administration--don't remember the citation, but I'm sure it can be googled easily enough.

It's been passed and tried before, and SCOTUS found it to be unconstitutional. It was during the Clinton administration--don't remember the citation, but I'm sure it can be googled easily enough.

Whats unconstitutional about it? And its not unconstitutional, or just plain fucking pathetic to toss more things on a bill that have absolutly jack shit to do with anything to either force people to accept it, or get somethign you don't likebut know will pass thrown out? Its bullshit, its lame, its stupid, and I think I'm going to go hunting for congressmen...

Whats unconstitutional about it? And its not unconstitutional, or just plain fucking pathetic to toss more things on a bill that have absolutly jack shit to do with anything to either force people to accept it, or get somethign you don't likebut know will pass thrown out? Its bullshit, its lame, its stupid, and I think I'm going to go hunting for congressmen...

It's a wikipedia link, but it's a start for you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York).

It's a wikipedia link, but it's a start for you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York).

Think of what life would be like for you if the line item veto had not been held unconstitutional.

I submit, that it is unconstitutional to apply multiple statutes to a single bill. IN order for our nation to grow and prosper peopleneed to stop doing assinine things such as... tack worthless crap onto otherwise important issues.

I submit, that it is unconstitutional to apply multiple statutes to a single bill. IN order for our nation to grow and prosper peopleneed to stop doing assinine things such as... tack worthless crap onto otherwise important issues.Then sue the federal government. Don't be surprised when they laugh in your face.

In this fucked up sue happy nation of ours... I might actually get away with it.

This is why I think a Dictatorship is important... when something stupid happens everyone knows who did it.

You don't think the Democrats actually thought that there was any way Bush might not veto the bill?

of course they knew. just as they know that they cant override the veto but are still going to put it up for an override vote anyway.

every time the president ignores the will of the people, the democrats get stronger.

every time a republican congressman votes with the president, he gets weaker. on his record is not only supporting the war but voting against all the "pork" that was included with (such as money for katrina reconstruction).

and every time it gets defeated, they submit it again in another form and get more support from the rest of the country.

every time its submitted the pressure from the public causes more republicans to desert the party and vote with them. sooner or later they will get enough votes to override a veto.

It amazes me to hear so many naive comments about the Bill and the Veto. Why should anything be tied to funding our troops other than for political reasons? What does New Orleans have to do with Iraq? Let's separate these bills out and vote for each in their own merit. The reason other spending measures are included in a bill is because it helps a congress person in their own district, in other words, it gets them re-elected and that is what this is all about isn't it.

As far as putting a timeline for withdrawal, that is paramount to announcing the date of our surrender. That is saying to the enemy "This is the date we are leaving, make your plans to take over now."

Is anyone familiar with the phrase "Cut off my nose to spite my face"?

Well that is what we would be done to cut off funding. Right or wrong, our boys are over there and we need to support them 100%. To cut off funding so you can throw political egg on the current administration is spiteful and foolish.

It amazes me to hear so many naive comments about the Bill and the Veto. Why should anything be tied to funding our troops other than for political reasons? What does New Orleans have to do with Iraq? Let's separate these bills out and vote for each in their own merit. The reason other spending measures are included in a bill is because it helps a congress person in their own district, in other words, it gets them re-elected and that is what this is all about isn't it.

As far as putting a timeline for withdrawal, that is paramount to announcing the date of our surrender. That is saying to the enemy "This is the date we are leaving, make your plans to take over now."

Is anyone familiar with the phrase "Cut off my nose to spite my face"?

Well that is what we would be done to cut off funding. Right or wrong, our boys are over there and we need to support them 100%. To cut off funding so you can throw political egg on the current administration is spiteful and foolish.

You know, I was trying to say something to that effect but I am tired, hungry, in a bad mood and sick....

Marry me?

It amazes me to hear so many naive comments about the Bill and the Veto. Why should anything be tied to funding our troops other than for political reasons? What does New Orleans have to do with Iraq? Let's separate these bills out and vote for each in their own merit. The reason other spending measures are included in a bill is because it helps a congress person in their own district, in other words, it gets them re-elected and that is what this is all about isn't it.

As far as putting a timeline for withdrawal, that is paramount to announcing the date of our surrender. That is saying to the enemy "This is the date we are leaving, make your plans to take over now."

Is anyone familiar with the phrase "Cut off my nose to spite my face"?

Well that is what we would be done to cut off funding. Right or wrong, our boys are over there and we need to support them 100%. To cut off funding so you can throw political egg on the current administration is spiteful and foolish.
I think it's hysterical for you to come here with this post and call the rest of us naive.

Not only is the idea of a timeline for surrender inherently laughable, but the preposterous bill was replete with various pieces of pork. The Democrats even had the nerve to parade around in front of cameras to make a media event out of signing such an unpatriotic piece of legislation, and, sadly, much of the American public gullibly swallowed it up.


Agreed, I just can't believe the public is willing to let the Democrats get away with it. I understand that a large portion of the population wants a pull out, but are we really so gullible that we will actually think it will happen.

Honestly, if we weren't so close to a Presidential Election do you really think any of this would be happening? Do you really think the Democrats would have made such a huge deal out of the bill?

dklvnslcvndsC
'VNdsVIHB KEATOUGEGVAV'OJKLO[JNVSVOBNvs{os"gvN UUHOvGOB

That was me smashing my face into the keyboard.


Are you really that shocked that he vetoed the bill? Honestly? It's not like he didn't announce publically that he would veto it if it contained time limits. How could anyone have expected him to do otherwise?

Gee, I guess the President wants to withdraw in June, since he's vetoed the spending for his bill.

I say, give him one more chance and send this bill back, and then let him try to go beg on the streets for his funding.


I say, quash the Dems efforts, and let someone who actually cares about what is happening, and what out troops are dealing with write a bill that actually has some meaning to it.

Like, and reasonable set of requirements, no time limits, and NO PORK!!!!!!!!

Yeah. Damn that pork. Like funding equiptment and training for our troops that the traitors in the DoD keep lying about.


Or maybe, the roads, the bridges, the factories, ect. that all have nothing to do with a military finance bill.

Agreed, I just can't believe the public is willing to let the Democrats get away with it. I understand that a large portion of the population wants a pull out, but are we really so gullible that we will actually think it will happen.

Honestly, if we weren't so close to a Presidential Election do you really think any of this would be happening? Do you really think the Democrats would have made such a huge deal out of the bill?

What exactly are the Democrats "trying to get away with" here? If Bush hadn't insisted on running this war off the budget, he wouldn't be in this fix right now. This is a supplemental spending bill, which he needs because he wanted to be able to say, last year, that he was reducing the deficit. Had he just put it in the regular budget, he wouldn't be faced with this situation that is of his own making. It's his fault that it has come to this.

Oh dear lord! How Dare they try and clean up in New Orleans or releive struggling farmers! The very nerve!

Go back to your cave, troll.


I have no problems with them doing any of that stuff, just do it in a bill for that purpose, don't tack it onto a bill that is completely unrelated, and necessary. And don't do it on a bill that you know, based on the way you have written it, won't become law no matter how hard you try.

Well, I declare that he is committing treason. By not funding the troops, he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy!

No, by refusing the Dem's attempts to "give aid and comfort to the enemy" he is supporting our troops. Just because he refused a military finance bill doesn't show that he doesn't support them. It shows that he has the decency to spare the American People, and our troops from a much worse situation.

Remember, he vetoed a bill that told outrenemies when we would no longer worry about them. He refused a bill that told the Iraqis when our concernand interest in their situation, which we caused BTW, would end. He refused a bill filled with millions of dollars in extras that had nothing what so ever to do with military financing.

No, by refusing the Dem's attempts to "give aid and comfort to the enemy" he is supporting our troops. Just because he refused a military finance bill doesn't show that he doesn't support them. It shows that he has the decency to spare the American People, and our troops from a much worse situation.

Remember, he vetoed a bill that told outrenemies when we would no longer worry about them. He refused a bill that told the Iraqis when our concernand interest in their situation, which we caused BTW, would end. He refused a bill filled with millions of dollars in extras that had nothing what so ever to do with military financing.

So I guess you were screaming about this sort of thing during the Clinton presidency when people like McCain were saying we needed to be out of Haiti and Somalia and the Balkans immediately, right? You were there at the forefront saying that we couldn't give the enemy any idea of when we would leave, right?

[Unfortunately, quite a few of the pork items were removed by the Democrats late in the bill's development specifically because they wanted to avoid giving people like you an excuse to veto it.

A few may have been removed, but certain many of them were left in. It is reasons like this that I feel the President needs a Line Item Veto that prevents him from changing the context of the sentence, and bill itself, but that is a debate for another topic.

Plus, it is highly ironic that you should try to split political hairs about funding the troops now...after all, was it not Republicans who were (last year) making this very same argument about Democrats? How there was no room for equivocation...you are either with us or against us, and that no matter what you feel politically that the troops must be supported at all costs. Tell me...how is it that a conservative can argue that merely to speak out against the war is to "aid and abet the enemy", yet landing a veto on funding for our troops is not?

While I don’t support adding pork to any bill, regardless of who wrote it. I think the most distinctive difference here is that the President has power over determining if the bill becomes law, and the Dems do not have the ability to override him on that.

What's more, how can the President decry the efforts of "Washington politicians" to "manage" the war in Iraq when he himself is a Washington politician in his role as commander-in-chief?

The reason he can that is because as his role is Commander-in-Chief he is given the responsibility to controlling the efforts of the military. Congress is only responsible for providing funding for those efforts, and not detailing how and when those funds will be used. Also, as I think President Bush has said repeatedly, he is not personally making decisions on how everything is down in Iraq, that is what the military commanders are or should be doing. He is making the high level plans on what he wants to see happen. The military commanders, not President Bush, determine specifically how the war is managed.

Yet now the President can afford to veto a bill for the troops on political grounds.

No, he can vetoed a bill that takes too much power away from the military commanders in Iraq, and gives it to Congress.

The President alone can set conditions?

No, as Bush has said, these conditions should be set not by American politicians, but by our military commanders, and the Iraqi politicians.

[

A few may have been removed, but certain many of them were left in. It is reasons like this that I feel the President needs a Line Item Veto that prevents him from changing the context of the sentence, and bill itself, but that is a debate for another topic.

Which would be extraordinarily unconstitutional.

But I guess like Nazz said, you supported it when Clinton wanted it too, huh?


While I don’t support adding pork to any bill, regardless of who wrote it. I think the most distinctive difference here is that the President has power over determining if the bill becomes law, and the Dems do not have the ability to override him on that.

And the President doesn't have the power to tell the democrats what bills to pass.

Aint seperation of powers grand?

Congress is only responsible for providing funding for those efforts, and not detailing how and when those funds will be used.

Wrong. Congressional power is to dictate how the money is spent, when, and under what conditions.

do any of you "take the pork out of this bill" people REALLY think that this is the only time extra stuff has been added to a must-pass bill?

why are the democrats suddenly bound by this notion when the republicans that preceeded them werent?

If I were a Congressman, I'd reintroduce the same bill, word for word, tomorrow, and tell Bush that it's this or nothing.

And what would that achieve? Nothing. It would again fail, and leave our troops hanging. Such an effort would backfire on them, politically. Althought that probably wou;dn't be a bad thing now that I think about it.

That's not going to happen, of course, but it would be nice.

Right, and for that I am thankful. Our politicians are smart enought to realize when they need to work together to reach an impasse.

That said, I'm finding it interesting the way bloggers are digging up all these juicy quotes from Republican congressmen talking shit about withdrawal from foreign soil, the need to get out now, the insistence on more than just timelines, but on full withdrawal. The difference? It was Haiti. It was Somalia. It was the Balkans. And the big difference--it was a Democratic president.

Not understanding the context of these quotes, there is little I can say about them. Although I also feel that since we destroyed Iraq's government we should be committed to staying there until we correct our mistake.

I'll spit on anyone who claims this is a case of the Democrats cutting off the troops--Bush had a bill which funded them, and he vetoed it, and the dumbest part of all this is that Bush did it to himself.

And Bush had a bill that took the power for running the war away from the Commander-in-Chief, away from our military commanders, and away from the Iraqi politicians, that are directly affected by it, and gave it to Congress. Who has not constitutional right to such powers.

If he hadn't insisted on keeping this war off the books, thereby making his budgets look smaller than they were, he wouldn't need this supplemental.

This is one place we agree. The war should be included in the regular budget.

And what would that achieve? Nothing. It would again fail, and leave our troops hanging. Such an effort would backfire on them, politically. Althought that probably wou;dn't be a bad thing now that I think about it.

Keep saying that.

Just ignore the fact that more people in this country wanted bush to sign the bill rather than veto it.

But yeah, keep saying that it would hurt them.

And Bush had a bill that took the power for running the war away from the Commander-in-Chief, away from our military commanders, and away from the Iraqi politicians, that are directly affected by it, and gave it to Congress. Who has not constitutional right to such powers.


Your grasp of constitutional analysis is um.....what's another word for "shit"?

If it doesn't get overridden and nothing else passes, the troops in Iraq run out of money in about 2 months and have to come home. For the Democrats, it's a win-win if they have the stones to see it through. Bush needs the bill more than they do.


Actually, since we are nearing election year, if nothing else passes, it will look bad for everyone. Because, if we leave and civil war does break out in Iraq, $4.00 gallons of gas will be a thing of the past. Our gas prices will skyrocket far beyond that, and the Democrats will have to take their share of the blame, just like the Republicans.

It will be an ugly situation all around. Trust me, the Democrats don't really want to pull out of Iraq, its all a show to make the people that put them in office think they are attempting what they were asked for. They just want to make a political statement that will boost their candidates next year.

That is all any of this is, election politics at its worst.

And Bush had a bill that took the power for running the war away from the Commander-in-Chief, away from our military commanders, and away from the Iraqi politicians, that are directly affected by it, and gave it to Congress. Who has not constitutional right to such powers.

What part of "power of the purse" do you not understand? Bush is not a king, much as he would like to think he is.

No, by refusing the Dem's attempts to "give aid and comfort to the enemy" he is supporting our troops.
You're the kind of idiot who would say America is founded on freedoms and then say we shouldn't accept liberals huh?
(Some one actually said this bullshit on the radio today, well he said liberals shouldn't be tolerated)

And due to the love of journalists to make the biggest point in shortest amount of words, Bush is coming out looking like a dick to anyone not watching FOX News - not the Democrats. This morning's headlines on the veto: Bush vetoes military spending bill. Looks like Bush is opposed to military spending!

As promised, president bush has vetoed the spending bill passed by the democratic held congress. Now it is back to Congress to pass a new bill.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/congress.iraq/index.html)

For fear of sounding a little redundant .... Bush hates the troops.

What exactly are the Democrats "trying to get away with" here? If Bush hadn't insisted on running this war off the budget, he wouldn't be in this fix right now. This is a supplemental spending bill, which he needs because he wanted to be able to say, last year, that he was reducing the deficit. Had he just put it in the regular budget, he wouldn't be faced with this situation that is of his own making. It's his fault that it has come to this.

As I have already agreed, this should be part of the regular budget. Since it isn't there is nothing I can do to change that; however, I can voice my opioin based on the situation we are facing now.

That said, my opinion is that the Democrats are using this bill as campaign leverage for next years Presidential elections. They care nothing for what the people really want, and they know that their bill will fail, specifically with the effort to make the Republicans look bad, and attempt to boost their political efforts next year. This is nothing more that election politics at its worst.

Actually, since we are nearing election year, if nothing else passes, it will look bad for everyone. Because, if we leave and civil war does break out in Iraq, $4.00 gallons of gas will be a thing of the past. Our gas prices will skyrocket far beyond that, and the Democrats will have to take their share of the blame, just like the Republicans.

It will be an ugly situation all around. Trust me, the Democrats don't really want to pull out of Iraq, its all a show to make the people that put them in office think they are attempting what they were asked for. They just want to make a political statement that will boost their candidates next year.

That is all any of this is, election politics at its worst.

nooo this is election politics at its BEST.

by pressing the will of the people, the democrats draw a clear line between themselves and the republicans.

It will be an ugly situation all around. Trust me, the Democrats don't really want to pull out of Iraq, its all a show to make the people that put them in office think they are attempting what they were asked for. They just want to make a political statement that will boost their candidates next year.
I'll give you that; however, the Democrats won the majority in Congress because they promised to bring our troops home and people disapproved of how Bush and his Congressional groupies were running this country and the war. So regardless of the reasons, the Democrats are actually serving their constituents.

by pressing the will of the people, the democrats draw a clear line between themselves and the republicans.
Well said. *bows*

So I guess you were screaming about this sort of thing during the Clinton presidency when people like McCain were saying we needed to be out of Haiti and Somalia and the Balkans immediately, right? You were there at the forefront saying that we couldn't give the enemy any idea of when we would leave, right?

Exactly! Of course, I was probably screaming a bit louder, after all, I was paying more in taxes at the time.

Well said. *bows*

thank you!

You're the kind of idiot who would say America is founded on freedoms and then say we shouldn't accept liberals huh?
(Some one actually said this bullshit on the radio today, well he said liberals shouldn't be tolerated)

And due to the love of journalists to make the biggest point in shortest amount of words, Bush is coming out looking like a dick to anyone not watching FOX News - not the Democrats. This morning's headlines on the veto: Bush vetoes military spending bill. Looks like Bush is opposed to military spending!

The majority of the media are democratic liberals... of course they won't tellt he whole story. Nobody tells the hwole story... why telling the whole story would be.. the right thing to do! And who on earth would do that? Certainly not anyone trying to tell the so called truth...

The majority of the media are democratic liberals... of course they won't tellt he whole story. Nobody tells the hwole story... why telling the whole story would be.. the right thing to do! And who on earth would do that? Certainly not anyone trying to tell the so called truth...

"teh liberal media" should be the next godwin I swear.

Yes yes, reality has a liberal bias, we know.

So I guess you were screaming about this sort of thing during the Clinton presidency when people like McCain were saying we needed to be out of Haiti and Somalia and the Balkans immediately, right? You were there at the forefront saying that we couldn't give the enemy any idea of when we would leave, right?

As a matter of fact, yes.

You're the kind of idiot who would say America is founded on freedoms and then say we shouldn't accept liberals huh?
(Some one actually said this bullshit on the radio today, well he said liberals shouldn't be tolerated)

Absolutely not, everyone's opinions, and views need to be heard. I am by no means a conservative, by any stretch of the word. I am far more moderate than most. There is just no party that actually supports my views so I have to take what good both parties have and complain about the bad.

And due to the love of journalists to make the biggest point in shortest amount of words, Bush is coming out looking like a dick to anyone not watching FOX News - not the Democrats. This morning's headlines on the veto: Bush vetoes military spending bill. Looks like Bush is opposed to military spending!

That is only the case if you listen to the news organizations that refuse to be completely honest and up front with the American people. It is reasons like this that I listen to a broad number of liberal, and conservative commentators, as well as a few that actually give both sides of the story, then make up my mind where I stand.

As a matter of fact, yes.

So does that mean you're currently taking those politicians to task now for being flip-floppers?

So does that mean you're currently taking those politicians to task now for being flip-floppers?

Yes. I think that both parties have both taken whatever the opposite side of the other party is, just to score points.

There might be a couple out of that whole lot that actually may not have flip-flopped.

Which would be extraordinarily unconstitutional.

Actually, Line Item Vetoes are not uncommon in some states, as their legislatures have given those powers to the Govenors. But as I said, that is a discussion for another topic, not this one.


But I guess like Nazz said, you supported it when Clinton wanted it too, huh?

And yes, I complained when the Republicans did the same thing to Clinton, it was wrong then, and it is wrong now. No difference.

And the President doesn't have the power to tell the democrats what bills to pass.

True, but they should still use their common sense, and attempt to pass a bill that actually stands of chance of passing. Don't waste our money on items that they can guarentee will fail. Stop playing election politics and run my government. That is whay I elected them for!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aint seperation of powers grand?

Yes it is.

Wrong. Congressional power is to dictate how the money is spent, when, and under what conditions.


Acutally, the Constitution specifically states:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.
To raise and support armies; but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.
To provide and maintain a navy.
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.

So on this I stand corrected.

That said, they need to do such things in a bill other than a military finance bill. Such an effort is pork and should be removed.

The majority of the media are democratic liberals... of course they won't tellt he whole story. Nobody tells the hwole story... why telling the whole story would be.. the right thing to do! And who on earth would do that? Certainly not anyone trying to tell the so called truth...
The "truth" of course being that teh evil libral Democrats are trying to not fund our troops and are inviting the terrorists to come invade our country by trying to bring our troops home in a funding bill. :rolleyes:

Actually, Line Item Vetoes are not uncommon in some states, as their legislatures have given those powers to the Govenors.

Umm....that's of absolutely no relevance what so ever. The constitutional seperation of powers applies ONLY to the federal government. States may set up their state government however they wish to. The federal government on the other hand has strict seperations of power. Congress couldn't give Bush the power to do that if they wanted to, it would be unconstitutional.


And yes, I complained when the Republicans did the same thing to Clinton, it was wrong then, and it is wrong now. No difference.

No, I meant when clinton was asking for line item veto...did you support it then?

True, but they should still use their common sense, and attempt to pass a bill that actually stands of chance of passing. Don't waste our money on items that they can guarentee will fail. Stop playing election politics and run my government. That is whay I elected them for!!!!!!!!!!!!

And the majority of people elected the democrats to reduce the war. Therefore it appears they are doing exactly what they were elected for.

That said, they need to do such things in a bill other than a military finance bill. Such an effort is pork and should be removed.


Why? Because you said so? Sorry, you're not that special.

I'll give you that; however, the Democrats won the majority in Congress because they promised to bring our troops home and people disapproved of how Bush and his Congressional groupies were running this country and the war. So regardless of the reasons, the Democrats are actually serving their constituents.

No, they are trykng to make is appear that they are doing the will of the people. The reality is they have no interest in actually bring the troops home. They all know that such an action would be severly detrimental to our economic well being. So they give us a show, and pretend to actually "serving their constituents", but the reality is far different.

I just wish we all could see through their games, maybe then what we actually want would get done.

No, they are trykng to make is appear that they are doing the will of the people. The reality is they have no interest in actually bring the troops home. They all know that such an action would be severly detrimental to our economic well being. So they give us a show, and pretend to actually "serving their constituents", but the reality is far different.

I just wish we all could see through their games, maybe then what we actually want would get done.

They passed a bill that would begin a withdrawal of the troops by a particular date--in what fucked up universe does that constitute having no interest in actually bringing the troops home?

Umm....that's of absolutely no relevance what so ever. The constitutional seperation of powers applies ONLY to the federal government. States may set up their state government however they wish to. The federal government on the other hand has strict seperations of power. Congress couldn't give Bush the power to do that if they wanted to, it would be unconstitutional.

This is the last time I will say anything on this subject, any further response regarding this will be ignored. This is a discussion for another topic, not one relating to Bush vetoing the Supplimental Military Spending bill.


No, I meant when clinton was asking for line item veto...did you support it then?

.....

And the majority of people elected the democrats to reduce the war. Therefore it appears they are doing exactly what they were elected for.

YES, we elected them to actually reduce the war, not pass bills that they can guarentee has absolutely zero chance of becoming law. This is no effort to do our bidding. This is all a show, specifically to boost themselves come election time, nothing more. If they actually wanted to do our bidding, they would have passed a bill that actually would of been passed in the first place.

Why? Because you said so? Sorry, you're not that special.

No, because pork has no business being in any bill, regardless of what the bill is for. If you want something done you propose and write a bill for it, don't tack it onto a bill that is for some other purpose. Such efforts ARE NOT doing the will of the people.

nooo this is election politics at its BEST.

by pressing the will of the people, the democrats draw a clear line between themselves and the republicans.

They are not pressing the will of the people by passing a bill that they have no ability to make law in any way shape or form. If you actually want to do the will of the people you actually pass legislation, not attempt to pass legislation.

So does that mean you're currently taking those politicians to task now for being flip-floppers?

Absolutely!!!

YES, we elected them to actually reduce the war, not pass bills that they can guarentee has absolutely zero chance of becoming law. This is no effort to do our bidding. This is all a show, specifically to boost themselves come election time, nothing more. If they actually wanted to do our bidding, they would have passed a bill that actually would of been passed in the first place.

So in your world, when a President vetoes something, that's the end of the discussion? Congress just has to cave in and do what he wants? What world do you live in. It's Dubya's fault that this hasn't been made law yet--don't try to pass blame off onto Congress for it.

It's all good. In 2008, 33 Senate seats go up for election: 21 Republican seats, and 12 Democratic seats.

Regardless of who becomes President, guess what's going to happen in the Senate if the will of the people continues to be ignored? :)

It's all good. In 2008, 33 Senate seats go up for election: 21 Republican seats, and 12 Democratic seats.

Regardless of who becomes President, guess what's going to happen in the Senate if the will of the people continues to be ignored? :)

A veto proof majority is unlikely, but an increased majority is very much in play.

So in your world, when a President vetoes something, that's the end of the discussion? Congress just has to cave in and do what he wants? What world do you live in. It's Dubya's fault that this hasn't been made law yet--don't try to pass blame off onto Congress for it.

All Hail King Dubya! Let's get rid of the legislature altogether, shall we?

So in your world, when a President vetoes something, that's the end of the discussion? Congress just has to cave in and do what he wants? What world do you live in. It's Dubya's fault that this hasn't been made law yet--don't try to pass blame off onto Congress for it.

No, I am saying that if you are going to pass a bill, especially one that is as controversial as this one, at least make an effort to see that you have the capability to overwrite the veto. If you know that you don't stand a chance of passing the bill, no matter how hard you try, then you don't waste thet taxpayers money attempting it. Instead you look for another option. It's common sense.

I blame Congress, because they passed a bill that they all knew well in advance of passing said bill that there was no possible way that they were going to be able to make that bill into law. Such an effort is a collosal waste of the money they get paid and only serves to make one group look bad and another look good. It does not, in any way, serve the will of he people.

A veto proof majority is unlikely, but an increased majority is very much in play.

They'd have to pick up ten seats. Yeah, that is a challenge. *nod* But it would be even more challenging for the Republicans to retain all 21. ;)

YES, we elected them to actually reduce the war, not pass bills that they can guarentee has absolutely zero chance of becoming law.

You seem to fail to understand that those are the exact same thing.

anytime the United States has gotten its nose bloodied it has retreated...look at Vietnam, Korea, etc.

I'm not surprised...Bush will just have to fund an illegal CIA war...:sniper:

The larger news in my mind is the Military Commissions Act...it suspends our constitutional guaranteed right to habeas corpus if the person is deemed to be a terrorist by the president...any citizen can simply disappear...

As promised, president bush has vetoed the spending bill passed by the democratic held congress. Now it is back to Congress to pass a new bill.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/congress.iraq/index.html)

Ah, the inevitable.

You seem to fail to understand that those are the exact same thing.

No, reducing the war, is not passing bills that cannot under any circumstances become law. Reducing the war, is finding an adequate solution to the problem at hand. Bush's insistance that we escalate, and the Democrats game that we pull out immediately.

When are we going to realize that both of these are not, necessarily, mutually exclusive? You can give a little now to get a whole lot more later. How do you think it would look for the Democrats come November 2008 if they gave the President half of what Petraous asked for now, and had a significant portionl of the troops home by Oct '08.

Boy, would they ever take seats from the Republicans then.

No, I am saying that if you are going to pass a bill, especially one that is as controversial as this one, at least make an effort to see that you have the capability to overwrite the veto. If you know that you don't stand a chance of passing the bill, no matter how hard you try, then you don't waste thet taxpayers money attempting it. Instead you look for another option. It's common sense.

I blame Congress, because they passed a bill that they all knew well in advance of passing said bill that there was no possible way that they were going to be able to make that bill into law. Such an effort is a collosal waste of the money they get paid and only serves to make one group look bad and another look good. It does not, in any way, serve the will of he people.

The only person subverting the will of the people here is George W. Bush.

No, I am saying that if you are going to pass a bill, especially one that is as controversial as this one, at least make an effort to see that you have the capability to overwrite the veto. If you know that you don't stand a chance of passing the bill, no matter how hard you try, then you don't waste thet taxpayers money attempting it. Instead you look for another option. It's common sense.

I blame Congress, because they passed a bill that they all knew well in advance of passing said bill that there was no possible way that they were going to be able to make that bill into law. Such an effort is a collosal waste of the money they get paid and only serves to make one group look bad and another look good. It does not, in any way, serve the will of he people.

Congress is trying to serve the will of the people (for once). It's our idiot president who isn't.

They'd have to pick up ten seats. Yeah, that is a challenge. *nod* But it would be even more challenging for the Republicans to retain all 21. ;)

Not only retain the 21, but pick at least one, if not two up if they want the majority, assuming a Democrat wins the presidency. What's the likelihood of that happening?

No, reducing the war, is not passing bills that cannot under any circumstances become law.

.....which means that it is impossible to reduce the war, since Bush is going to veto any and every bill that does so. But at least Congress is trying to do what the people have said they want.

When are we going to realize that both of these are not, necessarily, mutually exclusive? You can give a little now to get a whole lot more later. How do you think it would look for the Democrats come November 2008 if they gave the President half of what Petraous asked for now, and had a significant portionl of the troops home by Oct '08.

How is Congress going to get troops home by Oct. '08? Bush is going to say no to any initiative that suggests such a thing.

No, reducing the war, is not passing bills that cannot under any circumstances become law. Reducing the war, is finding an adequate solution to the problem at hand. Bush's insistance that we escalate, and the Democrats game that we pull out immediately.
I don't know if you realize this, don't you seem to not, Bush has threatened to veto anything that doesn't let him do whatever he wants. Any attempts to try to "reduce the war" will have to overcome the veto.

How do you think it would look for the Democrats come November 2008 if they gave the President half of what Petraous asked for now, and had a significant portionl of the troops home by Oct '08.
How, pray tell, would they get any of the troops home? Bush wants to send more troops, not less.

The only person subverting the will of the people here is George W. Bush.

I said nothing of subverting the will of the people. I think they are ignoring the will of the people in an effort to make us think they actually care about what we think.

Unfortunately, from the sounds of what I am hearing that have convince some of us that they actually care.

The "truth" of course being that teh evil libral Democrats are trying to not fund our troops and are inviting the terrorists to come invade our country by trying to bring our troops home in a funding bill. :rolleyes:

The media, with is very large liberal base constantly swings things into a view that supports the democratic party and liberal views in general. They do not report the whole truth as they claim to do. Instead of stating the reasons about WHY the bill was vetoed they simply state "George Bush is ebil lolzers! He won't give our troops moneys to fight thier little war. OMFG that is so wrong of him to do."
I've done some reading, many of the places that report the vetoe made little mention of the reasons and proceeded to make the President and his constituants sound to be worse than they are. Its wrong, its biased, and it is no way to run a business that claims to uphold the 'truth'.
At least the National Enquirer has enough integrety to say "We make shit up!"
While the New York Press claims to tell the truth and lies to make it sound more sensational.

Not only is the idea of a timeline for surrender inherently laughable,

Laughable in the sense that there is no "surrender" and your iteration of John McCain's idiotic campaign slogan propaganda just shows what a poor troll you are.

sadly, much of the American public gullibly swallowed it up.

This is because too much of America is burdened by "reason" and other liberal flaws. You however, know and speak the truth!

I said nothing of subverting the will of the people. I think they are ignoring the will of the people in an effort to make us think they actually care about what we think.

Unfortunately, from the sounds of what I am hearing that have convince some of us that they actually care.

The opinion of "the people" according to opinion polls says that Congress is currently not doing enough to get the troops home. Bush wants to do even less than the Congress does. So given that, which one is closer to doing what the people want? Do you think that if Congress gives Bush a bill that illustrates what the majority really wants that he'll sign it, when it involves getting the troops home even faster than the bill they sent him?

No, reducing the war, is not passing bills that cannot under any circumstances become law. Reducing the war, is finding an adequate solution to the problem at hand. Bush's insistance that we escalate, and the Democrats game that we pull out immediately.

When are we going to realize that both of these are not, necessarily, mutually exclusive? You can give a little now to get a whole lot more later. How do you think it would look for the Democrats come November 2008 if they gave the President half of what Petraous asked for now, and had a significant portionl of the troops home by Oct '08.

Boy, would they ever take seats from the Republicans then.

That necessitates one thing.

The belief that an administration that has accomplished nothing but failure on top of failure on top of failure is capable of orchestrating a plan that will accomplish anything other than more dead troops.

Why the hell should anyone believe that?

I don't know if you realize this, don't you seem to not, Bush has threatened to veto anything that doesn't let him do whatever he wants. Any attempts to try to "reduce the war" will have to overcome the veto.


How, pray tell, would they get any of the troops home? Bush wants to send more troops, not less.

I can assure you that not all the Republicans are on Bush's side on this; however, they all just agree that an immediate withdrawal is a really bad thing, and on that I agree. Some agree that a gradual draw down is more appropriate beginning Summer '08.

In fact, if the Democrats really cared about what we thought, they would pass such legislation, knowing full well that President Bush would veto it, but they would have the votes in both houses to override said veto. That is doing the will of the people.

The media, with is very large liberal base constantly swings things into a view that supports the democratic party and liberal views in general. They do not report the whole truth as they claim to do. Instead of stating the reasons about WHY the bill was vetoed they simply state "George Bush is ebil lolzers! He won't give our troops moneys to fight thier little war. OMFG that is so wrong of him to do."
I've done some reading, many of the places that report the vetoe made little mention of the reasons and proceeded to make the President and his constituants sound to be worse than they are. Its wrong, its biased, and it is no way to run a business that claims to uphold the 'truth'.
At least the National Enquirer has enough integrety to say "We make shit up!"
While the New York Press claims to tell the truth and lies to make it sound more sensational.

Thank you for that incredibly original rant about the evil liberal media.

Do you actually have anything to add to the discussion, however?

Like perhaps you could tell us those "reasons WHY the bill was vetoed," since I was just now reading the New York Times and it actually did just say, "George Bush is evil lolzers." It's uncanny, how accurate you are so far. Give us more.

anytime the United States has gotten its nose bloodied it has retreated...look at Vietnam, Korea, etc.

Agreed and now we are poised to do it again. You would think we would look out our history and choose to avoid repeating it. Or at least learn from it.

I'm not surprised...Bush will just have to fund an illegal CIA war...:sniper:

God forbid!!!!!!

The larger news in my mind is the Military Commissions Act...it suspends our constitutional guaranteed right to habeas corpus if the person is deemed to be a terrorist by the president...any citizen can simply disappear...

All too true, and I pray this is never actually abused.

I just used New York Times as an example it does not mean I was cting exactly that the New York Times said anything, I have better things to blow a dollar a day on than paper, its big, its well known, and its read the world over. I contributed my thoughts and now am just ranting because I have naught better to do... leave me be... shoo... go on now.

Oh and for the record, I'm not ranting about the liberal bias, I'm ranting about how often they lie to make things sound better. Thats not telling the truth, thats telling lies, and if I'm not mistaken most people hate being lied to.

The opinion of "the people" according to opinion polls says that Congress is currently not doing enough to get the troops home.

In this I agree.
Bush wants to do even less than the Congress does. So given that, which one is closer to doing what the people want?

Given the bill that Congress has passed, there is no difference between the two.

Do you think that if Congress gives Bush a bill that illustrates what the majority really wants that he'll sign it, when it involves getting the troops home even faster than the bill they sent him?

No, I think that if Congress gives Bush a bill that gives him a short term escalation with a long term withdrawal he will veto it, but they will have enough votes in both houses to override him.

And that would be doing the will of the people.

That necessitates one thing.

The belief that an administration that has accomplished nothing but failure on top of failure on top of failure is capable of orchestrating a plan that will accomplish anything other than more dead troops.

Why the hell should anyone believe that?

They shouldn't, however, Congress did approve the new General in charge of operations in Iraq, and I would think if he says, "We need more troops to achieve X goal", then Congress would approve it, otherwise, they chose to put the wrong person in charge there.

Given the bill that Congress has passed, there is no difference between the two.
That's just about the dumbest comment in this thread, and you're up against some major competition here.

Nope, I've definatly typed dummer ones.

LOL....its like reading what puppets would say.

since when does congress ever do anything that is not in the best interest of getting re-elected. you people need to quit reading the New York Times and listening to Fox News or CNN and formulate your own opinion.

try doing a little research instead of regurgitating what others have said.

LOL....its like reading what puppets would say.

since when does congress ever do anything that is not in the best interest of getting re-elected. you people need to quit reading the New York Times and listening to Fox News or CNN and formulate your own opinion.

try doing a little research instead of regurgitating what others have said.
:mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :gundge: :gundge:

Fixed. ;)

That's just about the dumbest comment in this thread, and you're up against some major competition here.

Really, you mean to tell me that passing a bill that will never become law is actually doing what we asked them to??


How can that possibly be?

Look, I voted Democratic, I expect my congressman to actually get something done, not waste my money on bills that they stand absolutely zero chance of passing. And I have written him a scathing letter on his failure and my extreme dissappointment on my wasted vote. If I wanted someone to do nothing, I would have voted Republican. Although at least then bills would be getting passed and would become law.

As promised, president bush has vetoed the spending bill passed by the democratic held congress. Now it is back to Congress to pass a new bill.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/congress.iraq/index.html)

And both the White HOuse and Congress will be talking which should have been done in the first place.

Really, you mean to tell me that passing a bill that will never become law is actually doing what we asked them to??


How can that possibly be?

Look, I voted Democratic, I expect my congressman to actually get something done, not waste my money on bills that they stand absolutely zero chance of passing. And I have written him a scathing letter on his failure and my extreme dissappointment on my wasted vote. If I wanted someone to do nothing, I would have voted Republican. Although at least then bills would be getting passed and would become law.
Get one thing straight if you get nothing else from this thread--the fault in this situation is not with the Congress. Bush had multiple opportunities to do this differently, and he chose not to, so now he's stuck with what Congress gives him. That's the way our fucking system works. Bush has never had to deal with a hostile Congress before--boo fucking hoo. Maybe this is the time he finally learns what negotiation and compromise really means.

Well, I declare that he is committing treason. By not funding the troops, he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy!

And on the opposite, the same could be said for those that approved of this measure.

So I guess the only option Congress has left is to wait for President Bush to learn about cooperation, or more likely, the war funding runs out and they have no choice but to halt operations completely.
What other avenues can there be?

Really, you mean to tell me that passing a bill that will never become law is actually doing what we asked them to??


How can that possibly be?

They are doing what we asked them to.

Bush is blocking the will of the people from coming to fruition.

Try to place blame where it is due.

Get one thing straight if you get nothing else from this thread--the fault in this situation is not with the Congress. Bush had multiple opportunities to do this differently, and he chose not to, so now he's stuck with what Congress gives him. That's the way our fucking system works. Bush has never had to deal with a hostile Congress before--boo fucking hoo.

I suppose we will simply have to disagree on this one then. I voted to actually make things happen, not to watch a stalemate. The bill my Congressman, and yours most likely, is nothing more that a game, and it has created a stalemate between the President and Congress. Congress is just as much to blame for this situation as the President, and the sooner we all wake up and realize this the better off we will all be.

Maybe this is the time he finally learns what negotiation and compromise really means.

And that is exactly what Congress should have attempted in the first place. Not tip toe around pretending to do what we asked. They should have actually DONE WHAT WE ASKED.

If I were a Congressman, I'd reintroduce the same bill, word for word, tomorrow, and tell Bush that it's this or nothing. If he wants a war, he'll have to do it this way. That's not going to happen, of course, but it would be nice.

It would but negotiations with the White House is better.

That said, I'm finding it interesting the way bloggers are digging up all these juicy quotes from Republican congressmen talking shit about withdrawal from foreign soil, the need to get out now, the insistence on more than just timelines, but on full withdrawal. The difference? It was Haiti. It was Somalia. It was the Balkans. And the big difference--it was a Democratic president.

I remember. This is why I do not watch political campaigns with the term flip flopper gets introduced.

I'll spit on anyone who claims this is a case of the Democrats cutting off the troops--Bush had a bill which funded them, and he vetoed it, and the dumbest part of all this is that Bush did it to himself.

And yet he backed up his threat of veto because of the timeline that was introduced. Rare for a politician to back up their promises this day in age.

If he hadn't insisted on keeping this war off the books, thereby making his budgets look smaller than they were, he wouldn't need this supplemental. Lies on top of lies on top of lies.

Name me a politician that has not lied.

And both the White HOuse and Congress will be talking which should have been done in the first place.

Bush's idea of "talking" is "give me what I want." That's not going to fly anymore. He tried it already and he got this bill.

And that is exactly what Congress should have attempted in the first place. Not tip toe around pretending to do what we asked. They should have actually DONE WHAT WE ASKED.

Good fucking lord--Congress did try to negotiate with Bush, but all he did was say "give me a bill with no restrictions and fuck you if you don't." What the hell kind of negotiation is that? If Congress had given them that, the public would be all over them for it, and rightly so. THEY DID WHAT WE ASKED! (See, I can hit the caps lock button too. :rolleyes: ) They gave Bush a bill that starts the process of getting out of Iraq. That he refuses to sign it is hardly their problem.

I voted to actually make things happen, not to watch a stalemate.

it ain't a stalemate, boyo. read the fucking thread.

I believe both houses of congress should be impeached and all legislative branch powers transfered to the President for the rest of his term so he can do stuff his way. Hail President Bush.

What the?

*wonders if this was sarcasm*

They are doing what we asked them to.

Bush is blocking the will of the people from coming to fruition.

By passing a bill they know has no possiblity of seeing the light of day, Congress is doing our will? How is that in any way doing our will?

I simply cannot buy it, I am far too intelligent to accept such nonsense.

Now, if Bush hadn't promised Congress that he would veto a bill that contained a strict timeline and such, I might be inclined to agree with you, however, Congress passed this bill with full knowledge that is would get vetoed, and knowing that there was no possible way they could override said veto. And that I blame solely on Congress, Bush can't hold the blame for that.

Try to place blame where it is due.

And I am, Bush is just as much at fault for this as Congress.

Not all of this has to be "pork" added in. I haven't read the original bill, but imagine this then.

Humanitarian Relief to Help People Bill
1) Give money to fund rebuilding New Orleans.
2) Make a plan to stop killing the people of Iraq.
3) Give money to enforce that plan.
4) National health care plan.
5) Make a foreign policy that doesn't enrage the rest of the world.

These are not completely separate items. They are related in goal and vision.
Congress is trying to say, "Okay, you've proved you can screw up another country. We've sent you buckets of money to use to burn Iraq to the ground and destroy their government, because you said you wanted to help their people recover from misery. But how about you help our guys too? Things that really need to be done anyways?"

And Bush says back, "NEVAR! I make decisions for God! Even the will of the people is nothing to me! I will take what I want from war and you will do what I say! I refuse to help our country, or ANY country! Watch how I turn a hellhole into a deeper hellhole, and then let another nation conquer it at great expense of our own lives!"

A line item veto would only make things hideously worse (in this case).

Anyways, now that Bush has used his veto, congress can vote to override it.
If they do, they can push through anyways, create a plan for withdrawal, give the funding to do so gracefully instead of abruptly having people stranded, rebuild New Orleans, yadda yadda.

And both the White House and Congress will be talking which should have been done in the first place.

Agreed!! This is exactly where they should have started in the first place. This is actually doing the will of the people.

By passing a bill they know has no possiblity of seeing the light of day, Congress is doing out will? How is that in any way doing our will?[quote]

1) Government doesn't actually get larger. No spending means smaller government, in some way.

2) The military eventually runs out of funds, forcing an even earlier withdrawel than originally put forward in the proposal.

I think a lot of people support at least nr 1, and quite a few voted in support of nr 2 last time. About 50% if I remember correctly.

[quote]I simply cannot buy it, I am far too intelligent to accept such nonsense.

You just haven't understand the consequences of vetoing this bill.

The military eventually runs out of funds and they cannot appropriate funds from elsewhere.

Now, if Bush hadn't promised Congress that he would veto a bill that contained a strict timeline and such, I might be inclined to agree with you, however, Congress passed this bill with full knowledge that is would get vetoed, and knowing that there was no possible way they could override said veto. And that I blame solely on Congress, Bush can't hold the blame for that.

Yes, yes he can. He could have let it pass.

By passing a bill they know has no possiblity of seeing the light of day, Congress is doing out will? How is that in any way doing our will?

Congress isn't the one keeping it from seeing the light of day. They did exactly what they were elected to do (well, maybe a little slower), and Bush is keeping it from happening.

Suppose I was hired to design a house. Someone else is supposed to build that house. When I hand over the designs for the house - and they match the requests that were made - am I to be blamed when the builder won't build it?

I simply cannot buy it, I am far too intelligent to accept such nonsense.

You seem to have difficulty with understanding the fact that it is Bush who is blocking this bill, not Congress.

Now, if Bush hadn't promised Congress that he would veto a bill that contained a strict timeline and such, I might be inclined to agree with you, however, Congress passed this bill with full knowledge that is would get vetoed, and knowing that there was no possible way they could override said veto. And that I blame solely on Congress, Bush can't hold the blame for that.

Bush holds the blame for his own actions. This means that he holds ALL of the blame for this bill not being made into law.

And I am, Bush is just as much at fault for this as Congress.

Bush is more at fault, as he is the only one blocking it.

Agreed!! This is exactly where they should have started in the first place. This is actually doing the will of the people.

How do you talk to someone who says, "IT'S EXACTLY MY WAY OR NOTHING AT ALL!!! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!"????

Bush's "talks" or "advisors" are nothing more than a joke.

This is actually doing the will of the people.

what do you think 'the will of the people' means?

Bush's idea of "talking" is "give me what I want." That's not going to fly anymore. He tried it already and he got this bill.

I will wait and see how the discussions go. I am not going to be the one that will jump to conclusions like so many here probably already have.

I am far too intelligent to accept such nonsense.

yes, clearly that's the problem

I will wait and see how the discussions go. I am not going to be the one that will jump to conclusions like so many here probably already have.

This isn't jumping to conclusions. This is an accurate description of what has already gone on.

I'm going to make a few quotes and then toss in some opinions here.


...
As far as putting a timeline for withdrawal, that is paramount to announcing the date of our surrender. That is saying to the enemy "This is the date we are leaving, make your plans to take over now."

Is anyone familiar with the phrase "Cut off my nose to spite my face"?

Well that is what we would be done to cut off funding. Right or wrong, our boys are over there and we need to support them 100%. To cut off funding so you can throw political egg on the current administration is spiteful and foolish.
...


Alright, my very first quote and comment is going to be about this theory that we can "win". It won't happen. The moment we pull out things will go to pot and civil war will break out. The end of that war will no doubt leave another form of dictatorship in place over anything more democratic. We need to dust off our gray matter on this and realize that the best route for ourselves is to pull out. Yes, it'll suck for the Iraqi people, yes gas prices will probably go up, but we dug that grave ourselves and it's time to sleep in it. I'd rather pay the price at the pumps and watch the poor saps over there kill themselves than see one more American serviceman or servicewoman lose their life for a lost cause. This isn't like Korea, where we can sit on a line of fences and know that the bad guy is on the other side. There's no claiming victory over there, and while blindly surging forwards won't slit our throats, it'll take us out at the ankles. The lives of our men and women are far more valuable in my eyes than the lives of any man or woman from another nationality.

[
... I think the most distinctive difference here is that the President has power over determining if the bill becomes law, and the Dems do not have the ability to override him on that.
...


Yes, the President does have the power to veto, and it's an amazing power at that. But Congress does have the power to override him. It's only a matter of whether or not they will exercise that power. I don't believe they will due to the habit of folks to ride party-lines regardless of the consequences. The vast majority of Americans, simple voters and representatives alike, don't vote based on personal belief but rather vote how they are told to vote. These are the days of Elephants and Donkeys, and those who ride on them.

Actually, Line Item Vetoes are not uncommon in some states, as their legislatures have given those powers to the Govenors. But as I said, that is a discussion for another topic, not this one.

...

True, but they should still use their common sense, and attempt to pass a bill that actually stands of chance of passing. Don't waste our money on items that they can guarentee will fail. Stop playing election politics and run my government. That is whay I elected them for!!!!!!!!!!!!
...

I know you refused to comment further on the first part, but I just want to restate for other readers of this topic that the powers of State governments are determined by their individual constitutions. While you can compare the State and Federal systems, the functions of the Federal government are not applicable to the State, nor are the functions of the State government applicable to the Federal.

On the second point, I have to agree that the whole run was generally futile. But it is as much Bush's fault as it is Congress'. Bush made an ultimatum and Congress refused to bow down to it. Do I have one bone in my body that thinks that Congress did it for the good of the people? No. While the bill may have supported what many Americans desire, it is my belief that Congress ran it through for the power it gives them in upcoming elections. Now they can point fingers at Bush and those who voted against it and say "They don't have the peoples' hearts in mind!". It's politics, something you see every day in the political arena.



There are some simple solutions, albeit it not easy ones, to some of these problems. Rather than sit here and debate how bad people are let's try and figure out ways to correct the situations at hand.

First, let's come up with a solution to correct the adding of pork to bills. I know, why not kill off the ability to become a career politician by revoking pay and making them work like the rest of us? When a man's gotta worry about making his own way in life and representing the will of the people, he'll tend to do so without all the extraneous bullshit in between. Furthermore, why not reduce the time Congress is allowed to hold sessions to something like a number of State legislatures do? Many states limit their Congresses to less than two weeks every year to get things done. While that's not nearly enough time to solve every issue, it is more than enough time to hammer out the big important ones. Emergency sessions can still be called, but if you aren't a career politician than this is pulling you away from your life-giving labor and taking money out of your pocket. How ready are you then to waste it?

I've already stated my opinion on the matter of whether or not we can succeed in Iraq. Because I feel that we face nothing but failure there, I think it's best to cut our loses. We aren't going to see significant change with our presence in the extended future, so why are we throwing the lives of Americans down the drain? We can sit there indefinitely and keep the most meager semblances of order, or we can leave, let them duke it out, and work peaceably with the victor, who will have obtained order with far less bloodshed in the long run. If the Iraqi people love their freedom and their country so greatly, then let them fight for it. As it is I love mine more than theirs, and with my love of country comes my love for my fellow Americans. And that love screams to me that no American life is worth the life of an Iraqi citizen.

With this love in mind, I would like to discuss a word that's being thrown around as blindly as it is with the media; "patriot". I want to define two terms first in my discussion as provided by a dictionary:
Patriotism: Devoted love, support, and defense of one's country.
and
Nationalism: The policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

Iraq is a practice of nationalism, not patriotism. The patriot is the man who defends his country out of love and desire to see it prosper. The man may decry nationalistic views and even actions taken by his beloved country that further nationalism. Be careful then who you label a patriot and a traitor. Remember then, that nationalism is an ugly ordeal that prevents the peaceful cooperation of nations. It's an ordeal that leads to coercion, through war, trade, or the threat of war or unfair trade. A patriot can recognize that he views his country as the greatest in the world, but that it's alright for someone else to view their country as the greatest. That he doesn't need to demand homage, and he can freely live with other nationalities and be happy. The nationalistic man, however, knows his country is the greatest and that no other man from another country and claim likewise. In fact, the other man must renounce his greatness in favor of the nationalist in order to have any chance of peaceful words.

Be patriots then, my brothers and sisters, and shy away from nationalism.

Agreed!! This is exactly where they should have started in the first place. This is actually doing the will of the people.

The minute Bush said the word veto, compromise should have begun immediately.

I suppose we will simply have to disagree on this one then. I voted to actually make things happen, not to watch a stalemate. The bill my Congressman, and yours most likely, is nothing more that a game, and it has created a stalemate between the President and Congress. Congress is just as much to blame for this situation as the President, and the sooner we all wake up and realize this the better off we will all be.



And that is exactly what Congress should have attempted in the first place. Not tip toe around pretending to do what we asked. They should have actually DONE WHAT WE ASKED.


you are being impatient. bush has had his way on this war for 4 years. he needs to be shown that he WONT get his way automatically any more.

thats what THIS bill does. they knew it would be vetoed. they are using it as a way to show the president that he must compromise. he cant just bully his way through it to get what he wants.

supposedly he is meeting with the leaders of both parties to "work it out". if he is able to compromise, a compromise will be made. if he insists on his own way, he will lose and take his war and his party down with him.

its his choice. the next bill will be for a few months of funding only.

Good fucking lord--Congress did try to negotiate with Bush, but all he did was say "give me a bill with no restrictions and fuck you if you don't." What the hell kind of negotiation is that?

If they actually did attempt to negotiate, they would have developed a bill that would have either been signed into law, or that they actually stood a chance of overrided said veto. Failing both is a failure to carry out the will of the people.

[QUOTE=The Nazz;12602887]If Congress had given them that, the public would be all over them for it, and rightly so. THEY DID WHAT WE ASKED!

No the did nothing except waste the money we pay them.

They gave Bush a bill that starts the process of getting out of Iraq. That he refuses to sign it is hardly their problem.

They gave Bush a bill that he had promised, before they started writing it, that he would veto. And the also passed a bill that they had no possible way of overriding that veto. Now, they must step back and actually attempt to negotiate, so they are right back a square one. In my book, such an effort is failure.

The minute Bush said the word veto, compromise should have begun immediately.

No, not at all. Bush can't have it both ways. His actions have consequences. If he wanted to force the dems to change their course, without actually vetoing the bill, he was trying to avoid consequences for his actions.

He wanted this bill dead, no, he doesn't get to change it mid stream. He doesn't get to weasle out of it.

he gets to stand up, in front of the american people, the majority of which wanted this bill signed and reject it.

he doesn't get to avoid consequences.

The minute Bush said the word veto, compromise should have begun immediately.

Why? You're suggesting that it's Congress who has to give--why shouldn't Bush make concessions? He needs this bill more than Congress does, after all, and it's generally the weaker party that concedes ground in negotiations.

The minute Bush said the word veto, compromise should have begun immediately.

Yes, it should have.

They gave Bush a bill that he had promised, before they started writing it, that he would veto. And the also passed a bill that they had no possible way of overriding that veto. Now, they must step back and actually attempt to negotiate, so they are right back a square one. In my book, such an effort is failure.

Not at all. As I said, Bush has now done what he said he would do. Congress made him do what he threatened to do.

Now he will deal with the consequences of that act. He doesn't get to avoid them. He doesn't get to set term. Congress puts forward the bill IT wants.

Bush signs the bill HE wants.

he rejected the bill. Now he and his party will deal with those consequences.

No the did nothing except waste the money we pay them.

They did the exact opposite, by not spending anything at all.

They gave Bush a bill that he had promised, before they started writing it, that he would veto. And the also passed a bill that they had no possible way of overriding that veto. Now, they must step back and actually attempt to negotiate, so they are right back a square one. In my book, such an effort is failure.

They can wait month, after month, until either the military runs out of funds and has to return home or Bush conceeds.

Fact is, Bush cannot force through a bill of his own, so he is the one causing the stalemate.

Congress cannot cause a stalemate.

This isn't jumping to conclusions. This is an accurate description of what has already gone on.

It's an accurate description of Dubya's entire fricking presidency.

The minute Bush said the word veto, compromise should have begun immediately.
With all due "respect," that's fucking horseshit. I don't recall letting children get their way every single time they throw a tantrum, why should Bush? Congress is trying to do their prescribed job and he is threatening to take his toys and go home. Fuck him. Fuck compromise. Put him in timeout.

With all due "respect," that's fucking horseshit. I don't recall letting children get their way every single time they throw a tantrum, why should Bush? Congress is trying to do their prescribed job and he is threatening to take his toys and go home. Fuck him. Fuck compromise. Put him in timeout.

Aye-aye, captain! Lead on!

I'm going to make a few quotes and then toss in some opinions here.


...
As far as putting a timeline for withdrawal, that is paramount to announcing the date of our surrender. That is saying to the enemy "This is the date we are leaving, make your plans to take over now."

Is anyone familiar with the phrase "Cut off my nose to spite my face"?

Well that is what we would be done to cut off funding. Right or wrong, our boys are over there and we need to support them 100%. To cut off funding so you can throw political egg on the current administration is spiteful and foolish.
...


Alright, my very first quote and comment is going to be about this theory that we can "win". It won't happen. The moment we pull out things will go to pot and civil war will break out. The end of that war will no doubt leave another form of dictatorship in place over anything more democratic. We need to dust off our gray matter on this and realize that the best route for ourselves is to pull out. Yes, it'll suck for the Iraqi people, yes gas prices will probably go up, but we dug that grave ourselves and it's time to sleep in it. I'd rather pay the price at the pumps and watch the poor saps over there kill themselves than see one more American serviceman or servicewoman lose their life for a lost cause. This isn't like Korea, where we can sit on a line of fences and know that the bad guy is on the other side. There's no claiming victory over there, and while blindly surging forwards won't slit our throats, it'll take us out at the ankles. The lives of our men and women are far more valuable in my eyes than the lives of any man or woman from another nationality.

[
... I think the most distinctive difference here is that the President has power over determining if the bill becomes law, and the Dems do not have the ability to override him on that.
...


Yes, the President does have the power to veto, and it's an amazing power at that. But Congress does have the power to override him. It's only a matter of whether or not they will exercise that power. I don't believe they will due to the habit of folks to ride party-lines regardless of the consequences. The vast majority of Americans, simple voters and representatives alike, don't vote based on personal belief but rather vote how they are told to vote. These are the days of Elephants and Donkeys, and those who ride on them.

Actually, Line Item Vetoes are not uncommon in some states, as their legislatures have given those powers to the Govenors. But as I said, that is a discussion for another topic, not this one.

...

True, but they should still use their common sense, and attempt to pass a bill that actually stands of chance of passing. Don't waste our money on items that they can guarentee will fail. Stop playing election politics and run my government. That is whay I elected them for!!!!!!!!!!!!
...

I know you refused to comment further on the first part, but I just want to restate for other readers of this topic that the powers of State governments are determined by their individual constitutions. While you can compare the State and Federal systems, the functions of the Federal government are not applicable to the State, nor are the functions of the State government applicable to the Federal.

On the second point, I have to agree that the whole run was generally futile. But it is as much Bush's fault as it is Congress'. Bush made an ultimatum and Congress refused to bow down to it. Do I have one bone in my body that thinks that Congress did it for the good of the people? No. While the bill may have supported what many Americans desire, it is my belief that Congress ran it through for the power it gives them in upcoming elections. Now they can point fingers at Bush and those who voted against it and say "They don't have the peoples' hearts in mind!". It's politics, something you see every day in the political arena.



There are some simple solutions, albeit it not easy ones, to some of these problems. Rather than sit here and debate how bad people are let's try and figure out ways to correct the situations at hand.

First, let's come up with a solution to correct the adding of pork to bills. I know, why not kill off the ability to become a career politician by revoking pay and making them work like the rest of us? When a man's gotta worry about making his own way in life and representing the will of the people, he'll tend to do so without all the extraneous bullshit in between. Furthermore, why not reduce the time Congress is allowed to hold sessions to something like a number of State legislatures do? Many states limit their Congresses to less than two weeks every year to get things done. While that's not nearly enough time to solve every issue, it is more than enough time to hammer out the big important ones. Emergency sessions can still be called, but if you aren't a career politician than this is pulling you away from your life-giving labor and taking money out of your pocket. How ready are you then to waste it?

I've already stated my opinion on the matter of whether or not we can succeed in Iraq. Because I feel that we face nothing but failure there, I think it's best to cut our loses. We aren't going to see significant change with our presence in the extended future, so why are we throwing the lives of Americans down the drain? We can sit there indefinitely and keep the most meager semblances of order, or we can leave, let them duke it out, and work peaceably with the victor, who will have obtained order with far less bloodshed in the long run. If the Iraqi people love their freedom and their country so greatly, then let them fight for it. As it is I love mine more than theirs, and with my love of country comes my love for my fellow Americans. And that love screams to me that no American life is worth the life of an Iraqi citizen.

With this love in mind, I would like to discuss a word that's being thrown around as blindly as it is with the media; "patriot". I want to define two terms first in my discussion as provided by a dictionary:
Patriotism: Devoted love, support, and defense of one's country.
and
Nationalism: The policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

Iraq is a practice of nationalism, not patriotism. The patriot is the man who defends his country out of love and desire to see it prosper. The man may decry nationalistic views and even actions taken by his beloved country that further nationalism. Be careful then who you label a patriot and a traitor. Remember then, that nationalism is an ugly ordeal that prevents the peaceful cooperation of nations. It's an ordeal that leads to coercion, through war, trade, or the threat of war or unfair trade. A patriot can recognize that he views his country as the greatest in the world, but that it's alright for someone else to view their country as the greatest. That he doesn't need to demand homage, and he can freely live with other nationalities and be happy. The nationalistic man, however, knows his country is the greatest and that no other man from another country and claim likewise. In fact, the other man must renounce his greatness in favor of the nationalist in order to have any chance of peaceful words.

Be patriots then, my brothers and sisters, and shy away from nationalism.

You just haven't understand the consequences of vetoing this bill.

The military eventually runs out of funds and they cannot appropriate funds from elsewhere.

No, all the DoD does is cancel other programs in an effort to finance this war. The DoD budget has already been approved by Congress, and is already quite large. This will not end the war, it will just bury the costs of the war in a different budget.

[QUOTE=Piresa;12602908]Yes, yes he can. He could have let it pass.

I don't know about you, but when I make a promise I try to keep it. If I strongly believe I am right, there is no way you are going to make me break my promise.

Bush promised Congress, long before they passed this bill that he would veto any bill that had a timeline. Congress chose to write a bill knowing full well it was going to get vetoed, and knowing full well they would never be able to override the veto. That is not President Bush's fault.

I can assure you that not all the Republicans are on Bush's side on this; however, they all just agree that an immediate withdrawal is a really bad thing, and on that I agree. Some agree that a gradual draw down is more appropriate beginning Summer '08.
OK, now show me where the vetoed bill said immediate withdraw.

In fact, if the Democrats really cared about what we thought, they would pass such legislation, knowing full well that President Bush would veto it, but they would have the votes in both houses to override said veto. That is doing the will of the people.
I don't know how stupid you think you are, but I'm willing to bet it's worse than you think. The two parties have been polarized for decades and what's more the Republican party has had its head up Bush's ass since day one and have given in to every little thing he wanted while questioning anyone opposed to him. That is what got us into this fucking mess in the first place, what absurd circumstances do you believe would take place that would make enough Republicans side with the Democrats to override a veto? For some one who watches both liberal and conservative programs, you have seem to have no fucking clue what has been going on for years.

Yes Bush should have compromised rather than said "it's my way or the highway" youa re correct. Good thing Congress tries to negotiate huh?

Yes, it should have.

no. it should start NOW.

you really are missing far too much of what is going on.

this is the first (second really) big test of the public's will. each side took a stand and is playing it to the end. its a clear and easy test of which side the people are on--get us out of iraq at all cost or keep us in iraq at all cost.

NOW they will take polls to see who really has the better hand. if the polls show that the public blames the dems for not supporting the troops, they will have to do some big time compromising. if the polls show that the public blames the president for gettting our troops killed for nothing, he has to compromise.

without this test, they run the risk of misjudging the people's resolve and can end up hurting themselves irreparably.

You just haven't understand the consequences of vetoing this bill.

The military eventually runs out of funds and they cannot appropriate funds from elsewhere.

No, all the DoD does is cancel other programs in an effort to finance this war. The DoD budget has already been approved by Congress, and is already quite large. This will not end the war, it will just bury the costs of the war in a different budget.



I don't know about you, but when I make a promise I try to keep it. If I strongly believe I am right, there is no way you are going to make me break my promise.

Bush promised Congress, long before they passed this bill that he would veto any bill that had a timeline. Congress chose to write a bill knowing full well it was going to get vetoed, and knowing full well they would never be able to override the veto. That is not President Bush's fault.

If you're not willing to change your mind about being stupid, then you are stupid. Gut feelings and pinkie swears have no place when it comes to a fucking war.

No, all the DoD does is cancel other programs in an effort to finance this war. The DoD budget has already been approved by Congress, and is already quite large. This will not end the war, it will just bury the costs of the war in a different budget.

That would be illegal, according to what I have heard.

And still a good thing. It reduces government, yes? Isn't that what conservatives want? It reduces the military too, yes? Isn't that what the liberals want?

I don't know about you, but when I make a promise I try to keep it. If I strongly believe I am right, there is no way you are going to make me break my promise.

Bush promised Congress, long before they passed this bill that he would veto any bill that had a timeline. Congress chose to write a bill knowing full well it was going to get vetoed, and knowing full well they would never be able to override the veto. That is not President Bush's fault.

Well, the bill passed congress and he can then choose to veto it. It still makes it his fault. Sure, he's honest, but it is Bush's fault for keeping his promise.

Congress does not exist to serve every whim of the President.

If you're not willing to change your mind about being stupid, then you are stupid. Gut feelings and pinkie swears have no place when it comes to a fucking war.

hey now, fix that quote ;)

No, all the DoD does is cancel other programs in an effort to finance this war. The DoD budget has already been approved by Congress, and is already quite large. This will not end the war, it will just bury the costs of the war in a different budget.

Interestingly enough, if they had actually originally asked for the budget they needed, instead of assuming that Congress would give them as many "emergency" (talk about a misnomer) appropriations as they could ever want, this whole situation wouldn't be happening.

I don't know about you, but when I make a promise I try to keep it. If I strongly believe I am right, there is no way you are going to make me break my promise.

And if your promise means that you are going against the will of the American people, it is suddenly everyone else's fault?

Bush promised Congress, long before they passed this bill that he would veto any bill that had a timeline. Congress chose to write a bill knowing full well it was going to get vetoed, and knowing full well they would never be able to override the veto. That is not President Bush's fault.

It is, however, Bush's fault that the will of the people is not getting done, since he has promised to do away with any bill that follows it. And since Karl Rove pretty much runs the Republican party, it means that any bill with a veto-proof margin is almost as unlikely as Bush signing this bill.

Bush has tied the hands of Congress. Now he can deal with the consequences of that action.

I don't know how stupid you think you are, but I'm willing to bet it's worse than you think. The two parties have been polarized for decades and what's more the Republican party has had its head up Bush's ass since day one and have given in to every little thing he wanted while questioning anyone opposed to him.

Really, Bush wanted immigration reform that gave amnesty to immigrants, and the Republicans gave him a completely different bill. Obviously, they opposed him there.

On the war, however, I might have to agree with you. I still feel this whole fiasco has been mishandled since day one.


what absurd circumstances do you believe would take place that would make enough Republicans side with the Democrats to override a veto?

Several Republicans have already said a gradual withdrawal with no strings attached beginning in Summer '08 would be acceptable. Such a bill would stand a much better chance of overriding a veto. However, the Dems gave us a bill that starts pulling troops out before the end of the year, and stands no chance of overriding that veto.

no. it should start NOW.

you really are missing far too much of what is going on.

this is the first (second really) big test of the public's will. each side took a stand and is playing it to the end. its a clear and easy test of which side the people are on--get us out of iraq at all cost or keep us in iraq at all cost.

NOW they will take polls to see who really has the better hand. if the polls show that the public blames the dems for not supporting the troops, they will have to do some big time compromising. if the polls show that the public blames the president for gettting our troops killed for nothing, he has to compromise.

without this test, they run the risk of misjudging the people's resolve and can end up hurting themselves irreparably.
The polls are in (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/05/parsing_the_polls_no_room_for.html)
Roughly six-in-ten people in the Pew sample (59 percent) said they want their member of Congress to back an Iraq funding bill that includes a timeline for American troops to begin withdrawing. Of that 59 percent, more than half (54 percent) said Democrats should "insist" on a timeline's inclusion in the legislation while 42 percent backed the party working with Republicans and the Bush Administration on a solution.

By contrast, only 33 percent of the overall sample said they preferred that their lawmaker oppose a timeline as part of the Iraq funding bill. But by a 54 percent to 41 percent margin, this minority said President Bush should stick to his guns and not compromise with Democrats.

Not surprisingly, Democrats surveyed by Pew were far more likely to back a bill that included a timeline than Republicans. Eighty percent of Democrats said they preferred that their congressman and senators vote for a bill with a timetable attached; just 31 percent of Republicans said the same.

"What the two sides share is a reluctance to compromise," reads the memo the Pew Research Center distributed with the poll.

Is a stalemate inevitable? Maybe not.

An examination of other internal numbers from the Pew poll suggest that Republicans may well have more to lose by standing pat than Democrats.

Independents surveyed by Pew strongly favored a bill with a timeline included -- by a margin of 61 percent to 33 percent. Of that 61 percent, more than half believe Democrats should refuse any compromise with the White House.

Likewise, independents surveyed in the Washington Post/ABC News April poll showed a similar bent. Fifty-seven percent said they trusted Democrats over Bush to handle the war in Iraq compared with 31 percent who chose the president over Democrats.

Remember that one of the keys to Democrats' gains in 2006 was that the majority of independent voters sided with Democrats, and that swing was largely due to souring on the war in Iraq. Independents -- at least in the Pew poll -- seem to have continued to line up behind the Democratic stance toward the war.
Send him the same bill and dare him to veto it a second time.

hey now, fix that quote ;)

sorry... i was stupid but now i learned but good.

edit: Holy fuck... I must be retarded... I think there is still stuff that needs to be fixed.

Really, Bush wanted immigration reform that gave amnesty to immigrants, and the Republicans gave him a completely different bill. Obviously, they opposed him there.
That's a technicality. They all wanted to be reelected and their main supporters are close-minded blue collars who don't like no immigrants steelin their jerbs!



Several Republicans have already said a gradual withdrawal with no strings attached beginning in Summer '08 would be acceptable.
Those would be the Republicans that voted with the Democrats on this.

Interestingly enough, if they had actually originally asked for the budget they needed, instead of assuming that Congress would give them as many "emergency" (talk about a misnomer) appropriations as they could ever want, this whole situation wouldn't be happening.

Agreed.

And if your promise means that you are going against the will of the American people, it is suddenly everyone else's fault?

No, if that promise is against the will of the people, then Congress should, at least, attempt to write a bill that can bypass me and do the will of the people. And that is the fault of the Congress.

It is, however, Bush's fault that the will of the people is not getting done, since he has promised to do away with any bill that follows it.

With this I agree, but I also include that it is just as much Congress' fault

Bush has tied the hands of Congress. Now he can deal with the consequences of that action.

And now Congress has agreed to look for the compromise that is long since overdue.

No, if that promise is against the will of the people, then Congress at least attempt to write a bill that can bypass me and do the will of the people. And that is the fault of the Congress.

The veto power isn't support to be a phonecall to mommy to come pick you up because your playmates don't want to play what you are playing.

No, if that promise is against the will of the people, then Congress at least attempt to write a bill that can bypass me and do the will of the people. And that is the fault of the Congress.

No, they do not.

They are still not subservient to the president and need not factor him in into any of the deliberations they make.

No, they do not.

They are still not subservient to the president and need not factor him in into any of the deliberations they make.
Indeed, as far as I'm aware, the President's job is to enforce the law that Congress writes.

No, they do not.

They are still not subservient to the president and need not factor him in into any of the deliberations they make.

Indeed, as far as I'm aware, the President's job is to enforce the law that Congress writes.

There's a reason Congress is named first in the Constitution--the Founders felt it was to be the most powerful branch.

The polls are in (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/05/parsing_the_polls_no_room_for.html)

Send him the same bill and dare him to veto it a second time.

thats what i got out of listening to obama in the moveon.org net debate.

they are putting pressure on the president and the congressional republicans.

as pressure increases and republicans start to get seriously worried bout being re-elected, they change their minds about timelines. every time their constitutents have to see them NOT following the obvious will of the people, they make themselves more vulnerable.

if bush has so little concern about what happens to the republican party after he leaves office, the congressional republicans will have to do what they have to do to keep their jobs.

he either compromises or the next veto is overridden.

There's a reason Congress is named first in the Constitution--the Founders felt it was to be the most powerful branch.

And the reason why the president got the veto power was to keep the most powerful branch at bay.

It's all really very circular, but if anything ends into a stalemate, it is only congress' fault if they cannot muster the support for their bill.

No, if that promise is against the will of the people, then Congress should, at least, attempt to write a bill that can bypass me and do the will of the people. And that is the fault of the Congress.

And some in Congress did attempt to do so. Party patsies kept it from happening. They will continue to do so, until something gets through.

But it is still not, in any way, the fault of Congress that Bush is standing firm against the will of the people. That's all Bush.

It gives the president entirely too much power if Congress must do his bidding every time they write a bill.

With this I agree, but I also include that it is just as much Congress' fault

I don't see how, considering the fact that it is Bush who is standing in the way of the will of the people, not Congress.

And now Congress has agreed to look for the compromise that is long since overdue.

How do you compromise with a person who acts like a four-year old child and just screams, "MY WAY OR NOTHING AT ALL!" over and over again? You're asking for Congress to completely change Bush. I don't think that's within their power.

And the reason why the president got the veto power was to keep the most powerful branch at bay.

It's all really very circular, but if anything ends into a stalemate, it is only congress' fault if they cannot muster the support for their bill.

Apparently, they can't muster enough to override a veto.

Apparently, they can't muster enough to override a veto.

That does not matter.

They passed the bill. The reason for the bill passing does not befall congress, but the president.

It's all really very circular, but if anything ends into a stalemate, it is only congress' fault if they cannot muster the support for their bill.

what the fuck is this stalemate that you people are talking about? i want bush to veto the same bill again. and maybe even get one more chance after that. then the war ends much closer to when it should have (in a couple months, rather than next year - though neither is soon enough; yesterday was several years too late) and the republican party goes down in flames for a generation.

Apparently, they can't muster enough to override a veto.

We're really locked in a game of chicken right now. The country wants a bill that has withdrawal dates in it. They want out of the war. Bush is betting that he can make the Democrats look weak on defense if he doesn't cave--an easy gamble for him to make since he's not up for re-election. But he also has to bet that Republican congressmen feel just as safe in their re-election bids, and that's far from certain. Who will blink first?

We're really locked in a game of chicken right now. The country wants a bill that has withdrawal dates in it. They want out of the war. Bush is betting that he can make the Democrats look weak on defense if he doesn't cave--an easy gamble for him to make since he's not up for re-election. But he also has to bet that Republican congressmen feel just as safe in their re-election bids, and that's far from certain. Who will blink first?

Probably the guy who has his hand up Bush's bum.

We're really locked in a game of chicken right now. The country wants a bill that has withdrawal dates in it. They want out of the war. Bush is betting that he can make the Democrats look weak on defense if he doesn't cave--an easy gamble for him to make since he's not up for re-election. But he also has to bet that Republican congressmen feel just as safe in their re-election bids, and that's far from certain. Who will blink first?

When you're 70 votes short, it might as well be on the moon.

Come to think of it, it would be easier to get more votes if they didn't put in the pork. The pork is so obvious, and gives Bush the chance to say that's "another" reason he vetoed it.

So send him a bill without pork.

Come to think of it, it would be easier to get more votes if they didn't put in the pork. The pork is so obvious, and gives Bush the chance to say that's "another" reason he vetoed it.

So send him a bill without pork.

I agree, they should send up a Bill with extra money for the troops, A firm deadline to begin the withdrawal, and aid to Katrina victims. Nothing else. I'd like to hear Bush's spindoctors trying to convince the public of the need for a veto then.

I agree, they should send up a Bill with extra money for the troops, A firm deadline to begin the withdrawal, and aid to Katrina victims. Nothing else. I'd like to hear Bush's spindoctors trying to convince the public of the need for a veto then.
Their whole "defense" is that a withdrawal date makes us lose! I wasn't aware that fighting an insurgency we caused was some sort of game.

Come to think of it, it would be easier to get more votes if they didn't put in the pork. The pork is so obvious, and gives Bush the chance to say that's "another" reason he vetoed it.

So send him a bill without pork.

Won't matter--Bush has said he'll veto anything with a timetable in it. The pork is a bogus issue and even the greatest Bush apologist knows it. So again, the question is--how secure do republicans in iffy districts feel about their support for a failed war? Are they going to hitch their re-election chances to a President whose approval occasionally hits the 20s or are they going to come around and support another bill that has withdrawal language in it? And how will they feel if the troops really are in danger of being defunded?

Indeed, as far as I'm aware, the President's job is to enforce the law that Congress writes...


That is only part of his job. He also needs to serve as a Check to the other branches. As they should be to him as well. It is an effort to make sure that no one branch of the government becomes too powerful.

..

That is only part of his job. He also needs to serve as a Check to the other branches. As they should be to him as well. It is an effort to make sure that no one branch of the government becomes too powerful.

Unfortunately, Bush thinks he, and he alone, should serve as executive, legislative, and judicial branch. He's been trying to get around the checks that were supposed to limit his behavior throughout his entire presidency. It's about time someone put him in his place.

..


That is only part of his job. He also needs to serve as a Check to the other branches. As they should be to him as well. It is an effort to make sure that no one branch of the government becomes too powerful.
I think the important word here is check. Is it the job of the President to ensure one branch of government - in this case the legislature - does not become too powerful? Absolutely. Is it the job of the President to decide legislative policy? No. In fact, Congress is supposed to be able to keep a check on itself by having two houses which have to agree to a bill. In any case, Bush seems to be of the opinion that all legislative, executive and judicial power should be in his hands (see: signing statements) and this cannot continue.

Won't matter--Bush has said he'll veto anything with a timetable in it. The pork is a bogus issue and even the greatest Bush apologist knows it. So again, the question is--how secure do republicans in iffy districts feel about their support for a failed war? Are they going to hitch their re-election chances to a President whose approval occasionally hits the 20s or are they going to come around and support another bill that has withdrawal language in it? And how will they feel if the troops really are in danger of being defunded?
You know, if Bush had vetoed a few more of those pork and excessive spending bills we might not have had to type things as offensive as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Oh well, there's a little comfort in the idea that between named opponents in the contest for President, a pseudo-Republican named Giuliani can hold his own against any of the other declared Democrats.

They did the exact opposite, by not spending anything at all.

Really?? You're telling me that every one of our Congressmen/women and Senators were working for free while putting this bill together?

They can wait month, after month, until either the military runs out of funds and has to return home or Bush conceeds.

Fact is, Bush cannot force through a bill of his own, so he is the one causing the stalemate.

Congress cannot cause a stalemate.

As I have already said, the military will not return home just because this bill fails. The DoD will still find a way to fund it, they will just take money from other parts of their budget to pay the costs.

You are right, though, Bush cannot force a bill, nor can he force Congress to give him the bill he wants.

What he can do, had already done, and is forcing Congress, and the nation as a whole to do, is evaluate the situation, and look at what we are asking for. And force a simple dialogue about what the people want.

When Bush told Congress that he would veto a bill with a timeline, Congress should have considered starting that dialogue then. I know someone is going to say the did, but if they actually had this bill never would have been proposed to begin with.

I think the important word here is check. Is it the job of the President to ensure one branch of government - in this case the legislature - does not become too powerful? Absolutely. Is it the job of the President to decide legislative policy? No. In fact, Congress is supposed to be able to keep a check on itself by having two houses which have to agree to a bill. In any case, Bush seems to be of the opinion that all legislative, executive and judicial power should be in his hands (see: signing statements) and this cannot continue.

And this I am in total agreement.

You know, if Bush had vetoed a few more of those pork and excessive spending bills we might not have had to type things as offensive as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Oh well, there's a little comfort in the idea that between named opponents in the contest for President, a pseudo-Republican named Giuliani can hold his own against any of the other declared Democrats.

You guys just keep telling yourselves that "if only we had just been a little fiscally prudent, we'd still be in power". Meanwhile, the reality-based community will be trying to do the important stuff, like stopping torture, violation of the Constitution, and the war.

Oh well, there's a little comfort in the idea that between named opponents in the contest for President, a pseudo-Republican named Giuliani can hold his own against any of the other declared Democrats.

I suppose it never occured to you that because he's only a "pseudo" republican is the only reason he's actually having any real success and that more conservative republicans like Romney and McCain are languishing in the polls?

That the only reason that Guilliani is succeeding is because he's not perceived as being as conservative as his breatherin, who are not doing nearly as well?

No, I suppose it didn't....

Unfortunately, quite a few of the pork items were removed by the Democrats late in the bill's development specifically because they wanted to avoid giving people like you an excuse to veto it. Plus, it is highly ironic that you should try to split political hairs about funding the troops now...after all, was it not Republicans who were (last year) making this very same argument about Democrats? How there was no room for equivocation...you are either with us or against us, and that no matter what you feel politically that the troops must be supported at all costs. Tell me...how is it that a conservative can argue that merely to speak out against the war is to "aid and abet the enemy", yet landing a veto on funding for our troops is not? What's more, how can the President decry the efforts of "Washington politicians" to "manage" the war in Iraq when he himself is a Washington politician in his role as commander-in-chief? It was all about unconditional support so long as Republicans were in control of Congress. To speak against what was going on was nothing short of treason in your collective opinions. Indeed, I was called a traitor on this forum several times by various persons who said that if I really supported the troops, I should drop my petty politics and just support the troops unconditionally. Yet now the President can afford to veto a bill for the troops on political grounds. The President alone can set conditions? Isn't that just the same type of moral relativism that you accuse liberals of? If Republicans really meant what they said, they should have supported the bill as it was....even though they didn't like it, this WAS funding for our troops. You can't flip-flop back and forth from one philosophy to the other and back again based on what is politically expedient at the time.




"It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars. ... Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure, and that would be irresponsible,"

that dosent sound like a political reason to me.

The fact is that[R] Did control the congress the entire time Bush was in office, and they passed whatever he wanted, basicly without looking up. I do not agree with this but its what happened.
BUT...
[D] is now is going to play political hockey in a time where our troops NEED the money! Words are going to be flipped, as they always do in polotics, this isn't something to play "he said this, he dosent suppor't our troops, he vetoed that he dosen't support our troops, they put this date in they don't support our troops"
Its our troops, we need to support them.
The funding bill, and the Withdrawl bill should have been seperate.

That the only reason that Guilliani is succeeding is because he's not perceived as being as conservative as his breatherin, who are not doing nearly as well?

No, I suppose it didn't....

Giuliani is a closet Bushevik. The documentary Giuliani Time as well as Rudy borrowing the "If you elect a Democrat the terrorists win" scaremongering from Cheney's playbook pretty much says it.

that dosent sound like a political reason to me.

The fact is that[R] Did control the congress the entire time Bush was in office, and they passed whatever he wanted, basicly without looking up. I do not agree with this but its what happened.
BUT...
[D] is now is going to play political hockey in a time where our troops NEED the money! Words are going to be flipped, as they always do in polotics, this isn't something to play "he said this, he dosent suppor't our troops, he vetoed that he dosen't support our troops, they put this date in they don't support our troops"
Its our troops, we need to support them.
The funding bill, and the Withdrawl bill should have been seperate.

It's a political reason because Bush made it one. He made it one when he decided last year that it was more important to lie about the size of the deficit by keeping the war off the books than it was to be up front about the costs. Now he's being stung by the fact that he and his party were so incompetent that they couldn't hold onto a single house of Congress and he's paying the political price for that.

It's a political reason because Bush made it one. He made it one when he decided last year that it was more important to lie about the size of the deficit by keeping the war off the books than it was to be up front about the costs. Now he's being stung by the fact that he and his party were so incompetent that they couldn't hold onto a single house of Congress and he's paying the political price for that.

I guess you're stung by the fact that the Democrats couldn't win a 2/3 majority in either house, and that seven Democrats voted not to override the veto in the House.

Before I get on with my conservative/Bush attacks, just let me confirm something, he can only veto the entirety of the Bill correct? He can't just veto the democratic amendment which sets a timetable for next year for withdrawl, he has to (and has) veto the whole bill, and then the democrats must pass another one. Could the democrats, seeing as they have the majority to pass said amendment, just keep putting that withdrawl clause onto the bill every time it goes through Congress, just to annoy Bush?

Before I get on with my conservative/Bush attacks, just let me confirm something, he can only veto the entirety of the Bill correct? He can't just veto the democratic amendment which sets a timetable for next year for withdrawl, he has to (and has) veto the whole bill, and then the democrats must pass another one. Could the democrats, seeing as they have the majority to pass said amendment, just keep putting that withdrawl clause onto the bill every time it goes through Congress, just to annoy Bush?

He has to veto the entirety.

The Democrats are making noises that they aren't going to keep attaching it.

Although Murtha likes the idea, it's apparent that it won't fly. There have already been seven defections to vote the other way.

Steny Hoyer's idea is a good one.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said he was interested in requiring Bush to report to Congress every 30 days on progress in Iraq. By September, he said, it would be obvious that Bush's "surge'' strategy increasing American troop levels in Iraq isn't working so Congress could then return to withdrawal language.

After a few sour reports, you might have more support.

I guess you're stung by the fact that the Democrats couldn't win a 2/3 majority in either house, and that seven Democrats voted not to override the veto in the House.

Not at all. I expected nothing less--the pressure isn't on yet. And the seven Democrats who voted against overturning the veto are, I believe, the same seven who voted against the measure in the first place--because it didn't go far enough. They refused to vote for a measure that sent another penny to the war because they want the troops home now. Just thought I'd make that clear.

That kind of spending belongs in its own bill. The Treason Party only included it in this bill for the crassest of political reasons. The Treason Party wants to force republican candidates to vote to uphold the veto, and then they can run their ads in the fall of '08 stating how "Rep. X voted AGAINST cleaning up New Orleans". Playing political games with this spending bill is disgraceful and un-patriotic. The President is the Commander in Chief and the only person constitutionally authorized to conduct this operation, not Pelosi, Reid, Murtha and the rest of those cowards.

awe, me thinks someone forgot about checks and balances in the beautiful document this country was founded on. It's all there in that pesky thing that Bushevicks hate called the Constitution. The CinC has the right to command the armed forces for only a limited amount of time unless reauthorized by Congress. You do remember that Congress is the only political body that can declare war right? Calling the Democratic part the "Treason Party" will do you no service in making your argument and only makes you look like a petulant child. It's funny you mention him being CinC because it seems he's looking for a war czar to run the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can you find me the part of the constitution that mentions war czar or war manager? Further, you or Bush calling Murtha a coward is not even worthy of comment. Some served and gave all, some gave plenty, and others hid out taking time off for political campaigns and anal cysts. You don't even have the right to hold that Marine's boots son. Finally, we all know that the Republican party has never introduced a bill with pork... *cough* Ted Stevens *cough "bridge to nowhere." You want to talk about political hit ads and that's right up the Rovian alley you yellow bellied coward.

This isn't jumping to conclusions. This is an accurate description of what has already gone on.

What has already gone wrong does not mean that a compromise will not be reached.

No, not at all. Bush can't have it both ways. His actions have consequences. If he wanted to force the dems to change their course, without actually vetoing the bill, he was trying to avoid consequences for his actions.

And the Dems forcing through a bill that had no hope of passing also has consequences. We are seeing it now.

He wanted this bill dead, no, he doesn't get to change it mid stream. He doesn't get to weasle out of it.

The bill should have been negotiated from Day #1 and it was not. It was not like this was done mid stream. There was no mid stream as there never was negotiations on this bill between the White House and Congress.

he gets to stand up, in front of the american people, the majority of which wanted this bill signed and reject it.

he doesn't get to avoid consequences.

Neither does COngress.

Why? You're suggesting that it's Congress who has to give--why shouldn't Bush make concessions? He needs this bill more than Congress does, after all, and it's generally the weaker party that concedes ground in negotiations.

I see you are not understanding what the words negotiations and compromise means.

And the Dems forcing through a bill that had no hope of passing also has consequences. We are seeing it now.

Oh very true. But do you know the difference between what the president did and what congress did?

The majority of americans liked what congress did.

The same can not be said for Bush.

The bill should have been negotiated from Day #1 and it was not. It was not like this was done mid stream. There was no mid stream as there never was negotiations on this bill between the White House and Congress.

I missed the part of the constitution that said that Congress was required to speak to the president

Neither does COngress.

And that's exactly what they're counting on.

With all due "respect," that's fucking horseshit. I don't recall letting children get their way every single time they throw a tantrum, why should Bush?

Because children do not know what is good for them most of the time. That is why they do not get their way. If the Parents cave to the will of a tantrum throwing child, their authority is weakened. As for the President, he is not throwing a tantrum. He promised to do what he said he would do if the Democrats forced through a bill with a timetable. Regardless of the fact that most people want it. That is really irrelevent to this discussion. What is relevent is that the Dems (if we are using this tantrum analogy) threw one by forcing this bill through and the President (which has the authority to veto anything passed by Congress) smacked the child by vetoing it.

As I said, there should have been negotiations before it even got to this step.

Congress is trying to do their prescribed job and he is threatening to take his toys and go home. Fuck him. Fuck compromise. Put him in timeout.

It is nice to see you do not want compromise as this entire nation was founded on Compromise.

I guess you're stung by the fact that the Democrats couldn't win a 2/3 majority in either house, and that seven Democrats voted not to override the veto in the House.

oooh 7 out of 230. that's a whole....what, 3%?

That STINGS man, that stings.

Because children do not know what is good for them most of the time. That is why they do not get their way. If the Parents cave to the will of a tantrum throwing child, their authority is weakened. As for the President, he is not throwing a tantrum. He promised to do what he said he would do if the Democrats forced through a bill with a timetable. Regardless of the fact that most people want it. That is really irrelevent to this discussion. What is relevent is that the Dems (if we are using this tantrum analogy) threw one by forcing this bill through and the President (which has the authority to veto anything passed by Congress) smacked the child by vetoing it.

Let me get this straight, I want to make 100% sure I understand. You are comparing the democratic party, the party that voted for what the MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE want as the ones holding the tantrum?

Are you suggesting that the party acting out the will of the people in a democracy are the ones in error?

Are you suggesting that it

It is nice to see you do not want compromise as this entire nation was founded on Compromise.

What you just said was the very fundamental opposite of what this country was founded on. You suggested a party should act AGAINST the will of those who voted for them, AGAINST the will of the majority.

You act in fundamental opposite of democracy.

Shame on you.

I guess you're stung by the fact that the Democrats couldn't win a 2/3 majority in either house, and that seven Democrats voted not to override the veto in the House.

Only 7 voted against the override? That's what? less than 1% of the congress?

Before I get on with my conservative/Bush attacks, just let me confirm something, he can only veto the entirety of the Bill correct? He can't just veto the democratic amendment which sets a timetable for next year for withdrawl, he has to (and has) veto the whole bill, and then the democrats must pass another one. Could the democrats, seeing as they have the majority to pass said amendment, just keep putting that withdrawl clause onto the bill every time it goes through Congress, just to annoy Bush?

Yes they can do that but if they do it on important legislation, people will not be happy even though they support a withdrawal.

Steny Hoyer's idea is a good one.



After a few sour reports, you might have more support.

I like that idea :)

Let me get this straight, I want to make 100% sure I understand. You are comparing the democratic party, the party that voted for what the MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE want as the ones holding the tantrum?

Are you suggesting that the party acting out the will of the people in a democracy are the ones in error?

Are you suggesting that it

What you just said was the very fundamental opposite of what this country was founded on. You suggested a party should act AGAINST the will of those who voted for them, AGAINST the will of the majority.

You act in fundamental opposite of democracy.

Shame on you.

Who needs democracy when you've got King Dubya?

Oh very true. But do you know the difference between what the president did and what congress did?

Yes I do.

The majority of americans liked what congress did.

The same can not be said for Bush.

I agree.

I missed the part of the constitution that said that Congress was required to speak to the president

That's because neither branch has to talk to the other when it comes to important issues of legislation. They do it though to avoid any possible impasse. I wished they have talked.

And that's exactly what they're counting on.

Agreed.

I expect this veto and all the crazy 'be patriotic and support the troops (my policy)' is just the dying words of the Bush administration, like the forum troll that is about to be ip banned by the mods, they want to flame as much as possible before they are gone.

What you just said was the very fundamental opposite of what this country was founded on. You suggested a party should act AGAINST the will of those who voted for them, AGAINST the will of the majority.

Are you saying that this nation, the nation I was born in, was not founded on compromise? I guess History Books need to be re-written for in every single book I have read shows that the Constitution of the United States was indeed a Compromise. It is a Constitution that is full of compromises (including the 3/5ths compromise)

As to the actual statement, no. People should not act against the will of the people.

You act in fundamental opposite of democracy.

I never stated what side I am on when it comes to the Iraq War. I do not agree to withdrawing till we are done stablizing the country. That is my person feelings. That is why I oppose this bill though I want the troops home soon.

That's because neither branch has to talk to the other when it comes to important issues of legislation. They do it though to avoid any possible impasse. I wished they have talked.

They did. It went something like this.

Bush: "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!"
Congress: "The people want this."
Bush: "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!"
Congress: "We need to talk about this."
Bush: "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!"
Congress: "What the hell ever. We're passing a bill now."

Bush has made it EXCEEDINGLY clear over the years that he never learned the word "compromise."

They did.

Care to prove that they actually talked? I mean, seems the only thing that they disagreed over was this timetable.

The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
- Sun Tzu

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.
- Sun Tzu's The Art of War

The conclusion is that it is time to stop the retreat. Not a single step back! This should be our slogan from now.
- Stalin

Although Stalin helped win WWII, Russia also lost staggeringly more troops than any other nation. No thanks.