-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Bush urges Congress to approve war funding before Christmas
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I know in the past you've claimed to possess super duper stratapherically high intellect that none of us mere mortals is blessed with, so l-e-t m-e t-y-p-e t-h-i-s r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w:
It is the perogative of Congress to send whatever bill they want to the President. They can put whatever they want in it. It is also the perogative of the President to veto bills he will not/can not accept.
If Congress wants out of this war, then they can accomplish that with ease. Do I need to repeat that sentence many times so your higher intellect can get it just in case you missed it??? Hopefully not, although I have my doubts...
How can Congress do this???
Declare they will not fund the supplemental. Period.
The troops, starting in March/April/May, will be forced to come home. There will be no money left to move around to sustain them except for food/water provisions.
So why isn't Congress doing this then????? It would absolutely get the troops home, and it would save $50B or so. How come our Democrat controlled Congress has not done this???
Ohhhhh....because then the heat would be on them for forcing an Iraq pull out (which is exactly what they want Bush to have to do). And in an election year no less.
Funny...it's evil Bush's fault, but not evil Congress's fault... <insert Harvey Trifecta Emoticon>
Chuck
RightIsWrong
Diamond Member
So you are essentially saying in the bolded section that it is Congress' fault that Bush will not compromise in any way, shape or form and that it is their fault for not caving into his "my way or the highway" idiocy?
I don't think that his BDS is the problem...it's your overconsumption of Kool-Aid.
RightIsWrong
Diamond Member
Maybe, just maybe they are trying to be reasonable and provide funding for the troops that are there now but trying to ensure that they AREN"T there in 6 months?
You know... a slow, reasonable, drawn out withdrawal that will give the Iraqi government time to put whatever system in place that they see fit. The one that they have zero reason, desire or will to do with OUR military and money there to continue to prop them up.
RightIsWrong
Diamond Member
Thanks for the insight into your psyche. Do you ever have anything other than non-witty/non-funny drive-by quips to add to any thread?
It is Congress fault RiW, because it's only that provision that is keeping Bush from signing it, and Congress knows that. Everyone knows that.
Congress can very very very easily do one of two things: 1.) Send a bill to the WH without a timeline string attached, or, 2.) Take matters into their own hands (which puts the public heat on them instead of Bush) and state they will not authorize any additional supplemental.
Done.
Either of those two are all they have to do, and they are easy solutions to the supplemental problem.
Now, really, just why hasn't Congress done either 1. or 2.????
Hint: It's not because I'm drinking the Kool-Aid...
Chuck
EDITS: D@mn this wireless keyboard and far away LCD TV...
RightIsWrong
Diamond Member
Can you please point me in the direction where I can find this Constitutional rule or law that dictates that Congress is only allowed to send bills to the President that HE WILL SIGN!!!
It is not Congress' fault that Bush is a total dickwad and will not do ANYTHING that will put the troops on a path to returning home. IT IS BUSH'S FAULT and his alone.
You also missed a third option that Congress can do....
3.) Send Bush a bill that will fund the troops in the immediate future but also provide a structured timetable for their removal from occupying a foreign "sovereign" nation.
So, all Bush has to do is sign this bill and he will be able to fund his most excellent adventure for a couple more months and then he has to come back to reality.
You mean the slow drawdown that's already happening without strings attached? The one where the Iraqi's already know they need to get their sh1t together, as they're the ones dying in mass numbers? That one?
Again, in a war (which again, we're in), you don't F'ing telegraph to your opponents what your plans are. Why would anyone ever do that? That's like playing poker and turning over half your cards...it makes like -99% sense...
That the Dem's are pushing this agenda given the turn in Iraq in the past 2 months - for whatever reason - only tells me that's the only card they feel they can play. Why when they could just not fund the supplemental period I don't know, but I'll leave that up to you to explain....
Chuck
Except BDS sufferer no President in their right mind is ever going to sign a bill that tells our adverseries when we'll be leaving the conflict. Should I send a pic of that tattoo'd on a hand so you can tape it on yours to read over and over????
I shudder to think how inept you think any POTUS would be to do that. Clinton, Bush, Whoever's next, etc.
I'd love for the leading football team to go in the 3rd quarter: Hey, other team, with 10 minutes to go in the 4th, we're just going to have 2-3 people out on the field. Okay, lets Game On!
You don't think that's going to give hope to the loosing football team?
Seriously, if you cannot grasp this simplistic example, lets just agree to disagree...it does not get any simpler than this.
Chuck
RightIsWrong
Diamond Member
No I don't mean the end of the surge leaving the ENTIRE invading force still there. I mean bringing all but a small contingency home. The small contingency can be there to provide training for the rest of the Iraqi army and/or police force. You know, those guys that we have been training for over 5 years that are still completely incapable of performing their jobs.
Please explain to me, if the surge has worked so well towards putting Iraq on the path to stabilization do we need our troops there again? Maybe the Dems are calling Bush on his effort to try to play both sides of the fence on this issue.
"The surge worked and is continuing to work."
Can we bring the troops home then Mr. President?
"Uh...we need the troops there for stability."
I thought you just said that the country is stable?
"Uh...Look, over there" (exit stage Rose Garden).
RightIsWrong
Diamond Member
Your analogy is a really piss poor one. Any opponent knows what the other team's patterns are when they are in a specific situation in a game. Whether they are able to do anything to stop it is a different topic.
The insurgency knows what Bush is going to do (stay the course until some other schlep has to take responsibility for getting us out of this quagmire) and only have to adjust their game plan. The al-Sadr truce will run out soon if there is no political progress (which there is no reason for because they aren't being forced to do anything but be a puppet govt for the US) and the bombings and attacks will resume. Bush, if still pres when this happens will send in another surge. It will quiet down until they leave. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Do you really, truly think that our presence there is going to stop these people from a civil war even if it is 20-50 years down the road?
Lemon law
Lifer
Noooooooooooooooo Pabster. We or should I say they were talking about GWB&co and only GWB&co.
But you do have somewhat a right to express your opinion Pabster.
Your problem is that for every one your sides can muster still convinced that GWB&co are right, there are now two people who are convinced that GWB&co are indeed leading us all off a cliff.
As for Reid and Pelosi, that argument gets really weird. They get damned by people like you for giving GWB&co his way on Iraqi matters. So how can they be accused of leading us off a cliff when they are following GWB?
And now when the assert themselves against GWB, you damn them anyway. After all Pelosi has given GWB his Iraqi funding, its the GOP in the Senate who filibustered it despite the best efforts of Reid and the democrats.
Anyway you cut it, its now the collective GOP that is jumping off the cliff, pardon them if the democrats don't follow into the lala land of mass GOP suicide.
My analogy is right on, because that's exactly what you're asking Bush to sign up for! And no, you know what the other team may do, but until you line up for that play, you have no idea. Even then, when they execute, you still don't know. Yet you want Bush to sign up for telling whoever is looking to cause instability just how long they have to hold out for? Nuts, just plain nuts...
20-50 years down the road, if the Iraqi's decide to do civil war, then it's not going to be our fault. Right now, it's not only our responsibility but in our best national long term interests to see Iraq work. Not only for the Iraqi's, but that entire region.
Chuck
That's the goal we've been working towards for years now. Until AQI blew up that mosque, things weren't looking so bad. We're just now at the point we were then. And surprise, we're drawing down, exactly as "Bush&Co" said we would all along. What more do you want? Stability is being reached, draw down is naturally happening (as one would expect it to when using common sense).
Now, obviously, using a little common sense, we don't withdrawl all of the troops at once. Or even most of them. You still have to keep them there to keep stuff from flaring back up. If stability continues, then we'll keep naturally withdrawing troops. Again, as "Bush&Co" have said all along...
Do you live in reality? I mean, seriously, do you really expect to have high instability, then a surge, then you get low instability, and then immediately start taking away large quantities of troops (well past pre-surge levels), and not expect the sh1theads you just kicked out to return????
It just boggles my mind the thought processes I see here...
Chuck
conehead433
Diamond Member
This administration arranges for us to see exactly what they want us to see. The surge is working. Funny how it didn't exactly work when we had that many troops there before. And then there are the staged photos of Iranian rockets aimed at U.S. bases. I'm so sure. LOL
StageLeft
No Lifer
My bet, they weaken their stance but keep some half-assed strings to save face.
Anyway, it's interesting because they have given him a blank check and yet if they do get their way and all the troops leave, there really is a good chance Iraq will get a lot worse, so basically they have given him the approval initially to fvck this country up royally, but now must indefinitely pay to avoid Iraq going to sh*t even more than it already has.
It's congresses' job to decide whether we go to war. It's their job to decide what specific military programs to fund. It's their role to approve the top leadership.
And it's Congress's role to have oversight of the military. Remember Truman's commission in WWII to find waste and identify solutions?
It's the commander in chief's role to decide the war plan - when congress has approved war, with the resources they have approved.
So your statement is wrong. While Congress doesn't say 'attack this town or that town', they do say 'get the heck out of that war, no funds are approved for attacking those towns'.
IronWing
No Lifer
That's the hostage appeal. Bush wants to continue his illegal war and unless the American people give him more money to do it, their loved ones in the military are going to suffer. Congress needs to re-read the Constitution and explain it to Bush, using small words. The first word should be "No".
Looks like the admin is attempting to expand the hostage pool beyond the military, to include defense contractor jobs as well- "Give us the money or we'll cut jobs!"...
The first ones to take the hit will undoubtedly be in blue states and districts, bet on that... Part of the problem for Dems is that their constituencies are just as hooked on war deficit spending as the rest of the country...
The first ones to take the hit will undoubtedly be in blue states and districts, bet on that... Part of the problem for Dems is that their constituencies are just as hooked on war deficit spending as the rest of the country...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
