nah i'll just let the President handle it...i'm not the one bitching and moaning about things I dont fully understand

5/2/2007 5:11:01 PM

Quote :

"conversely, what military credentials do Congress have"

uhhhhhh

5/2/2007 5:11:11 PM

uhhhhhhhh

5/2/2007 5:11:26 PM

Quote :

"conversely, what military credentials do Congress have that allow them to know more about how to run a war? Because they have the support of the people? The people, who have even less ideas about how to run a war than the Pres OR Congress?"

I dunno, some of these "the people" are retired generals calling for a withdrawal (or overwhelming force), some are members of congress with more credentials than the prez and his group of neocons. Basically, the war strategist that Bush takes his advice from, are the folks he had put there to give him the advice he wanted to hear, after removing those who gave him advice he didn't like.

5/2/2007 5:34:13 PM

Quote :

"some of these "the people" are retired generals calling for a withdrawal "

what about the 99.9999% of the people (the public) who arent retired generals?

5/2/2007 5:36:34 PM

What about them?

5/2/2007 5:38:49 PM

^they "have even less ideas about how to run a war than the Pres OR Congress"

so whats your point

5/2/2007 5:42:52 PM

Well, many of them are capable of taking multiple viewpoints and strategies and determining their stance on the war. Or, are you saying that this country is relatively stupid?

5/2/2007 5:56:35 PM

don't argue with TreeTwista....he will argue with the blind hate towards all that do not think like himself.

5/2/2007 6:00:00 PM

Quote :

"many of them are capable of taking multiple viewpoints and strategies and determining their stance on the war"

sure...but how does your and my ability to take multiple viewpoints on the war make us more capable in determining how the war should be run than people in power? how do our opinions qualify us to run a war?

my only point was just because the general public is mostly on the side of "the war should end", why does that necessarily hold any weight? and yes, this country on the whole is relatively stupid

5/2/2007 6:19:11 PM

The end there, where they quote bush as having said that he supports time tables when its operations run by his political opponents, I think is a powerful one.

5/2/2007 7:21:24 PM

Quote :

"my only point was just because the general public is mostly on the side of "the war should end", why does that necessarily hold any weight? and yes, this country on the whole is relatively stupid"

Oh, I dunno, because we have a representative democracy?


You seem to be pro keep the current strategy in a major way. What are your reasons for that, and what potential drawbacks do you see from keeping this strategy, if there are any?

5/2/2007 10:47:27 PM

In regards to the representative democracy, the public gets to make their voice heard by voting for President and their state's Congresspeople...they don't individually vote on bills obviously...they let their stance on the war be known by voting...then they leave it up to the elected representatives

My reasons for supporting the current course of things is that the cabinet and intelligence and military know a shitload more about the war than you or I or the general public...it certainly hasn't gone according to plan, or if it has, it was certainly a short-sighted plan...but that doesn't change the fact that we're at war and regardless of what got us in the war, we need to do the best thing...we can't go back and not invade Iraq...we have to deal with the current situation and most military experts think a hasty withdrawal would not be smart...I mean even the people like Colin Powell who were essentially fired for speaking out on the current war plan acknowledged that a complete effort in Iraq would take more years...so if you trust them then why do you want to have a binding withdrawal date?

5/2/2007 11:37:14 PM

good call twista on the dems backing down. In the papers today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050201517_pf.html

5/3/2007 9:17:13 AM

Say what you will, but I think the dems are coming across as cowardly, or even un-American in this situation. Is there any truth to that? I don't know. As far as I can tell, the democratic party is simply pandering to the far left, which makes up a large percentage of the party, these days. I think the democratic leaders know that pulling out would lead to bad things, and that's why they make sure bills that involve withdrawal are pretty much impossible for Bush to sign.

5/3/2007 9:21:08 AM

it's. . .so. . . impossible. . . for . . . me . . .to . . . sign. . . . can't. . . move. . . hand. . .


but seriously. if bush was so concerned, why didn't he meet with the democrats without preconditions before this bill was ever passed?

5/3/2007 12:13:03 PM

or the flipside of that arguement, why didnt the dems believe bush would really veto it like he said? The answer is simply politics.

5/3/2007 12:17:18 PM

it's almost like people don't expect politicians to be politicians

5/3/2007 12:21:48 PM

Lets start from the top...

First off, it's been four years since the US military steamrolled their way into Baghdad and ended the Hussein regime's reign over Iraq. What exactly has been accomplished since then? True Iraqis had elections, but one look at their political situation will tell you that their new government is a mess, and that's being generous. Then there's the whole civil war thing. Call it whatever you like, but the bottom line is that the sectarian violence over there hasn't been improved to any appreciable degree. Four years later, this war, which was supposed to net us an ally, cheap oil, and a hammer-blow to Al Quaida, is nothing short of a political catastrophe and nightmare.

As members the tax-paying public, we are effectively investing in our government. We elect members of congress, and the president, in order to see that our investment is spent appropriately. In this respect, the public has every right to be outraged by the Iraq war. Half a trillion dollars later, the message is quite clear - we fucked up. Right now tax-payers are investing $$billions into this debacle of a war every day. Currently, tax-payers are earning a piss-poor return on that investment.

So yes, the American public's opinion can and should count for something in this debate.

Give this piss-poor return we're earning, any investor would come to this conclusion: business as usual isn't going to cut it. Any sane investor would have "cut and run" long, long ago. Still, we tried to give the Bush Administration some leeway. We've tried supporting the open ended committment to rebuild Iraq. We've tried relying on the Bush Administration to appropriately conduct this war. We've tried to understand the same tired, re-hashed, "We've turned the corner," "Stay the course," reasonable-fucking proposal nonsense for the last four years.

Mr. President? We're all fucking sick of it.

I'm sorry, but the current Administration has lost all credibility in terms of knowing and understanding what has to be done in Iraq. You cannot honestly stand in front of a microphone and say the American people "Don't worry, just a bit further and we got it." Bullshit. We've heard that same excrement for 4 years now. In that same time we have lost thousands of American troops. I have no issue with Congress trying to take control of the war. I don't care who is running the war, democrats, republicans, communists, whigs, who cares? It's a political maneaver no doubt, but it has to be done.


I support the concept of withdrawal timetables. I do NOT however support timetables for the reasons provided by the Democrats.

The timetables are necessary to force the Iraqi government to stand on its own two feet. As long as American troops are present in Iraq, the government has no real incentive to get its act together. By gradually withdrawing troops, supplies, and $$$, the Iraqis will have to start running thir own country again. Only the Iraqi people themselves are truly fit to run their own country. As long as the US persists there, however, the US will be the ones truly in power.

It makes absolutely no sense to expect the Iraqi government to voluntarily spend their own resources in such a difficult situation. Seriously, why buy the cow when you get the milk for free? As has been said numerous times by countless people, Iraq is now a political problem, not a military problem. Iraq requires political solutions, and those solutions are clearly not being provided.


The Democrats have the right idea, but they're pitching it in the wrong way. By treating the withdrawal timetables as a political lever to pressure the Iraqi government, we can provide the military an honorable exit from a long and exhausting war. Politics got us into this war, and politics will have to get us out. The military has done its job, now its time to bring them home.



I'm out.


[Edited on May 3, 2007 at 12:51 PM. Reason : Voldemort for President: Finally, a candidate without a hidden agenda...]

5/3/2007 12:36:37 PM

Quote :

"or the flipside of that arguement, why didnt the dems believe bush would really veto it like he said? The answer is simply politics."

That isn't the flipside. And, they still needed to go through with the bill process to get an idea if they could manage enough votes for an override. Why do you think all the pork got added?

5/3/2007 12:51:14 PM

Quote :

"they still needed to go through with the bill process to get an idea if they could manage enough votes for an override"

all but one republican sided with Bush and all but 6 democrats sided with with the bill...sounds like politics to me

5/3/2007 12:54:14 PM

Well, they are politicians...

5/3/2007 12:55:00 PM

it just seems they would know that they wouldnt get the proper 2/3 and 3/4 necessary to override the veto

i guess if they heard catchphrases like "the american people want this war to end" they might assume that the republicans in congress would vote differently than 189:1 or whatever it was

5/3/2007 12:57:28 PM

What would you rather have them do? The other option was just no funding, which would get veto'd, and there wouldn't be an override, or give the president exactly what he wants. So, maybe they wasted a little time, I guess they should apologize for trying to compromise a little even though Bush and Co. didn't?

5/3/2007 1:02:02 PM

Quote :

"What would you rather have them do? "

Not look like congressional n00bs by proposing a damn binding timetable bill, knowing 100% full well that it wouldnt pass

5/3/2007 1:03:14 PM

So you would rather them not do anything?

5/3/2007 1:04:34 PM

they didn't do that at all. they made everyone cast their vote one way or the other on whether they agree with a timetable. now in a year and a half everyone will know where the members of the congress stood when they're up for re-election.

this could have all be avoided of course, if bush had been willing to negotiate.

5/3/2007 1:06:43 PM

more like time couldve been saved if the stupid dems hadnt proposed such a dumb bill

and then refused to meet with bush to negotiate...remember that? it was only like 1-2 weeks ago

5/3/2007 1:14:41 PM

Quote :

"and then refused to meet with bush to negotiate...remember that? it was only like 1-2 weeks ago"

bush would only meet if they agreed to his preconditions, which were basically "fund the war without any timetables or phased withdrawal stipulations". what a negotiator bush is!

5/3/2007 1:23:35 PM

and the democrats would only meet if bush guaranteed binding timetables, blah blah blah

Quote :

"fund the war without any timetables or phased withdrawal stipulations"

sounds to me like bush was cutting to the chase, since thats the actual common ground...its just a shame the democrats wasted a couple weeks with their idealistic unrealistic pork bills with binding timetables since it was pretty much inevitable that they wouldnt pass

5/3/2007 1:42:28 PM

Quote :

"and the democrats would only meet if bush guaranteed binding timetables, blah blah blah"

nope. wrong.

5/3/2007 1:49:34 PM

the democrats DID however refuse to meet with Bush

but keep convincing me its completely onesided

5/3/2007 1:52:13 PM

only because he had preconditions. the democrats didn't want a meeting with preconditions (especially when those preconditions are pretty much "give me everything i want")

5/3/2007 1:53:35 PM

his preconditions were obviously justified based on how the voting went...sounds like bush knew what would happen but the democrats still wanted to waste time

5/3/2007 2:01:06 PM

Quote :

"what about the 99.9999% of the people (the public) who arent retired generals?"

lol...what about the 99.9999% of the people (the public) that want the troops out?

5/3/2007 2:03:24 PM

Quote :

"his preconditions were obviously justified based on how the voting went...sounds like bush knew what would happen but the democrats still wanted to waste time"

you speak like there are only two options for a war funding bill, which is also exactly how bush played it.

there are a million different ways this could be done. they could have just passed a bill with benchmarks. they could have changed the date for withdrawal. unfortunately bush doesn't like to even talk about things that he disagrees with.

5/3/2007 2:07:56 PM

^^they voted...thats how they get to voice their opinions...you must have missed that earlier

^so you wouldve preferred they go against the opinion of all the generals who said timetables of ~12-18 months would be foolish? Powell, Clark, etc...even though they were adamantly against timetables, the Dems shouldve continued to push for timetables? Congress micromanaging wars...sigh

5/3/2007 2:12:19 PM

huh?

the democrats wanted a meeting without preconditions. bush did not. how is this so confusing for you?

5/3/2007 2:14:09 PM

What kind of (lack of) preconditions did Pelosi's meeting with Syria have? She didnt refuse to meet with them

She is just as stubborn as Bush...I know your personal opinions and politics are clouding your views on this, but acting like its onesided is being about as stubborn as Pelosi

Quote :

"In a speech to an American Legion chapter in Virginia on Tuesday, President Bush said it's been 64 days since he asked Congress for emergency war funding. But instead, the "Democrat leadership in Congress has spent the past 64 days pushing legislation that would undercut our troops, just as we're beginning to make progress in Baghdad." Bush accused Democrats of passing bills that "substitute the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our commanders on the ground." He also noted that House Democrats loaded their bill with billions of dollars in pork barrel projects -- spending that is completely unrelated to the war. "Now, the Democrats who pass these bills know that I'll veto them, and they know that this veto will be sustained. Yet they continue to pursue the legislation," Bush said. "And as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field. In other words, there are consequences for delaying this money." Bush said if Congress doesn't act in the next few days, the U.S. military will be forced to transfer $1.6 billion from other military accounts to keep funds flowing to troops in the field. "We are at war. It is irresponsible for the Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds they need to succeed," Bush said. "

how is this so confusing for you?

5/3/2007 2:15:43 PM

it was pretty irresponsible not to put this war funding into the actual budget, instead relying on emergency funding so that the real cost of the war wouldn't be as evident in the main budget.

5/3/2007 2:25:48 PM

irresponsible is stalling for months at the expense of the soldiers just so you can micromanage a war from washington

5/3/2007 2:26:28 PM

this is when a reasonable president would negotiate with the congress to get a bill passed that the president will sign. if it were so important, you'd think he'd at least be willing to talk about it.

5/3/2007 2:27:53 PM

you'd think congress would at least meet with the president to talk about the war instead of refusing to even meet with him, just because they couldnt get their way and determine timetables from washington instead of letting the generals on the ground in iraq decide

5/3/2007 2:28:46 PM

the president wouldn't meet without preconditions, it was he who refused them.

5/3/2007 2:30:15 PM

the president invited congress to meet to talk about the war...they refused because he wouldnt let them determine timetables from their washington offices...bush knew the generals needed to determine things like that...NOT CONGRESS...NOT BUSH...BUT THE GENERALS IN IRAQ...but again, this whole concept goes completely over your head because obviously democratic congress is perfect and republican bush is 100% wrong about everything

maybe if you didnt have such a political bias to cloud your thoughts you could actually see this from an independent perspective

5/3/2007 2:32:07 PM

they refused because he determined what the end-state of the legislation must be in order for the congress to "negotiate" it. believe it or not, congress is given the power to make these sorts of decisions.

5/3/2007 2:35:56 PM

Quote :

"the democrats wanted a meeting without preconditions. bush did not"

-sarijoul

Quote :

"the president wouldn't meet without preconditions"

-sarijoul

whoops you were too caught up in spewing out your garbage to realize that you completely contradicted yourself...so the democrats wanted no preconditions...or bush wanted no preconditions? which is it?

Bush would rather have generals in Iraq determine the course of the war and simply let Congress fund it...Bush isnt making up a timetable and neither should Congress...neither Bush nor Congress are running the war from Iraq...the generals are

But the Congress would rather pad pork bills for 2 months instead of funding the troops that they supposedly support

5/3/2007 2:38:04 PM

those two statements are consistent. read them again.

the first says that the dems wanted a meeting without preconditions as opposed to the president.

the second says the president wouldn't meet without preconditions.

in both of those statements the president wanted a meeting with preconditions and the congress did not.

Quote :

".neither Bush nor Congress are running the war from Iraq"

last time i checked, bush is the one who should be running the war.

[Edited on May 3, 2007 at 2:44 PM. Reason : .]

5/3/2007 2:43:18 PM

Quote :

"pushing legislation that would undercut our troops, just as we're beginning to make progress in Baghdad."

Can anyone explain to me how giving the troops the current funding they are requesting AND bringing them home at a determined date (rather than the undetermined dates the current admin has in mind) is undercutting them?

5/3/2007 3:30:10 PM

Quote :

"whoops you were too caught up in spewing out your garbage to realize that you completely contradicted yourself...so the democrats wanted no preconditions...or bush wanted no preconditions? which is it?"

READING COMPREHENSION PWNT.

5/3/2007 3:31:40 PM