Bush vetoes war-funding bill with withdrawal timetable

[Phlegm]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/ ... index.html

"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," Bush said in a televised address after the veto.

"I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war," Bush said. "They've sent their message, and now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need."

[Evermore]

bush is so pathetic. setting a date for failure. that was day 1 of this stupid war

[Snero]

I hate bush as much as the next guy, but I don't agree with congress setting some date where american soldiers have to be brought out of iraq

[Evermore]

you may if it was one of your family over there or your taxes were paying for this nightmare.

[Zanchief]

"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," Bush said in a televised address after the veto.

"I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war," Bush said. "They've sent their message, and now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need."

He's got a point here, but I still don't see a logical end to the conflict.

[Lyion]

Good TNR Piece on Congress & the war from a very liberal writer.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070430&s=kaplan050107

Maybe it was a slip of the tongue. But, when Nancy Pelosi confessed last year that she felt "sad" about President Bush's claims that Al Qaeda operates in Iraq, she seemed to be disputing what every American soldier in Iraq, every Al Qaeda operative, and anyone who reads a newspaper already knew to be true. (When I questioned him about Pelosi's assertion, a U.S. officer in Ramadi responded, incredulously, that Al Qaeda had just held a parade in his sector.) Perhaps the House speaker was alluding to the discredited claim that Al Qaeda operated in Iraq before the war. Perhaps. But the insinuation that Al Qaeda's depredations in Iraq might be something other than what they appear to be has become a staple of the congressional debate over Iraq. Thus, to buttress his own case for withdrawal, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "We have to change course [away from Iraq] and turn our attention back to the war on Al Qaeda and their allies"--the clear message being that neither plays much of a role there.

What is going on here? There are two possibilities: First, Reid and Pelosi could be purposefully minimizing the stakes in Iraq. Or, second, they don't know what they're talking about. My guess is some combination of the two. Political maneuvering certainly contributes to the everyday pollution of Iraq discourse. But a lot of the pollution derives from legislators being functionally illiterate about the war over which Congress now intends to preside....

...

Obliviousness, after all, has its uses. It comforts the sensibilities of politicians whose varying levels of awareness allow them to favor certain facts and not others....

Most of all, illiteracy makes for good politics. There is the conviction, to paraphrase McCain, that winning a war takes precedence over winning an election. But it isn't so clear that this conviction guides a partisan brawl in which the Senate majority leader can gush, "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war."

...

Though Reid has no use for the Bush administration's military "surge," he does propose a "surge in diplomacy," in line with the cliché that the war has no military solution. As The Washington Post's David Broder has pointed out, "Instead of reinforcing the important proposition ... that a military strategy for Iraq is necessary but not sufficient to solve the myriad political problems of that country, Reid has mistakenly argued that the military effort is lost but a diplomatic-political strategy can succeed...." In fact, the one brand of diplomacy that truly matters in Iraq--the U.S. Army's tribal diplomacy, which accounts for the recent turn-around in Anbar Province--is precisely the mission that Reid's demand for a skeleton force would shut down.

Where all this leads is clear. Piece together a string of demonstrably false "facts on the ground" from a suitably safe remove, and you're left with a scenario where we can walk away from Iraq without condition and regardless of consequence. You don't need to watch terrified Iraqis pleading for American forces to stay put in their neighborhoods. You don't need to read the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which anticipates that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal will end in catastrophe. Why, in the serene conviction that things are the other way around, you don't even need to read at all. Chances are, your congressman doesn't either.

[Evermore]

"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," Bush said in a televised address after the veto.

"I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war," Bush said. "They've sent their message, and now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need."

He's got a point here, but I still don't see a logical end to the conflict.

thats because a logical end does not exist and never will. Either way Iraq has been lost from the beginning. these terrorists are like cockroaches. Walk in to a room with them and flip a light and they scatter. soon as you leave they come back out. we can send all the troops you want. it will resolve nothing. Its really pathetic that once again history's lession has been ignored.

[ClakarEQ]

I think what people and bush are forgetting is that a time table will in fact be set he just refuses to "see it".

If we ever plan to leave, this knowledge will be shared with Iraq. That means this knowledge will be shared with Al Quada. Be it now, or later, the point is moot, a time table is required because the only other option is to "cut and run" without the knowledge being given to Iraq and that would be somewhat of a global suicide on our own (i.e. others perceptions of the USA will be even worse, lack of trust, etc).

So he is basing a decision for no other reason than pride. Pride and this president is an unfortunate combination because sometimes the guy in charge has to suck it up and realize he was wrong and do what is the RIGHT thing today.

For the folks that don't want to set a time line, I hope you realize that you are saying I don't EVER want to leave. A time line and a hard date is REQUIRED. You can't just uproot 100,000 troops from Iraq and NOT have a time line. We will NOT beat Al Quadia, there is no winner here, not now, not ever.

[Tacks]

I don't know about anyone else, but when I see someone spell "Al Quadia" I generally forget everything else they wrote in their post and dimiss it totally.

Must be too much weed.

[Tuggan]

i've seen it spelled so many different ways in news articles i'm not sure if there even is a correct way to spell it.

[Tacks]

Says the other pothead. I'm sorry you're stupid.

[Ginzburgh]

Hey I'm a pothead and I've never spelled Al Quedia incorrectly.

[Yamori]

I hope congress stalls funding like this for a long time.

I'm baffled that no one tells this like it is:

1) Bush, with no oversight or accountability to anyone, decides to send in a troop surge.
2) This decision made SOLELY BY HIM requires tons of money outside the budget.
3) Congress doesn't immediately give him a blank check and rubber stamp his unaccountable decision that went against the wills of most of the country, most of the Iraq researches and advisors, and well - most of everyone, since the ONLY power they have in this way is power over funding.
4) Insert retarculous rhetoric about irresponsible action and supporting the troops here.

[Tuggan]

Says the other pothead. I'm sorry you're stupid.

well since you're apparently an expert on middle eastern languages, how about you enlighten us on the correct way to spell al qaeda?

[Ginzburgh]

Whatever Google "did you mean" must be correct!

[Lyion]

I'm baffled that no one tells this like it is:

1) Bush, with no oversight or accountability to anyone, decides to send in a troop surge.

Incorrect. The surge is the brainchild of General Petraeus. He was confirmed by Congress unanimously recently, and after laying his plans out for Iraq. He has also been back several times to brief congress and answer questions.

2) This decision made SOLELY BY HIM requires tons of money outside the budget.

Again, incorrect or we wouldn't be in the middle of wriggling for how to pay for General Petraeus' troop surge strategy. However, I do feel you don't rightly respect the separation of powers provided the legislative and executive branches. There is only one Commander in Chief, not many.

3) Congress doesn't immediately give him a blank check and rubber stamp his unaccountable decision that went against the wills of most of the country, most of the Iraq researches and advisors, and well - most of everyone, since the ONLY power they have in this way is power over funding.

Except his decisions DO have accountability. The last election is a great example of this. Also, congress was in the loop and approved the Iraq War, regardless of how they try to portray it, with the same intel and briefings, mostly from the previous administration as their guiding light.

4) Insert retarculous rhetoric about irresponsible action and supporting the troops here.

No funds tend to make any operation tougher to run. That isn't rhetoric, it's simple common sense.

[ClakarEQ]

Tacks, find something usefull to post, or do I have to feed you some more LOL.
Al Quesadilla lover

[Tacks]

usefull?

[Evermore]

I'm baffled that no one tells this like it is:

1) Bush, with no oversight or accountability to anyone, decides to send in a troop surge.

Incorrect. The surge is the brainchild of General Petraeus. He was confirmed by Congress unanimously recently, and after laying his plans out for Iraq. He has also been back several times to brief congress and answer questions.

- In direct conflict with the Iraq committee ( forget exact name)

2) This decision made SOLELY BY HIM requires tons of money outside the budget.

Again, incorrect or we wouldn't be in the middle of wriggling for how to pay for General Petraeus' troop surge strategy. However, I do feel you don't rightly respect the separation of powers provided the legislative and executive branches. There is only one Commander in Chief, not many.

Seeming neither does the Executive branch, ( signing statements) and is in dire need of reigning in.

3) Congress doesn't immediately give him a blank check and rubber stamp his unaccountable decision that went against the wills of most of the country, most of the Iraq researches and advisors, and well - most of everyone, since the ONLY power they have in this way is power over funding.

incorrect. they can revoke the war powers act also. the funding is the fastest way. I just wish they would shit or get off the pot

Except his decisions DO have accountability. The last election is a great example of this. Also, congress was in the loop and approved the Iraq War, regardless of how they try to portray it, with the same intel and briefings, mostly from the previous administration as their guiding light.

4) Insert retarculous rhetoric about irresponsible action and supporting the troops here.

No funds tend to make any operation tougher to run. That isn't rhetoric, it's simple common sense. Ah but no funds are where Bush is forcing this to go.

[Ginzburgh]

Am I the only one who thinks the name General Petraeus sounds like something out of Star Wars?

[Eziekial]

Congress could revoke the war powers act and should do so IMMEDIATELY as it's a very bad law. It goes against the very constitution those clowns vowed to uphold. Since it was passed, we've lost thousands of lives were US armed forces were shooting at foreign nation armed forced yet we have not declared war since WWII.

[Lyion]

My understanding is the complete opposite, Ezek, although I'll have to read and refresh my memory. I think what Ever meant is the Iraq War Resolution should be revoked, but not the War Powers Act. The problem with that is unless congress get's 2/3, they cannot revoke it legally and overcome a veto. It's why they are trying to put timetables for withdrawal, which is an Executive decision, into a spending bill, instead of trying to end the war, which they can't do. Heck, they couldn't pass this bill without massive pork bribing, and it was done by a razor thin margin.

The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved in hostilities. Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal).

[ClakarEQ]

Can someone answer these questions?

How do we withdrawl without a timetable?

No timetable means no withdrawl, that statement is correct, yes?

[Lyion]

No, your statement is not correct.

To end a war, Congress can revoke it or defund it.

What it can't do is usurp the right of the Executive Branch and start making operational decisions.

[Yamori]

Incorrect. The surge is the brainchild of General Petraeus. He was confirmed by Congress unanimously recently, and after laying his plans out for Iraq. He has also been back several times to brief congress and answer questions.

Lets not cloud this please. We aren't talking about whose IDEA the surge was. We are talking about the SOLE official who ordered it. Or are you saying that it's General Petraeus that has the power to increase troop levels into different countries at the expense of other areas, extend tours of duty, move the national guard into the army - all neccessitating huge spending increases - and do so without the President's explicit orders?

Again, incorrect or we wouldn't be in the middle of wriggling for how to pay for General Petraeus' troop surge strategy. However, I do feel you don't rightly respect the separation of powers provided the legislative and executive branches. There is only one Commander in Chief, not many.

Are the new troops, ordered by Bush, currently on the ground in Iraq? If they aren't yet and are waiting for funds to pull through before embarking, I retract. I wasn't under the impression this was the case though.

You're missing the point of what I'm saying:

Bush decides to send in an additional surge of troops. He may get advice from generals and his think tanks, but this expensive decision is made and put into effect by a single man (him). In spite of the costs and manpower being used, it is at no point put up to vote, given for approval by any other body, subject to official justification, or any oversight. THIS IS WITHIN HIS POWERS AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. BUT:

Congress is the only body able to give funding. But Bush's decision has already sent extra troops, and now the gigantic bill has been placed in front of them in spite of the fact that the decision was unwanted, unpopular, and pretty obviously going to get us nowhere.

In other words, Bush has raked up a huge and unwanted $ bill $, and THEN starts spewing ridiculous nonsense about supporting the troops and legislative irresponsibility when the legislature doesn't bow to his whim and give him his blank check on his own irresponsible decision.

No funds tend to make any operation tougher to run. That isn't rhetoric, it's simple common sense.

Lets try an analogy.

A group of 20 friends are having a party. They ordered 10 pizzas and the pizzas REALLY SUCKED!!! Everyone hated them, they were shitty pizzas.

ONE of the friends decides, without asking anyone else, to order 20 more pizzas, all with anchovies and all that other gross shit. Everyone tells him he's a retard and they want no part of this shitty mountain of suck-pizza. But he does it anyways. Then when the delivery boy shows up, and the pizza-buying friend demands they all pay their share for the new pizzas, and throws a tantrum and calls them bad names at them (like irresponsible, and not supportive of the pizza man!!) when they say "Uhh.. why should we? We were clear no one wanted this."

This is pretty much what Bush is doing, only it's troops instead of pizza.