Bush is going to Veto the "Surrender in Iraq" bill

Personally, i find it hilarious that the local conservatives are bitching about the bill because of all the riders attached to it, while completely ignoring the thousands of riders that their party has attached to bills over the years they've had control of Congress...

Grow up, guys. Both parties use the same political tactics to get what they want. Stop complaining when the other side does it, unless you're willing to tell your own party off, too.

(BTW, i didn't see Bush vetoing too many of those bills the Republicans got passed through congress with a bunch of riders)

 

The whole purpose of this bill is to make Bush look worse. They Dems are wasting time.. once again, being spineless and not actually trying to do what they THINK needs to be done. It's all a game.

Democrats need to take a stand and come up with something REAL.. They spend more time mocking/trying to make Bush look bad.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Mar 30 2007, 02:24 PM) [snapback]415077[/snapback]</div>

????? Nothing anybody does could make Bush look any worse than he actually is. And that's pretty awful.

 

Well you didn't call us a bunch of spineless morons, so I will take that as the first serious contribution.

In that light, yes I do believe that this bill is political posturing and a waste of political good will bestowed onto the elected officials by their respective voters. Both sides cannot pass a bill without "bribing" someone into signing up for their bill by adding riders and other benefits. However this is a mute point for discussion, as the system won't change, at least not now.

Setting that aside, lets take a look at basic platforms candidates ran on: pro war (eliminate terror) or anti war (aka bring'em home). The narrow political majority was elected on a "bring'em home" ticket, so I would argue it is in that majority's best interest to extend the will and wishes of its constituents, by attempting a solution such as the bill in question.

I personally feel that it is pointless to argue how we got into this mess, the only thing we can do now is to figure out how to end the conflict and get out without looking like we are giving up or leaving the place worse then when we walked in. To that effect I am not sure that we should just withdraw before major mile stones are achieved, such as stability, basic infrastructure, basic education systems, basic government. I do believe that we need to "encourage" the Iraqi government to accelerate their security and stabilization take over efforts. We can't and won't stay in Iraq forever.

So how to we encourage Iraqi's to take over in a reasonable time frame, while we gradually but consistently remove ourselves from daily operations?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LaughingMan @ Mar 29 2007, 09:56 PM) [snapback]414623[/snapback]</div>

Right. And, think about it, we've got the "world's best" destructive/fighting force...but we have NOTHING closely comparable to this (in terms of funding, size, capability, etc.) for the purpose of reconstruction.

Why is this? 'Cause destruction and violence is our priority, and is not balanced by more humanitarian tasks. What you pay for is what you want, no matter how much you deny it.

We NEVER intended to rebuild that country; a strategic, rational and comprehensive plan to do so was never proposed, let alone got anywhere close to being funded.

And now, with all of this talk of removing troops, for the life of me I can't see how it won't be worse than it was before we went in in the first place...since there will still probably not be significant funding for civilian projects.

The Shrub never even attempted to realistically factor these costs into calculating funding for the war.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Mar 30 2007, 09:57 PM) [snapback]415249[/snapback]</div>

Well, we knew from the beginning that dubya wasn't into "nation-building." So, I guess the fact that we've not built a nation was part of the plan. (Of course, if he has been trying to nation-build, then dubya's a flip-flopper and a failure both. Doubly. I had a momentary loss of memory about Afghanistan.)

Hell, the administration wasn't even aware of the different factions in Iraq. Sure, we're greeted as liberators. Then we move on to liberate the next province, and the one we just "liberated" starts blowing each other up.

Without tons more information on the sociological landscape of the country, there was no hope in calculating an accurate estimate for the war in Iraq.

This is all old news, though. I wonder if Bush even knows how to veto something, considering Congress has been the ultimate toady for the past six and a half years.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Mar 30 2007, 10:15 PM) [snapback]415260[/snapback]</div>

I totally agree with your assessment, evan.

I think people, especially on the Conservative side, are simply not used to something like this happening between the President and the Congress. For nearly the entirety of the last 6 years, the Congress gave the President complete and total carte blanche on nearly all issues, foreign and domestic.

Before that, Congress and the President were the other way around, with a Democratic President and a Republican controlled Congress. Conservatives got to be on the "happy" side when a Republican controlled Congress beat on Clinton for all of his foibles. Now the tables have turned.

The Democrats don't really expect to pull the troops out with a bill like this, at least not while Bush is still in office... but they are reminding the President that he no longer has carte blanche, and that Congress will hold him accountable for his war.

What were people expecting the Democrats to do? Roll over and play the President's lapdog like the last Congress?

 

Allow me to speak your language, conservatives...CLINTON was handed bills filled with republican pork and told to sign so therefore since CLINTON had to do it JUNIOR has to also. Remember, it's all CLINTON's fault!!! Have you lost sight of your mantra??? The tone of this thread is getting as laughable as when Gingrich came out as having had an affair while he was publicly slamming Clinton for a BJ, then Gingrich declares 'I think we should leave private lives out of politics' since he thinks he will run for president now. I have never heard such two faced whining from such wimps in my life. Your attitude and posts fool no one, they only make you look as weak as junior.

 

Yes, I am also glad the Democrats are continuing to make asses of themselves. Just further proof they aren't fit to run the country.

Vote Libertarian!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Mar 31 2007, 09:37 PM) [snapback]415717[/snapback]</div>

Apparently this statement is meant tp prove your point, while in reality it proves the exact opposite point (or, the spineless Dem moron's point(s)). This has been stated before, ad nauseum, but the shrub surrounded himself with loyal people, not competent people; sycophants all. He doesn't do what's "right"; he does what he "wants" in spite of massive amounts of evidence to the contrary. I just have not figured out if he does this ignorantly or willfully; my guess is both, depending on what best fits his present short-sighted agenda. He seems, as do many, to be blissfully ignorant of the consequences of his actions/

I know the Reps hang their hat on the whole decisive, macho-cowboy engineered image of the shrub, that at least he's "doing something", but if there ever was someone in a position of such power who did so many WRONG things, made so many BAD decisions, ignored so MUCH intelligence (being bereft himself of that particular trait) I'm unaware of them. With a track record like his, I'm astounded, no, saddened, that there's still a pro-Bush faction.

And as far as the whole deadline - it really doesn't matter when that deadline is - they can and will wait us out. There is nothing to "win" in Iraq.

 

This vote is the first volley in defeating the repubs in the upcoming presidential election. I read the other day a poll that about a quarter of registered repubs want a Iraq withdrawl on schedule. BAD news for the neocons.

So far, so good.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Mar 31 2007, 08:37 PM) [snapback]415717[/snapback]</div>

Define "right", in terms of the presidency. You seem to be implying some sort of moral guidance... and yet you fail to define the set of morals being followed, and how it's the "right" thing to impose those morals on not only the nation but the world.

The "right" thing for a President to do is to represent his country. A President who doesn't represent the will of his country isn't a good President.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 2 2007, 10:21 AM) [snapback]416370[/snapback]</div>

What Bush does is always "right", because Jesus tells him so.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 2 2007, 10:21 AM) [snapback]416370[/snapback]</div>

Would make a fine dictator, though (i.e.,"The Decider").

 

I would add that it is hard to represent the will of your country if country is pretty much split down the middle along party lines.

I guess the Decider should have been the Uniter instead