4/10/2007 12:58:01 PM

Quote :

"Congress has already passed a troop funding bill. All the President has to do is sign it. Why isn't he supporting the troops?"

Quote :

"maybe if bush had put this in the ACTUAL budget and not some emergency fund that they knew ahead of time they would need."

4/10/2007 1:12:36 PM

Yeah, Pelosi can talk to al-Assad of Syria, which is listed as a state sponsor of terrorism by the United States, but she can't accept an invitation from her President to talk about funding the military in Iraq.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm

4/11/2007 6:32:59 AM

a meeting that bush set a pre-condition of basically giving him everything he wants before he'll talk. bush needs to learn what negotiating is.

[Edited on April 11, 2007 at 8:24 AM. Reason : .]

4/11/2007 8:23:35 AM

^link?

4/11/2007 11:13:32 AM

Quote :

"On the one hand, Bush extended an offer to meet with lawmakers Tuesday. On the other, the White House bluntly said it would not be a negotiating session."

Quote :

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected the terms set by the White House. ''Congressional Democrats are willing to meet with the president at any time, but we believe that any discussion of an issue as critical as Iraq must be accomplished by conducting serious negotiations without any preconditions,'' they said in a joint statement."

http://www.charlescitypress.com/articles/2007/04/11/news/news05.txt
Thats also the first article I have seen where Bush mentions "pork"

4/11/2007 11:19:20 AM

I dont care how much you hate Bush

Why wouldnt they at least talk to him? What bad things would happen to Pelosi and the Dems just from talking to him? I mean shit worst case woudnt they at least understand a little more about what each side wanted?

Quote :

"Congressional Democrats are willing to meet with the president at any time"

apparently not

4/11/2007 11:24:15 AM

im sorry treetroll, im only responding to your comments when you manage to READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE. its obvious you didnt even manage to read the quotes i put up.

4/11/2007 11:25:52 AM

yes i did you god damned moron

why dont you read my clarifications

i mean if the Dems want the war to end...they think its going to end by refusing to meet with the President?

Quote :

"''What the president invited us to do was come to his office so that we could accept without any discussion the bill that he wants,'' Pelosi said at a news conference in San Francisco. ''That's not worthy of the concerns of the American people, and I join with Senator Reid in rejecting an invitation of that kind.'' "

What is he going to force them to sign something? Both sides are hardheaded as shit, but according to you, only Bush's side is hardheaded

4/11/2007 11:26:21 AM

Quote :

"but we believe that any discussion of an issue as critical as Iraq must be accomplished by conducting serious negotiations without any preconditions,'' they said in a joint statement.""

so it sounds to me as if Bush is saying "I want to meet with congressional democrats, but only if they agree to my demands first" (which he seems to do quite often) and promptly twisting the dems refusal into some type of disservice to the country........is that the jist of it?

4/11/2007 11:28:39 AM

The Democrats would rather talk to Syria--a state sponsor of terrorism.



[Edited on April 11, 2007 at 11:34 AM. Reason : .]

4/11/2007 11:29:10 AM

he wont meet with them unless they change their position.

they wont meet with him unless he agrees to negotiate.

do you see the difference there?

edit^

Quote :

""Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), who traveled last week with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as part of her delegation to the Middle East, said this morning on C-Span that Pelosi told Bush of the trip to Syria a day before they left, and Bush did not object. Rahall said, “The Speaker had met with President Bush in the halls of the U.S. Capitol just the day before we left and mentioned to him that we were going to Syria. No response at all from the President.” ... President Bush “did not tell her not to go, nor did the State Department tell us not to go,” Rahall said. “The State Department was certainly aware of our traveling to Syria and our full itinerary. And there were State Department officials in every meeting that we had on this codel. So that is all hogwash as far as I’m concerned.”""

[Edited on April 11, 2007 at 11:33 AM. Reason : e]

4/11/2007 11:31:42 AM

he invited them to talk...to fucking TALK

they said they were only interested in talking if it was a negotiation

let alone:

Quote :

"''What the president invited us to do was come to his office so that we could accept without any discussion the bill that he wants"

do you even believe this shit? tell me how this would work? bush would invite them in and give them a bill to sign, and if they didnt sign it, he wouldnt open his mouth to talk?

Quote :

"a meeting that bush set a pre-condition of basically giving him everything he wants before he'll talk"

i still need to see a link cause pelosi saying the reason he invited them to meet with him was so they could accept without any discussion sounds like utter bullshit

4/11/2007 11:33:29 AM

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070411/NEWS07/704110359/1009/NEWS07

Quote :

"White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Bush doesn't need to negotiate because he has made it clear he will only sign a funding bill with no restrictions."

[Edited on April 11, 2007 at 11:39 AM. Reason : he refuses to talk unless the bill says, "here is your cash" and nothing more]

4/11/2007 11:38:31 AM

sounds like the dems refuse to talk

he refuses to negotiate

and the only thing it sounds like he refuses to negotiate is a timetable

[Edited on April 11, 2007 at 11:42 AM. Reason : .]

4/11/2007 11:41:07 AM

he wont talk unless they change their position.

4/11/2007 11:42:09 AM

its pretty clear that bush does not support the troops. he is refusing to sign a bill to give them money.

4/11/2007 11:42:21 AM

^^^

you miss the point.

Quote :

"because he has made it clear he will only sign a funding bill with no restrictions"

call it talking, negotiating....whatever, point is Bush wants it his way, and he wants that to be predetermined.

[Edited on April 11, 2007 at 11:44 AM. Reason : ^]

4/11/2007 11:42:44 AM

he invited them to talk! how can you say he wont talk!

he simply said its not a negotiation...if he told me it wasnt a negotiation, i would at least go talk to him and be like "what can we do to work this out" but apparently pelosi would rather not

The only restrictions he is talking about are setting timetables for withdrawal...that is THE ONLY RESTRICTION

Quote :

"point is Bush wants it his way, pelosi wants it her way"

Quote :

"its pretty clear that bush pelosi does not support the troops. she is refusing to sign a bill to give them money even talk to the person who can stop the war"

[Edited on April 11, 2007 at 11:46 AM. Reason : .]

4/11/2007 11:42:59 AM

Quote :

"point is Bush wants it his way,pelosi wants it her way 70% of the american public want it their way."

[Edited on April 11, 2007 at 11:47 AM. Reason : i can do that too]

4/11/2007 11:46:36 AM

^no thats not the fucking point

the 70% elected a democratic congress...they got their voices heard in the form of a democratic congress

and the speaker of the house that they elected is stubborn

good job electing pelosi if she is too fucking hardheaded to even go talk to bush

whats the worst thing that can happen, both sides dont budge and the talks end in 5 minutes? oh noes!

[Edited on April 11, 2007 at 11:51 AM. Reason : .]

4/11/2007 11:47:59 AM

Quote :

"good job electing pelosi if she is too fucking hardheaded to even go talk to bush"

that's exactly what we needed, someone who plays like bush.

4/11/2007 11:55:34 AM

Quote :

"good job electing pelosi if she is too fucking hardheaded to even go talk to bush"

this made me lol

4/11/2007 11:58:11 AM

^^well you need somebody who isnt going to refuse to talk to the president just because its not a negotiation

bush has the power to stop the war...and she's just going to essentially ignore him? great

Quote :

"whats the worst thing that can happen, both sides dont budge and the talks end in 5 minutes? oh noes!"

[Edited on April 11, 2007 at 12:07 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2007 12:06:50 PM

bush has the power to stop a war hes definitely not going to stop

4/11/2007 12:11:23 PM

k

4/11/2007 12:14:54 PM

Quote :

"bush has the power to stop the war...and she's just going to essentially ignore him? great "

Bush stop the war???? that's a good one (he's had 4 years, what's the hold up?)........This hardline stance by the dems is exactly what we need to stop the war, let him veto the bill. I'm glad to see they won't be pushed around.

4/11/2007 1:24:52 PM

bush needs to learn to make concessions, plain and simple. he's had 6 years of getting whatever he damn well pleases. the american people grew tired of it, hence, the democratic congress. time to step up and be a leader, bush. time to compromise. time to listen to the will of the people

4/11/2007 1:39:33 PM

why couldn't bush just say that he'd meet with the democrats with no preconditions? it doesn't mean he has to budge on anything. and hell maybe the democrats could offer a compromise of some sort that both sides could deal with.

4/11/2007 1:41:33 PM

Quote :

"time to listen to the will of the people"

except for the millions of people who dont want us to lose the war, of course

bush and pelosi

two hard heads

is it going to surprise anybody that nothing gets done

oh boy our govt sure is awesome

4/11/2007 1:57:32 PM

^^^

Quote :

"'[T]he people,' a gross fictionalization of a national, collective identity that achieves reality only in the context of being called into existence by a specific rhetoric."

Lucaites et al

[Edited on April 11, 2007 at 2:03 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2007 2:00:20 PM

oh, im sorry, i was under the impression that a majority of americans disapprove of the way bush is handling the war.

my mistake. carry on

[Edited on April 11, 2007 at 2:04 PM. Reason : ']

4/11/2007 2:04:34 PM

Quote :

"i was under the impression that a majority of americans disapprove of they way bush is handling the war"

and?

the majority of americans give a shit about american idol...what do they know

4/11/2007 2:05:27 PM

^^ Even if that is the case, this country does not operate by majority rule--if it did, we could just decide every issue by referendum. The Constitution itself protects us from the tyranny of the majority. Educate yourself.

[Edited on April 11, 2007 at 2:09 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2007 2:09:02 PM

you're right. fuck it, why do we even have elections

4/11/2007 2:10:33 PM

to elect stubborn people like pelosi to not do what 'the majority of americans' want?

4/11/2007 2:11:12 PM

^^ Representative government--not majority rule.

[Edited on April 11, 2007 at 2:12 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2007 2:11:32 PM

i complain about bush being in power...he sounded good on the surface, but he's turning this country into crap!

so i vote for a democratic congress...it sounds good on the surface, but...its just more crap!

4/11/2007 2:14:22 PM

you don't vote.

4/11/2007 2:17:25 PM

by "i" do you mean not you?

4/11/2007 2:18:01 PM

thanks for telling me, i didnt know that

im glad i have you guys here to teach me about myself

and to be completely baffled by any type of sarcasm

4/11/2007 2:18:03 PM

so you agree that pelosi has the right to an opinion that isnt what george bush wants?

4/11/2007 2:21:05 PM

i mean if this is bush's power to fund a war like this, then why oh why does the congress have the power to do exactly what it's doing right now?

4/11/2007 2:21:52 PM

^^of course she does, everybody has their own opinion

i just happen to think pelosi wants us to lose the war

^the constitution? i mean pelosi has the right to be stubborn about meeting with bush too...doesnt mean i agree with it

[Edited on April 11, 2007 at 2:23 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2007 2:22:28 PM

we already won the war. sadaam is dead and they have a democratically elected government in place.

4/11/2007 2:25:06 PM

we already won the war on terror?

4/11/2007 2:26:23 PM

4/11/2007 2:26:31 PM

^^no we're making it worse by breeding a whole new generation that hates us.

[Edited on April 11, 2007 at 2:28 PM. Reason : ^]

4/11/2007 2:26:50 PM

Quote :

"we already won the war on terror?"

so we're back to the "iraq is a war on terror" thing?

why don't we go fight a war in algeria while we're at it.

4/11/2007 2:27:36 PM

so you're back on the "the iraq war and the overall war on terror are 100% and completely unrelated" thing?

^^yeah they all loooooooooved us before 2003...maybe if we leave iraq, they will love us again!

[Edited on April 11, 2007 at 2:29 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2007 2:28:58 PM