Bush is going to veto a bill to fund the troops!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom 6850 @ Apr 30 2007, 12:29 PM) [snapback]432709[/snapback]</div>

No. It goes against the tradition and the letter and the spirit of the law of our nation.

And:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 29 2007, 01:53 PM) [snapback]414348[/snapback]</div>

Get over it.

Pissing and moaning about the war now is truly a waste. It's already been done, we landed in Afghanistan and Iraq (likely have related operations running in far more), killed far more than 9/11, and managed to hang Saddam and kill both his sons (..but yeah, it was certainly all bad.. ).

It's like complaining about the condom breaking when the kid's two years old.

Yeah, Bush is bad, evil, doesn't support the troops, yada, yada, yada. A little too late for this sort of thing now, perhaps your angst is better projected into whom exactly will replace Mr. Bush.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 30 2007, 04:58 PM) [snapback]432768[/snapback]</div>

Wow, this post is like a buffet - so many tasty things to choose from. where to begin?

Alanis Morrisette had it wrong - you calling someone else a baitor is .... ironic.

Using your logic , since I have not had a cold since I've bought my Prius, the Prius prevents colds! Brought the battle to "them"? How many Iraqi's were on those planes? You can't still honestly think, despite your massive rhetoric, that we are battling terrorism in Iraq, can you? If so, you have a lot of nerve calling anyone a moron...

Speaking of morons, I must be one, because in my simple-minded perception, pulling the funding should decrease the amount of danger American troops face, since they'll HAVE to come home. Oh yes, that's right, they'll follow us over here...isn't that the circular logic usually used at this point?

I could go on, but I feel like I would be just wasting keystrokes...

wow.

 

According to CNN, Congress is expected to deliver the funding bill to the President at 4:00pm Eastern time today. Bush has called a press conference for 6:10pm ET.

Bush has indicated that he will veto the bill, and I expect that he will. I would expect that Bush will criticize Democrats for including a timeline, but will probably soften his position on conditions a bit, and throw out some carrots for the next bill. This is, of course, after he'll bash the Democrats for not supporting the troops, putting non-war items (like Katrina relief) into the bill, and delaying funding of armored vehicles (which don't protect against the new molten copper projectiles the insurgents are now using anyway).

Bush needs a funding bill, and is going to have to bend to get it. The Democrats are under no obligation to fund the Iraq war, but will provide some funding regardless. Both sides have stated that they are willing to negotiate, but neither side wants to give much. They'll eventually make a deal, of course, and some form of funding will be granted. This will probably include some watered down timelines or benchmarks. Bush doesn't have public support at the moment - the majority of Americans hate the war, and don't care for Bush much... he'll probably have to be the one to bend more.

Now, I have to give Kudos to the Democrats that timed delivery of this bill. This is the fourth anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech... he is going to be forced to announce a veto of a war spending bill on the anniversary of the day he declared that major combat operations were over in Iraq. The media will certainly pick up on that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ May 1 2007, 02:44 PM) [snapback]433373[/snapback]</div>

a few minor disagreements:

bush does not need this funding bill - he will compromise but not on a timeline or on the pork which is should not contain in any event.

the congress is not more loved than the president - and there is a clear majority of americans who do not want to lose this war.

the media will pick up on it - because they are anti-war/bush. that being said bush is painting the dems as defeatists, retreatists - harry's -- the war is lost comment --- is huge; pelosi going to syria is huge; the dems are in danger of being labelled and they are providing their own cement here. americans know the dems are playing politics here with everything including the timing - a lot of americans do not like the fact the dems are playing politics while our troops are in harms way - it does look bad - it does continue to give direct evidence that the dems only support the troops in words only.

i hope the dems stick to their intent and just not fund the war - and i hope bush sticks to his guns and wants a pure spending bill. i love it

by the way - where are the bad guys getting that ied technology??? iran????? state dept said what yesterday - iran is the center of terror..... could it be we should do something if they are actively participating in the murder of our troops????? wonder FDR or Truman would have done????

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ May 1 2007, 02:44 PM) [snapback]433373[/snapback]</div>

One would hope that the timing of Bush's press conference has been carefully chosen. It seems exceptionally odd that he'd rush to veto the bill on the anniversary of the infamous 'Mission Accomplished' speech. Hell, you would have thought he'd have at least scheduled the press conference after the networks broadcast the nightly news. I could be wrong but I thought that the network news goes out at 6:30pm ET.

At the very least, it would seem to make more sense to wait until tomorrow to pronounce that he's going to veto the bill to keep the media from trumpeting the comparison in timelines with the anniversary. It definitely seems odd that Bush appears to be playing right into the Democrat's hands on this one.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Apr 30 2007, 10:32 PM) [snapback]432980[/snapback]</div>

Para I : no comment, but i agree with you about the simple minded thing

Para I : circular logic requires a starting point - and you are so right - they were here already - perhaps you forgot about 9/11/2001 - and we were not even over there! Brilliant. Who does not think they will follow us home? Clinton :lol: You might want to do some more reading because they are already here. But then again you want Iran to go nuclear - so much for circular logic - hey if you are wrong - can we blame you - will you bury all the dead?

Peace man,

and you are wasting keystrokes - you could be reading - just a joke

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 1 2007, 11:02 AM) [snapback]433385[/snapback]</div>

Bush does need this funding... without a bill, Bush can't keep the war going. He'll essentially be forced to start pulling troops out by July if he doesn't compromise. I would agree with you on the extra items... those should be in another bill. Those are minor costs compared to the timeline, though, and aren't what the 'real' fight here is about. Very clearly - this fight is about control... who has the better plan to draw this war to a conclusion. The American people believe that Congress has the better plan.

According to the latest polls (Harris poll performed 4/20-4/23, President Bush has a 28% job approval rating. Congressional Democrats have a 35% job approval rating. Congressional Republicans have a 22% approval rating. Despite that, Congress in general shows a 35% approval rating in a Fox News poll, and a 44% approval rating in an ABC News poll taken at about the same time). The ABC News poll also showed an approval rating for Democrats in congress of 54%.

When asked if they feel that what they are hearing about the Iraq situation is accurate, an NBC news/WSJ poll taken at the same time showed that only 28% believe what the White House says about Iraq, but 38% believe Democrats in Congress.

According to a CBS/NYT poll, only 24% of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Iraq, while 71% specifically disapprove (another 5% weren't sure).

Only 39% of Americans think the war in Iraq was the right thing to do. 59% call it a mistake.

In April of 2003, 72% of Americans believed that President Bush would do a better job than Democrats in Congress in handling the war on terror. In February of this year, that was down to 39%.

I agree that Americans probably don't want to lose this war, but if we keep going like we're going, we probably will wind up losing. We need a clear change of direction, and the Democrats in Congress are the ones who will need to give it to us... the President has already shown us that he isn't willing.

As for Iran... the molten copper tank piercing weapons were supposed to be coming from Iran (remember that press conference?), until US troops found an insurgent facility in Iraq manufacturing the devices. They were never coming over the border as the U.S. alleged... this was another mistruth coming out of the White House.

As for Pelosi, there were Republicans on that trip with her... and didn't the Baker/Hamilton commission recommend that we open ties with Syria and get them involved in the long-term stabilization of Iraq? It seems like Pelosi might have been doing exactly what Baker/Hamilton recommended... something Bush is too stubborn to do.

Now here is a question for you: why do you suppose FDR (and the Democratic led executive branch) sold war bonds during World War II?





<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ May 1 2007, 11:14 AM) [snapback]433397[/snapback]</div>

Yes, but Bush has been complaining that this delays funding for the troops, and recently said something to the effect of wanting Congress to send him the bill quickly so he could veto it and get on with things.

If Bush leaves it sitting on his desk overnight, he'll be seen as weak (especially when he has indicated that he'll quickly veto it). There will be parallels drawn to his speech four years ago.

If Bush were smart, he'd be the first one to draw those parallels; try to diffuse the Democrats angle right away. I doubt even Carl Rove can put a positive spin on that one, but who knows?



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 1 2007, 11:27 AM) [snapback]433409[/snapback]</div>

Doc, you aren't doing yourself any favors. Iraq was not involved in 9/11... it never was (Tony Snow even said that yesterday). We created terrorism in Iraq when we invaded... it was a mistake, and we never should have done that. Will it follow us home? Maybe, but we could have prevented it by not invading in the first place. Blame your guy for that.

Bin Laden was based in Afghanistan, not Iraq. We reduced our forces in Afghanistan to ramp up for Iraq, and Bin Laden is still on the loose. Why? We walked away from Afghanistan to pursue an unnecessary war of choice... a war that wasn't related to 9/11 or the supposed global war on terror. Why?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 1 2007, 03:27 PM) [snapback]433409[/snapback]</div>

Danoday responded faster than I was able to, and did so eloquently, so I'll just say that you may be the last remaining believer of the completely fabricated 9/11 - Iraq connection.

Please indicate where in my post I said anything about Iran: "But then again you want Iran to go nuclear ", or is your idea of discourse just putting words in people's mouths and/or making baseless assumptions about people you don't know? Either a reference or an apology is requested.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ May 1 2007, 03:56 PM) [snapback]433411[/snapback]</div>

How is retreating from Iraq not losing the war? How does it not strengthen those who have already attacked us? How does it not increase Iran's power and influence and increase the liklihood they advance their abilities to inflict greater harm and death? How does it not lead to mass genocide? How does it not lead to great potential conflict involving the Kurds and even potentially Turkey? How does it not increase terrors potential and expansion both locally and globally?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ May 1 2007, 05:32 PM) [snapback]433497[/snapback]</div>

Apparently, no one seems to have heard Mr. Cheney during one of the debates, where he specifically said Iraq was likely to be the next nexus of terrorism a-la Afghanistan.

Apparently we ignore facts such as Saddam using WMD's on his own people. Name ONE OTHER head of State who has resorted to actually USING WMD's. THIS, and a million other factors, separate Saddam/Iraq from any other threat.

9/11 resulted in the invasion of Afghanistan, rightfully so, and a PRO-ACTIVE, PREEMPTIVE, initiative on Iraq, also rightfully so.

The only thing I fault the administration for, is not being good enough at marketing the war, silencing the idiots who think we should sit around and wait for some type of "evidence" to materialize, and cutting off the bandwagon Bush hating that has resulted thereof.

However, the bright side of the coin is, what's done is done. As far as I'm concerned, 9/11 occurred, and we responded by invading two countries, toppling two governments, hanging Saddam and offing his sons. What country is now going to play "hot potato" with the next terrorist group that pulls something off?

That being said, since the Bush administration will ultimately be replaced by a far weaker one, I expect a terrorist attack sometime within the next administration, as the terrorists NOW know, the US will run itself in circles trying to "prove" a just invasion, when everyone is going to throw the "mistake" of Iraq in our faces.

This is my view on the situation, and I'm not going to argue this point with anyone, as doing such is an exercise in futility.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ May 1 2007, 05:32 PM) [snapback]433497[/snapback]</div>

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for either of these. <_<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ May 2 2007, 09:24 AM) [snapback]433867[/snapback]</div>

Sad but true. Apparently ethics shouldn't be expected in this forum...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 2 2007, 09:21 AM) [snapback]433865[/snapback]</div>

The entire problem with the "war on terror" (not ot be confused with the "war on Iraq") mentality is that terrorism is not a country; it's a tactic. True, certain countries support and abet terrorism for their own goals. However, the war in Iraq, I believe, has done more to engender terrorism than to prevent/control/end it.

We heard Cheney in the debates. This administration has been so consistently wrong in their predictions and statements that it is mind-boggling to me that anyone in their right mind would take what they think is "likely" seriously. They're like the guy at the racetrack who will tell you what horse is going to win at every race and is proven wrong again and again. Then again, you'd only be losing money there. We're losing lives here as well.

btw, not arguing your point, as it is apparently futile.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Apr 30 2007, 02:59 PM) [snapback]432690[/snapback]</div>

:mellow: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 2 2007, 06:21 AM) [snapback]433865[/snapback]</div>

Harry Truman, July, 1945, not once but twice.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom 6850 @ Apr 30 2007, 03:29 PM) [snapback]432709[/snapback]</div>

Most have forgotten, or dont care anymore, they wont admit that in public circles.....

When the terrorists come back to US soil and the posters here on PC or the other people that sit back and whine and complain about war & ect. are directly affected by a terrorist act will again jump on the band wagon of finger pointers asking why the Goverment wasnt there to protect them.....

Sad but true, take 10 steps back and read the topics with an open mind and you'll see it too.....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ May 1 2007, 03:14 PM) [snapback]433397[/snapback]</div>

I heard it was the dems timing.Just think,they had many days to sent this bill to the pres and they selected the time.THIER SO OBVIOUS it stinks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 2 2007, 05:21 AM) [snapback]433865[/snapback]</div>

Adolph Hitler gassed his own citizens with chemical weapons. It is worth noting that a Democratic president wanted to go to war against Hitler, but met with significant Republican opposition. This is the reason we didn't enter the war against Germany until after December 7th, 1941. Germany was allied with Japan, and when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, we pretty much automatically declared war on Germany by default.

In August 1914 (the first month of World War I), xylyl bromide was used on European battlefields. Who used it? Surprisingly, the French! Germany followed up by using chemical weapons in October of that same year on the western front, and early the following year on the eastern front. Weapons development escalated when the Germans began using chlorine gas in April 1915. The British began using chlorine gas on the battlefield in September 1915 at the battle of Loos (that backfired on the Brits when prevailing winds blew the gas toward their own troops). Over the course of the war, the weapons technology was refined by both sides - phosgene and yperite (commonly known as mustard gas) were used. There were other variations used as well, but all fall into the category of chemical weapons. The Germans used 68,000 tons of chemical weapon during World War One. The British and French used 61,000 tons.

Others? Spain used Chemical weapons in Spanish Morraco in 1924 (the Third Rif War). Libya used chemical weapons in their war against Chad in 1987. U.S. troops gave smallpox-infected blankets to native American tribes in the mid 1800's, in hopes of wiping them out with disease (the British did something similar in the 1700's). in 1935/36, mustard gas was heavily used in Ethopia (against warriors from Abyssinie). Between 1937 and 1941, the Japanese used chemical weapons in China (read up on the battle of Yichang). Egypt used mustard gas in Yemen in the mid-1960's.

During the 1980's, both the Soviet Union and the United States significantly increased Chemical weapons production. The U.S. had ceased production in the late 1960's, but began significant production in 1987.

And yes, Saddam did use chemical weapons against his own people, and against Iran in the 1980's. Of course, this shouldn't be a surprise to anyway in the U.S., because the Reagan administration had been selling Saddam Hussein Bacillus Anthracis (anthrax),Clostridium Botulinum, Histoplasma Capsulatum, Brucella Melitensis, and Clostridium Perfringens. Dr. Berman, would you care to flex your medical knowledge and remind us what those substances are good for?

Worth noting that at this time, Ayatollah Khomeini wanted the United States and the rest of the world to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he was using chemical weapons (a violation of the 1925 Geneva convention). The United States responded with the position that usage of chemical weapons (internally or externally) was not justification for regime change. Here's the quote:

<blockquote>"The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."

</blockquote>So, chemical weapons have a huge history, and have been used many times by many different governments, including governments the United States were allied with. The United States used defoliants such as Agent Orange in Vietnam. While those are technically defoliants, they had the effect of being chemical weapons - causing death injury, and birth defects to this day. AirportKid brings up the point that Truman used nuclear weapons twice on people... we're the only country that has done this. While I believe the use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima (and to a lesser extent, Nagasaki) were justified, they are still WMD's, and need to be recognized as such.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 2 2007, 05:21 AM) [snapback]433865[/snapback]</div>

Based on Mr. Cheney's history of truth-telling, I don't believe any of what he says. If fact, he was on Rush Limbaugh's show the other week talking about Saddam Hussein's unquestionable ties to the September 11th attacks. This is odd, because the White House has consistantly denied that they've ever linked Saddam Hussein to 9/11 (including just this week!).

Cheney is a liar, and has no credibility among reasonable people.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ May 2 2007, 01:45 PM) [snapback]434077[/snapback]</div>

Historical information as such has little to no value in TODAY'S political landscape. Saddam was, and had been, the only real "loose cannon" when it came to WMD's in RECENT times. On top of that, just because no evidence might exist linking Iraq with Al Queda (even though Al Queda NOW openly states their association) at the time, most certainly doesn't mean there were none. Yes, in an ideal clear-cut world, you make decisions based upon varying degrees of evidence, but there most certainly are times (in matters above and beyond common criminal matters, such as national security) you must decide on varying degrees of likelihood.

Keep on thing in mind: When it comes geopolitical matters, the country operates precisely like the MOB, all legal structures are totally malleable. Essentially, all we did, in classic mob-like fashion, is "send a message" in response to 9/11.