Vote slams Bush's Iraq plan

Real Life Events.

Go off topic and I will break you!

Moderator: Dictators in Training

Vote slams Bush's Iraq plan

Postby Ginzburgh » Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:12 pm

:lol: fuck you George Bush

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/16/ ... index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Democratic-controlled House issued a symbolic rejection of President Bush's plan to deploy more troops to Iraq on Friday, opening an epic confrontation between Congress and commander in chief over an unpopular war that has taken the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.

The vote on the nonbinding measure was 246-182.

"The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, leader of Democrats who gained power last fall in elections framed by public opposition to the war.

"The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home," she vowed.

Bush's Republican allies said repeatedly the measure would lead to attempts to cut off funds for the troops. Outnumbered, they turned to Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas to close their case -- and the former Vietnam prisoner of war stepped to the microphone as lawmakers in both parties rose to applaud his heroism.

"Now it's time to stand up for my friends who did not make it home, and for those who fought and died in Iraq already," he said. "We must not cut funding for our troops. We must stick by them," he added, snapping off a salute as he completed his remarks to yet another ovation.

Bush made no comment on the developments, and his spokesman said the commander in chief was too busy to watch the proceedings on television.

After a secure videoconference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Bush said the Iraqis were reporting progress: providing troops to fight alongside Americans, making sure that no ethnic or religious factions are ignored in the security operations, providing $10 billion toward reconstruction and working on an oil revenue-sharing law.

The developments in the House marked the first vote of the new Congress on the war. Roughly 400 of 434 lawmakers spoke during four days of a dignified debate -- an unusual amount of time devoted to a single measure.

Senate to vote Saturday
Moving quickly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, has called a test vote for Saturday on an identical measure, and several presidential contenders in both parties rearranged their weekend campaign schedules to be present. (Watch a change of course in the Senate )

Republicans said in advance they would deny Democrats the 60 votes they need to advance the resolution, adding they would insist on equal treatment for a GOP-drafted alternative that opposes any reduction in funds for the troops. (Full story)

The developments unfolded as a new poll showed more than half those surveyed view the war as a hopeless cause.

A sizeable majority, 63 percent, opposes the decision to dispatch more troops, although support for Bush's decision has risen in the past few weeks from 26 percent to 35 percent, according to the AP-Ipsos poll.

The House measure disapproves of Bush's decision to increase troop strength, and pledges that Congress will "support and protect" the troops.

Bush has already said passage of the measure will not deter him from proceeding with the deployment of another 21,500 troops, designed primarily to quell sectarian violence in heavily populated Baghdad.

Already, troops of the Army's 82nd Airborne have arrived in Iraq. Another brigade is in Kuwait, undergoing final training before proceeding to Iraq. Three more brigades are ticketed for the Baghdad area, one each in March, April and May.

In addition, the Pentagon is sending two Marine battalions to Anbar province in the western part of the country, the heart of the Sunni insurgency.

White House focuses on war funding
Bush and his allies in Congress calculated days ago that the House measure would pass, and increasingly have focused their energy on the next steps in the Democrats' attempt to end U.S. participation in the war.

"I'm going to make it very clear to the members of Congress, starting now, that they need to fund our troops," Bush said earlier this week, a reference to legislation that requests more than $93 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As developments on Capitol Hill went forward, the White House sought to play down the impact of the debate and vote. The president himself made no comment on it -- with his spokesman saying he was too busy to watch -- and turned instead toward Iraq. He reported after a secure videoconference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that progress is being made.

The president said that the Iraqi leader briefed him on several recent steps by his government: providing troops to fight alongside Americans, making sure that no ethnic or religious factions are ignored in the security operations, providing $10 billion toward reconstruction and working on an oil revenue-sharing law. (Watch Bush talk about funding the war )

"I was pleased that he's meeting benchmarks that he has set for his government," Bush told reporters. "That's good news for the Iraqi people. And it should give people here in the United States confidence that his government knows its responsibilities and is following through on those responsibilities." (Watch President Bush on Iran's involvement in Iraq )

Democrats have made clear in recent days they will use Bush's spending request to impose certain standards of readiness, training and rest for the troops.

"That stops the surge (in troops) for all intents and purposes, because ... they cannot sustain the deployment," Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, said recently.

Republicans pointed to his remarks repeatedly during the day as evidence that despite their claims to the contrary, Democrats intend to cut off funds for the troops.

"This is all part of their plan to eliminate funding for our troops that are in harm's way. And we stand here as Republicans...committed to making sure our troops in harm's way have all the funds and equipment they need to win this war in Iraq," said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader.
Ginzburgh
Nappy Headed Ho
Nappy Headed Ho
 
Posts: 7353
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:30 pm

Postby Lueyen » Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:43 pm

I kind of touched on this in another thread, but I don't believe it to be the democrats goal is to defund the war. Much of what is going on is for show, but it has a huge effect not only here at home, but more importantly it's putting political pressure on the Iraqi government.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
User avatar
Lueyen
Dictator in Training
Dictator in Training
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:57 pm

Postby Narrock » Fri Feb 16, 2007 6:22 pm

yeah fuck you George Bush. hurrrrrrrrrrrr
“The more I study science the more I believe in God.” -- Albert Einstein
Narrock
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 16679
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:54 pm
Location: Folsom, CA

Postby Yamori » Fri Feb 16, 2007 6:31 pm

I can't stand these Dummycrats - they got elected almost explicitly to DO something about this catastrophuck of a war... and they spend their time debating non-binding resolutions directed at a president that's infamous for not giving a shit about the constitution, balance of power, or any viewpoint not his own. Do something you stupid cretins. :eyecrazy:
-Yamori
AKA ~~Baron Boshie of the Nameless~~
User avatar
Yamori
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2002
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:02 pm

Postby Arlos » Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:13 pm

Well, I agree that nonbinding resolutions are kinda pissing upwind, but what would you have them do? Cutting off all funding is really the only other option they have, and that's basically the scorched-earth nuclear option. The Republican-controlled congress hamstrung future ones by giving Bush near carte-blanche to go after Iraq back in 2002/2003, and he's just continuing to wield the power they gave him. It was moronic and utterly damaging to this country to have given it to him, of course, but onc egiven, it becomes very hard to take away without doing the equivalent of dealing with a migraine by cutting off the head.

So, sort of cutting off funding for the troops (which Karl Rove has wet dreams about, just think of the campaign ads that would generate in 2008), I don't see what much else they CAN do; not that would pass. I mean, they could try impeaching Bush (gods know there's enough cause; FAR more than lying about getting a blowjob), but since the Demo's don't control 2/3 of Congress, it'd never pass. Even if it did, it'd just put Cheney in power, and that'd be worse.

But, by all means, if you have a viable plan for what they COULD do, then share it.

-Arlos
User avatar
Arlos
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:39 pm

Postby Lueyen » Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:48 pm

I have to pretty much agree with you on that Arlos, however I'd like to believe that it's not just the political fall out that keeps them from flat defunding the war, but concern for what would be the result of a cut and run scenario.

In the end although I may not see eye to eye with the reasoning behind the resolution, it's not without it's positive aspects.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
User avatar
Lueyen
Dictator in Training
Dictator in Training
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:57 pm

Postby Agrajag » Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:17 am

Yamori wrote:I can't stand these Dummycrats - they got elected almost explicitly to DO something about this catastrophuck of a war... and they spend their time debating non-binding resolutions directed at a president that's infamous for not giving a shit about the constitution, balance of power, or any viewpoint not his own. Do something you stupid cretins. :eyecrazy:


The reason the Dems aren't doing anything, directly pulling the troops home and ending this war is because they can't and they know it. There are reasons beyond your peripheral that this war continues and will continue or years.

I will take comfort when re-election time comes and the Reps start screaming that the Dems didn't do anything about the War in Iraq. Surprisingly, the Reps will be voted back into House control due to the short attention span of the American public.
Agrajag
NT Veteran
NT Veteran
 
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 2:46 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Postby dammuzis » Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:24 am

no republicans will win in 2008 because the dems with have a bitchy lesbian as their presidential candidate and a nigger as her running mate
User avatar
dammuzis
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 1337
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: my cubicle

Postby Lyion » Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:24 am

Actually the Dems can pull the troops out by not funding them. However, if they do they'll take political ownership of the war and it'll kill them in the 2008 elections.

Unfortunately, Yam, the Dems were elected for exactly the OPPOSITE reason. The only reason they are in control of the house is because so many of them campaigned as Blue Dog Democrats.

Even then they have a razor thin majority in the house, and despite being the majority actually have less members in the Senate than the GOP.
There are 49 GOP Sentaors, and only 48 DNC ones, not to mention one of the DNC guys is completely incapacitated and any day the Senate could swing GOP.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.
C. S. Lewis
User avatar
Lyion
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 14376
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:42 pm
Location: Ohio

Postby Ginzburgh » Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:03 pm

no republicans will win in 2008 because the dems with have a bitchy lesbian as their presidential candidate and a nigger as her running mate


I'm surprised Garg hasn't temporarily come out of retirement for this one.
Ginzburgh
Nappy Headed Ho
Nappy Headed Ho
 
Posts: 7353
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:30 pm

Postby Zanchief » Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:04 pm

I was tempted but I decided not to.
User avatar
Zanchief
Chief Wahoo
Chief Wahoo
 
Posts: 14532
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 7:31 pm

Postby Tossica » Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:46 pm

It's sad but true. If the dems put up a woman or Obama as their candidate, we will have another Republican president for 4-8 years.
User avatar
Tossica
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 12490
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:21 pm

Postby Evermore » Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:00 pm

Tossica wrote:It's sad but true. If the dems put up a woman or Obama as their candidate, we will have another Republican president for 4-8 years.




agreed
For you
Image
User avatar
Evermore
NT Deity
NT Deity
 
Posts: 4368
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:46 am

Postby Ginzburgh » Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:08 pm

I'll bet anyone $100 that Rudy Giuliani will be our next president.
Ginzburgh
Nappy Headed Ho
Nappy Headed Ho
 
Posts: 7353
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:30 pm

Postby Darcler » Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:09 pm

And I wouldnt mind.
User avatar
Darcler
Saran Wrap Princess
Saran Wrap Princess
 
Posts: 7161
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:54 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Postby Evermore » Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:13 pm

Ginzburgh wrote:I'll bet anyone $100 that Rudy Giuliani will be our next president.



sucker bet cause if clinton or obama with the dem nomination, its a shoe in
For you
Image
User avatar
Evermore
NT Deity
NT Deity
 
Posts: 4368
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:46 am

Postby Tossica » Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:17 pm

If Gore runs again it will be a close battle for sure.
User avatar
Tossica
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 12490
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:21 pm

Postby Ginzburgh » Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:24 pm

I think the only people who dislike Giuliani are new yorkers. Every New Yorker I know (including my family from NY) has a seething hatred for him for one reason or another.
Ginzburgh
Nappy Headed Ho
Nappy Headed Ho
 
Posts: 7353
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:30 pm

Postby Reynaldo » Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:28 pm

I dunno. I think the dems will be able to label any rep canidate as being "another George Bush" and that alone will scare the fence sitters into voting dem, regardless of who the canidate is or how false the label is.
Reynaldo
NT Veteran
NT Veteran
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 10:15 am

Postby Darcler » Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:04 pm

Ginzburgh wrote:I think the only people who dislike Giuliani are new yorkers. Every New Yorker I know (including my family from NY) has a seething hatred for him for one reason or another.


He has Gid's vote :dunno:
User avatar
Darcler
Saran Wrap Princess
Saran Wrap Princess
 
Posts: 7161
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:54 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Postby Arlos » Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:08 pm

No candidate who supported the war in Iraq will get my vote, period. Biggest foreign policy debacle since Vietnam, and that includes the Iranian hostage crisis and the bungled military operation to try and rescue them. The war never should have happened, we had no right to go, save naked power, as every single justification the administration used pre-war has shown to be utter BS. (No WMDs, no association between Iraq and al-Qaida, etc. et. etc.) Plus, it would have allowed us to concentrate on Afghanistan, and actually, maybe, caught the Taliban leaders and maybe even Osama and his ruling crew... You know, the people who ACTUALLY attacked us? What a concept.

So, while Juliani bothers me less than Bush does, he's a supporter of the Iraq war, and thus will never get my vote. I'll vote Green party first.

-Arlos
User avatar
Arlos
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:39 pm

Postby Lionking » Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:47 pm

arlos wrote:So, while Juliani bothers me less than Bush does, he's a supporter of the Iraq war, and thus will never get my vote. I'll vote Green party first.

-Arlos


I believe your stance will be a common one come '08 and will be part of what kills the Dem hopeful's chance. Remember in 2000, if Nader isn't in, Bush doesn't come close to winning. You and others voting Green will kill Rodham-Clinton/Obama/The 'Breck' Girl*, et al.


* Boortz trademarked
User avatar
Lionking
NT Veteran
NT Veteran
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 3:09 pm
Location: In front of my TV watching football

Postby Ginzburgh » Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:58 pm

I love the unofficial Barack Obama campaign slogans:

Barack and roll
Barack out with your cock out
For those about to Barack, we salute you
Ginzburgh
Nappy Headed Ho
Nappy Headed Ho
 
Posts: 7353
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:30 pm

Postby Arlos » Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:07 pm

Obama didn't vote for the war, and has come out against it. Gore certainly didn't vote for whe war. Hillary may have voted for war originally, but at least seems to have changed her mind. Giuliani (and McCain, etc.) STILL support the war, even after it's turned into such a complete and total debacle.

That said, how much I support the Democrat candidate is going to depend largely on who it is, and what their policy positions are. If I agree with the preponderance of them, and they agree on my small list of absolutes, then I'll happily vote for them. I agree with you on one thing, though. Without Nader in 2000, we'd have had Gore as president, and the country would be vastly, vastly better off. Lets just say my feelings towards Nader are not kindly.

-Arlos
User avatar
Arlos
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:39 pm

Postby Tossica » Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:14 pm

arlos wrote:I agree with you on one thing, though. Without Nader in 2000, we'd have had Gore as president, and the country would be vastly, vastly better off. Lets just say my feelings towards Nader are not kindly.

-Arlos



Fuck that. Any 3rd party that can draw even a small percentage of the vote is a welcome addition to an election.
User avatar
Tossica
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 12490
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:21 pm

Next

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests