Dems Pass Another War Funding Bill That Bush Won't Accept

[Lemon law]

To Blackagainst1-----am I right when I assume the we you refer to in saying--We will get us out of Iraq.

That we is only the Republican party.

Somewhat exactly the question because the democrats have a majority but not a veto proof congress. And if the Republicans want to share the credit they may have to leave GWB&co. at the curb. If the GOP refuses to abandon GWB and very soon, they will never get any share of the credit. If the GOP join congressional dems at best the GOP gets a share of the credit. That is the dilemma the GOP now faces.---the only thing the dems now need from the GOP is enough GOP support to get a veto Proof congress.

But the dems can get us out of Iraq without the GOP---all they have to do is stay their course---and keep sending GWB funding bills with timetables and benchmarks---and if GWB decides to veto---the funding will never come thus effectively ending the Republican sponsored occupation. I doubt the American people will support GWB on a funding fight.---no matter how much GWB cries, bitches, and moans. There is the matter of the little boy who cried wolf effect that has long ago placed GWB&co. credibility into the sewer.

While I hope it never comes to that because simple withdrawal is also dangerous----but its still better than the GWB&co. plan. Like it or not GWB& co. and the GOP staked their Presidency on Iraq. Unless things turn around dramatically and under GWB &co. ideas---the blame for Iraq will fall on the party that you call "WE." And the bulk of the American people will no longer identify with the Republican party. Again relegating the Republican Party to a minority party for the foreseeable future.

But when the 2008 Presidential choice comes up---I won't vote for any Presidential candidate who voted to authorize the war in 02 and 03. If both the dems and the repubs both run such idiots, I will vote independent or choose the lesser of two idiots.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: blackangst1
How many you need? Also, as a side note, every house and senate meber who went on record about this called it the war bill or something similar.

Just one from the House and Senate website. Should be easy since you spend so much time on that site anyways.

heh I see where your going with this. I present this:

The bill itself is not titled "The War Bill". It is referred to as the war bill by just about every member of congress who has been interviewed in the media (even a few in my links). So its IMPLIED to be the war bill.

OOoohhhhhh but its not CALLED the war bill! you cry. OK how about this:

President Bush NEVER stated the words there was a tie between Iraq and 9/11. 2 years into the war, almost every member of congress said he IMPLIED it. Therefore its truth.

Right?

So implication is only handy when it suits your side? You sir (or ma'am) are the very definition of hypocrite.

1. I've never reneged on the fact the the bill contains funding for troops in Iraq. The funding is part of a larger Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill as I have always contended.
2. Your claim that the Democrats are loading up "the war funding bill" is fallacious as it was never intended to be its only purpose.
3. Your comparison to the "Iraq-9/11" connection is weak at best. As stated in points 1 and 2, your implication that this bill is a war funding bill loaded with pork is dishonest and flat out wrong.