Bush vetoes war-funding bill with withdrawal timetable

[Lyion]

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?

I'm not sure what was clouded. Many in congress have pushed for this, including the current Majority Leader. Petraeus went before Congress to get confirmed to lead the war in Iraq based on this strategy.

General Petraeus recommended this strategy to both Congress and the White House. The Senate unanimously confirmed him, which would make one think they'd approve of the strategy he had passed to them during the confirmation process. Once he took over in Baghdad, the President approved the plan that Petraeus had recommended to him and presented to Congress.

Certainly Bush retains executive authority, and the decision is his to make whether to support this effort, but that really doesn't mean it is his sole decision. Congress can easily not provide funds, which will hamstring the efforts in Iraq. I don't think they will, because it'd be political suicide, though.

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.

Some of them are. Some of them are not. However, that is within the powers of the Executive branch and is not at all within the domain of the legislative branch. If you are saying the President is responsible for the war, then certainly. However, there still is separation of powers.

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.

Ok, so, do you not want the Commander in Chief to really be the CINC? Should congress be involved in wartime troop movements? Thats a pretty scary thought.

Bush is asking for funding for the Iraq War, which has been approved by congress and subsequently run by the Executive Branch. The funding is for a STRATEGY THAT CONGRESS KNEW ABOUT FROM THE COMMANDER WHO WAS GOING TO IRAQ TO IMPLEMENT IT AND WAS CONFIRMED AFTER GIVING THEM THE DETAILS. You keep repeating that this was W's sole decision. It was not. Congress was in the loop and have recommended this and confirmed the man to implement it. The rest is playing politics.

He has not raked up a bill. He is asking for money. Congress can either give it to him or not. What they can't do is get involved in Executive Branch decisions. If they decide to not fund the War, it's over. What you are insinuating ignores the fact the war is CURRENTLY FUNDED. The discussion is over giving more money, which has not occured yet.

Your analogy is pretty far off. Say a group orders pizza, but decides after the delivery guy arrives to get something different and slams the door in his face. They are screwing the delivery guy over by not paying. This is indeed what is happening, and it has nothing to do with the President, The Delivery guy happens to be our troops, and the order was the confirmation of Petraeus and his surge recommendation.

[Evermore]

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

I think of general greegus ( sp) when i hear his name


btw congress CAN and HAS put limits on the executive branch in situations like this. If you read Jefferson's statements on the matter, congress being able to limit the president is one of the built in consistutional checks and balances. Also it is WELL with in congress's legal right to put limits on war funding, troop deployments etc. Congress has done so before and needs to now.

[Eziekial]

[quote="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.

[quote]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).[/quote][/quote]

Where did you get that nonsense qoute? Neo-con HQ? That may have been the publicly stated purpose but in reality it simply transfers warring powers to the executive branch so we (the nation) can more readily engage in military action. It undermines the constitution and rather than bore you with qoutes I'll just quickly spell it out. The reason Congress was to declare war is to limit it. It's a much longer and deliberate process to have congress declare war which is exactly why it was designed that war. As it stands now, all it takes is the President to get half-cocked and pick up the red phone and 10,000 Marines invade Panama.
This law was a simple ploy to placate the US citizens and it's worked. Oh we're not going to war, just protecting Somalians from some unrest. We're not going to war, just limiting the spread of communism to Vietnam or Korea. It makes me sick knowing that a majority of the "conflicts" we've been involved in last 50 years are of our own making. Even this clusterfuck. Do you know who armed and educated Saddam and Bin Laden? Who taught Afganistan guerillas how to fight against a much larger, better equiped military????

[Evermore]

the US has been playing both sides against each other in the middle east for years.

[ClakarEQ]

Can someone answer these questions?

How do we withdrawl without a timetable?

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

I'm just trying to figure out how do we EVER leave.

Is there an expectation that this is something we'll win? I don't see how you can win a war like this one.

[Ganzo]

Can someone answer these questions?

How do we withdrawl without a timetable?

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

I'm just trying to figure out how do we EVER leave.

Is there an expectation that this is something we'll win? I don't see how you can win a war like this one.

We are not at war, so we can't win

[Zanchief]

We are not at war, so we can't win

You might want to pass that memo to el presidente, because he most certainly thinks he's at war.

[Ganzo]

In war you have clearly defined enemy, clearly defined target, and achievable result. We were at war with Sadam's Iraq, we won.
Right now we are occupying forces, our enemy is local freedom fighters and religious fanatics from across the region. We have no clearly defined mission there, other than to hold on to that piece of land as long as we can, under myriad of presences.

So as I said before, you can win war, you can't "win" an occupation.

[Zanchief]

But the objective never was to overthrow Sadam. It's always been to put in place a stable Iraqi democratic government. It was doomed from the start.

[Ganzo]

Democracy cannot be installed by occupants because they are always enemy, so their ideas are false. Democracy can only be achieved from the inside, when people are ready.

[Tossica]

Democracy cannot be installed by occupants because they are always enemy, so their ideas are false. Democracy can only be achieved from the inside, when people are ready.

Which is what pretty much every sane person has been saying since the beginning.

[Evermore]

Democracy cannot be installed by occupants because they are always enemy, so their ideas are false. Democracy can only be achieved from the inside, when people are ready.

QFT

[Zanchief]

Democracy cannot be installed by occupants because they are always enemy, so their ideas are false. Democracy can only be achieved from the inside, when people are ready.

Totally agree.

How many times have a said this, forcing democracy on someone is completely missing the point.

[Lyion]

Where did you get that nonsense qoute? Neo-con HQ? That may have been the publicly stated purpose but in reality it simply transfers warring powers to the executive branch so we (the nation) can more readily engage in military action. It undermines the constitution and rather than bore you with qoutes I'll just quickly spell it out. The reason Congress was to declare war is to limit it. It's a much longer and deliberate process to have congress declare war which is exactly why it was designed that war. As it stands now, all it takes is the President to get half-cocked and pick up the red phone and 10,000 Marines invade Panama.
This law was a simple ploy to placate the US citizens and it's worked. Oh we're not going to war, just protecting Somalians from some unrest. We're not going to war, just limiting the spread of communism to Vietnam or Korea. It makes me sick knowing that a majority of the "conflicts" we've been involved in last 50 years are of our own making. Even this clusterfuck. Do you know who armed and educated Saddam and Bin Laden? Who taught Afganistan guerillas how to fight against a much larger, better equiped military????

Actually, that was from wikipedia. I know its such a bastion of Neo Conism there.

I'm glad we didn't have the lack of vision back when we created the Marshall Plan that so many have today.

[Evermore]

Democracy cannot be installed by occupants because they are always enemy, so their ideas are false. Democracy can only be achieved from the inside, when people are ready.

Totally agree.

How many times have a said this, forcing democracy on someone is completely missing the point.

Furher Bush will pass another bullshit law to shut you up for making sense Zan. Be careful or CANADA IS NEXT! ZIEG HEIL!

[Eziekial]

Wikipedia? I thought that was created by anyone posting whatever they want on a subject. Are you saying Neo-Cons never blog or post???

Lyion, I'm not sure if you are being serious or not what's your point in mentioning the Marshall Plan? You realize that plan was used as a mechanism to dole out US taxpayer money to our allies right?

[Arlos]

To minorly take the devil's advocate position for a change here, I think part of the overall problem in Iraq is that many of the Neocons honestly thought they WERE ready to spring forth a democratic society. Remember all the "We'll be welcomed as liberators" and such nonsense? It really seems to me a lot of them actually believed that drivel.

Of course, the obvious case can thus be made in that how could supposed foreign policy experts be *THAT* fucking wrong about such things.... I suspect they were blinded by ideology, and saw the world in how they wanted it to be, not as it was, and only listened to sources that told them what they wanted to hear (ie, Chalabi and his INC), and ignored all of the other voices telling them different things.

Unfortunately, I don't think that there is much disagreement but that anyone DOING that was incredibly stupid and blind to the world, but there you have it. Since when has the Bush Jr administration been concerned about reality as opposed to ideology? Paul Bremer ring a bell? "Brownie, you're doing a hell of a job" as New Orleans was being obliterated and FEMA showed itself to be less competant than the Keystone Kops? How about their repeated assertions of links between Saddam and Al-Qaida and the "Prague Meeting" despite the fact they had in hand absolute proof that both assertions were absolutely false? I don't think I need to go on...

The Bush administration catered to these ideologues and fanatics and gave them a free hand. The current debacle in Iraq is the predictable result.

-Arlos

[Eziekial]

I'm not argueing that at all Arlos. I actually completely agree that this war is a big fuckup.

My point is that if we as a nation don't reign in our government then no one will and we all pay a dear price for it. This war is just a symptom of our government overstepping it's mandate and it is the fault of every citizen in this country we are at war right now. The current administration is moot. We allowed this to happen each and every time we vote these same people back into office. Not one candidate so far has proposed scaling back our foreign policy or even repealing the Patriot Act which no one disputes is terrible law. Bah, why do i even bother posting, I'm off to play soccer and kiss blonde girls.