^ See, that's what I'm talking about back-on-topic. I haven't read through the resolution in-depth as of yet... does it set forth other major goals along the way as well? Or does it just set an end-time with no additional information on how to get there?

3/28/2007 9:31:58 AM

Quote :

"I had no idea that this thing was supported by such a great majority"

i hope you dont read too much into what a survey of 1,500 people supposedly reveals

3/28/2007 9:35:08 AM

^No, but even in a small cross-section of the population, I think that's a fairly significant majority.

^^It's more of a - "you have $124 Billion dollars and a deadline of 8-31-08, whichever comes first"

To me, that says, "you've had plenty of time to formulate an exit strategy, now we're setting the clock."

3/28/2007 9:46:24 AM

Which unfortunately could put is in the identical situation on 8-31-08... Call me crazy, but the current administration seems to be of the "we need to give them several guideposts along the way to make this goal"

You know, kind of like an Elementary school student.

So yeah, I guess I'm saying there needs to be even more micro-management of the war not less

[Edited on March 28, 2007 at 9:52 AM. Reason : .]

3/28/2007 9:51:43 AM

i completely disagree 100% that the war needs more micromanagement

3/28/2007 9:59:21 AM

won't this get veto'd anyway??

3/28/2007 10:07:51 AM

Quote :

"And as for "pissing on the constitution", I'm pretty sure the Constitution dosn't say anywhere that "Congress can only try to pass resolutions and laws if the President is down with it"."

yeah, but it does say that the President runs the military and Congress controls the money... Thus, Congress telling the president directly what to do w/ the military is an example of pissing on the Constitution

3/28/2007 10:12:03 AM

and Congress telling the President how to run the war (aka micromanaging the war) is not only unconstitutional, but it hurts the troops...we don't need hundreds of senators and representatives each giving their own opinions about what small things should change in Iraq...the generals on the ground knee deep in it need to be in charge of managing the war

3/28/2007 10:14:29 AM

1) I was being fairly facetious in the "more micromanagement" comment.

2) Is the bigger problem here that the Democrats in Congress are trying to guide the president on the war, or that the president is not, and historically has not listened to anyone outside of his own office's advice on this war? (this does include present and past Generals, on the ground and stateside)

3) Anyone know where the Generals on the ground stand on this timeline?

3/28/2007 10:26:11 AM

^#3 - That's exactly what I want to see before forming a hard and fast opinion on this, but ATM, I don't think anyone is out of line. I'm in no position to comment on the effectiveness or prudence of this decision, but I'm convinced it isn't totally uncalled for.

3/28/2007 3:21:50 PM

its hard to say what the generals think. most of those that disagree with Bush have been forced into retirement. I remember seeing something about a top general supporting the timeline, but now I cant find it.

3/28/2007 4:35:48 PM