Sunday shows: Republicans to reconfigure US budget cuts

[Jhhnn]

Yes, he could have. But he didnt. Just like he didnt have anything to do with the troop pull out. Fair enough.

He honored the commitments of his predecessor over a lot of objections from Repubs, who want to maintain some presence in Iraq, despite the desires of the Iraqi govt.

He certainly does have something to do wrt troop pullout, whether his detractors want to admit it or not.

Once there was an Iraqi govt, they outmaneuvered the Bushistas at every turn. On the structure of the Iraqi state, the constitution, oil law, on the imposition of a privatized economy, and finally on troop withdrawals, too. Bush needed an agreement in late 2008 to bolster his party's chances at the polls, and the Iraqis rather skillfully left residual troop levels as an open question in return for granting him that. When the time came to establish those levels, they just said "zero", which is what they wanted from the start.

There are reasons that staying out of middle eastern politics is a good idea, which the Bushistas learned first hand.

 

[cybrsage]

Link to back up and vet your claims? Nope, another wimp-out coming.

Missed this one. I suppose you forget that Bush asked Congress for permission to attack Iraq and Afghanistan prior to doing so and they voted yes. It was one of the things Obama harped on incessently during his campaign, I figured you knew it. Still want a link?

Clinton asked for permission prior to the Kosovo intervention.

Permission beforehand is not required in The War Powers Act, but gaining permission to continue the fighting after 90 days (with an automatic 30 day extension, so effectively 90 days) IS required.

So what link do you desire? One saying Obama did not comply or links saying the others did?

 

[cybrsage]

He honored the commitments of his predecessor over a lot of objections from Repubs, who want to maintain some presence in Iraq, despite the desires of the Iraqi govt.

He certainly does have something to do wrt troop pullout, whether his detractors want to admit it or not.

He definately does. He could have kept his campaign promise, but that is not how Obama rolls. I do applaud him for keeping the international agreements made by the US government before he became president, though...but it is a quiet clapping, since he is expected to keep international agreements the US government made before he became president.

Once there was an Iraqi govt, they outmaneuvered the Bushistas at every turn.

What is a Bushista?

There are reasons that staying out of middle eastern politics is a good idea, which the Bushistas learned first hand.

Actually, the war fought by Bush Sr. was a VERY needed war. Had Iraq been allowed to gain control of that much middle eastern oil, he would have gained a lot of power over the US economy. One of the reasons for the existence of a military is to ensure the flow of vital materials to the nation remains open.

 

[cybrsage]

It is still stupid to cut the military's funding while men are fighting and dying in a war.

 

[First]

Yes, he could have. But he didnt. Just like he didnt have anything to do with the troop pull out. Fair enough.

So he gets half credit, meh. Bush changed course and saw the light at the end of his presidency. Good for him.

 

[cybrsage]

I thought Bush always said we would be there until the Government of Iraq told us they wanted us to leave...at least after a new government was setup.

 

[First]

Please post the president's quote in there. Hint, it does not contain it.

However, if you would like to hear Obama himself say he will have the combat troops out in 16 months, simply click this youtube link and go to 4:34. The actual words are at 4:38.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WYTKj8pU5M

Really sucks when Obama himself proves you wrong, doesn't it?

He didn't prove me wrong at all, nothing he said is inconsistent with his actual accomplished actions on Iraq, and a non-partisan 3rd party vetting institution agrees with me. Politifact quite clearly delineates exactly how he kept his word, and I'll repost it here since you're woefully confused:

The last of American combat troops are leaving Iraq, and journalists on the ground have been documenting the departure of the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. "Goodbye Iraq: Last US combat brigade heads home," reported the Associated Press. "Iraq in the rear-view mirror; Final combat brigade exits through a landscape littered with memories," said the Los Angeles Times. And "U.S. mission in Iraq switches from combat to assist," said the report from Reuters.

It's important to note here that the description "combat brigade" is critical. About 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq as a transitional force.

Obama described what those remaining troops will be doing in a speech on Aug. 2, 2010: "As agreed to with the Iraqi government, we will maintain a transitional force until we remove all our troops from Iraq by the end of next year," he said. "And during this period, our forces will have a focused mission -- supporting and training Iraqi forces, partnering with Iraqis in counterterrorism missions, and protecting our civilian and military efforts. These are dangerous tasks. There are still those with bombs and bullets who will try to stop Iraq"s progress. And the hard truth is we have not seen the end of American sacrifice in Iraq. But make no mistake: Our commitment in Iraq is changing -- from a military effort led by our troops to a civilian effort led by our diplomats."

This is consistent with Obama's promises from the campaign, when he emphasized removing combat troops but keeping other types of troops. Here's what Obama said at debate on Jan. 15, 2008: "We are going to have to protect our embassy. Were going to have to protect our civilians. We"re engaged in humanitarian activity there. We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if Al Qaida is creating bases inside of Iraq. ... but it is not going to be engaged in a war, and it will not be this sort of permanent bases and permanent military occupation that George Bush seems to be intent on."

We should note that the present agreement between Iraq and the United States calls for all troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. The New York Times recently outlined a State Department plan to use private security contractors for diplomatic personnel, and some observers have questioned whether the 2011 deadline for troops leaving is realistic.

Here, though, we're rating Obama's promise to remove combat troops within 16 months of taking office. Technically, he's a few months over the deadline, but he often said "about 16 months" on the campaign trail. In February 2009, shortly after taking office, he set a deadline of August 31, 2010, and he's making that goal. Given the scale and complexity of removing combat troops from Iraq, we think he is substantially meeting the terms of his promise. We rate it Promise Kept.

Ah, so you were trolling...while calling others trolls. Nice.

Here's an urban dictionary definition of trolling since you're, again, quite confused and apparently need to brush up on your reading comp: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling

OK, you have enough rope and you hung yourself with it. NONE of them were wars. Bush started no wars either. NONE are wars. They are all simply conflicts. To be a war, Congress must vote to declare war. NONE of them had such an event happen.

Feel really stupid yet?

The definition of war does not stop and start with Congress. I hate to break it to you, but having Congress declare a war or not is simply not germane to a conversation about the definition of war.

Oh, and as I requested before, where's your link to Afghanistan getting less money as a result of the triggered cuts going into effect January 2013, or Obama being the first POTUS to thwart Congress on that issue? Nope, yet more wimp outs.

Boy you're bad at this posting stuff. lol.

 

[First]

Missed this one. I suppose you forget that Bush asked Congress for permission to attack Iraq and Afghanistan prior to doing so and they voted yes. It was one of the things Obama harped on incessently during his campaign, I figured you knew it. Still want a link?

Clinton asked for permission prior to the Kosovo intervention.

Permission beforehand is not required in The War Powers Act, but gaining permission to continue the fighting after 90 days (with an automatic 30 day extension, so effectively 90 days) IS required.

So what link do you desire? One saying Obama did not comply or links saying the others did?

There is no link that you can come up with that can conclusively claim Obama did anything you just said. Specifically and especially the validity of the War Powers Act to begin with.

 

[cybrsage]

He didn't prove me wrong at all, nothing he said is inconsistent with his actual accomplished actions on Iraq, and a non-partisan 3rd party vetting institution agrees with me. Politifact quite clearly delineates exactly how he kept his word, and I'll repost it here since you're woefully confused:

Wait, now you are saying Obama did not say what he said in the video clip? LOL Did you keep a straight face when you said this?

Seriously, Obama himself said he would have all the combat troops out in 18 months and you are claiming he did not say this...after listening to a video where he says it.

The definition of war does not stop and start with Congress. I hate to break it to you, but having Congress declare a war or not is simply not germane to a conversation about the definition of war.

Oh...so you are going to use a dictionary definition. Sure thing, though it does not help you at all:

war

1    /wɔr/ Show Spelled [wawr] Show IPA noun, verb, warred, war·ring, adjective
noun 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war

con·flict

   /v. kənˈflɪkt; n. ˈkɒn

flɪkt/ Show Spelled[v. kuh

n-flikt; n. kon-flikt] Show IPA
verb (used without object) 1. to come into collision or disagreement; be contradictory, at variance, or in opposition; clash: The account of one eyewitness conflicted with that of the other. My class conflicts with my going to the concert.
2. to fight or contend; do battle.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conflict

Darn it, you just cannot seem to catch a break. Both the Constitutional and the dictionary definitions work against you.

Oh, and as I requested before, where's your link to Afghanistan getting less money as a result of the triggered cuts going into effect January 2013, or Obama being the first POTUS to thwart Congress on that issue? Nope, yet more wimp outs.

Boy you're bad at this posting stuff. lol.

Triggered cuts have yet to happen, it is impossible to show the exact items cut when said items have yet to be cut. You know this, though, and are simply trolling, right? The alternative is that you are an idiot, so take your pick.

This does not change the basic fact that it is stupid to cut the military budget while men are fighting and dying in a war.

I did ask what you wanted links to and you did not bother to say. Let me know specifically want you want support for and I will provide it.

 

[cybrsage]

Specifically and especially the validity of the War Powers Act to begin with.

Are you simply reading my posts and then restating my position? It appears you are.

I already claimed that every president has called the War Powers Act illegal (unconstitutional to be specific) whiel every Congress has called it legal (constitutional to be specific). Without a ruling form the Supreme Court, we cannot know if it is legal or not.

I am glad to see you have some spark of intelligence, even if it is simply you restating my position.

 

[First]

Wait, now you are saying Obama did not say what he said in the video clip? LOL Did you keep a straight face when you said this?

Your Youtube video does not erase his words from countless other speeches and statements he has made on the subject nor is it contradictory or particularly unclear. I assume you continually wimp out of addressing the Politifact article because it would be hard for you to openly question an organization that did actual, thorough research on Obama's statements on Iraq. The usage or "brigade" or "troops" doesn't seem to actually phase anyone who does an analysis of the truthfulness of his statements (including Politifact), as it's a distinction without a difference. I'm also not sure why you think I said Obama did not say combat troops, either. Perhaps that's your poor reading comprehension shining through again?

Seriously, Obama himself said he would have all the combat troops out in 18 months and you are claiming he did not say this...after listening to a video where he says it.

I'm not sure you understand the argument; Obama's statements on Iraq withdrawal have been consistent and saying combat troops instead of or in place of brigade is a distinction without a difference and does not detract from his overall statements on the issue.

Oh...so you are going to use a dictionary definition. Sure thing, though it does not help you at all:


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war

And nothing there contradicts or detracts from what I originally said; that Libya wasn't a war of the same magnitude as other wars so comparing them the way you did was, well, stupid. Apparently your point was about Congress declaring war, a totally irrelevant nonsensical point I never argued.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conflict

Darn it, you just cannot seem to catch a break. Both the Constitutional and the dictionary definitions work against you.

You wouldn't be able to explain how if you life depended on it.

Triggered cuts have yet to happen, it is impossible to show the exact items cut when said items have yet to be cut.

Which is why you shouldn't make stupid, premature statements. Get it yet? Probably not.

You know this, though, and are simply trolling, right? The alternative is that you are an idiot, so take your pick.

lmao.

This does not change the basic fact that it is stupid to cut the military budget while men are fighting and dying in a war.

Cutting the military budget wouldn't be bad if the wars aren't cut specifically, so your point is moot. And stupid. But you probably know that.

Are you simply reading my posts and then restating my position? It appears you are.

I already claimed that every president has called the War Powers Act illegal (unconstitutional to be specific) whiel every Congress has called it legal (constitutional to be specific). Without a ruling form the Supreme Court, we cannot know if it is legal or not.

I am glad to see you have some spark of intelligence, even if it is simply you restating my position.

Your point about the War Powers Act, which was something off topic you brought up for whatever reason (I assume to feel smart), I never specifically said was legal to begin with so, again, if you reading comprehension were any good you wouldn't always be so confused and flustered. But I guess formerly banned members are like that.

 

[Ausm]

Survey says birds of a feather always flock together....or was that losers?



[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

You seem disgruntled because you aren't on my list?

 

[cybrsage]

Your Youtube video does not erase his words from countless other speeches and statements he has made on the subject nor is it contradictory or particularly unclear.

They do not need to. He either DID or he DID NOT say he would remove all the combat troops in 18 months. Since we both know he did, you cannot claim he did not.

I assume you continually wimp out of addressing the Politifact article because it would be hard for you to openly question an organization that did actual, thorough research on Obama's statements on Iraq.

I dismiss it because Obama did not say "brigade", he said "troops". Very clearly so.

The usage or "brigade" or "troops" doesn't seem to actually phase anyone who does an analysis of the truthfulness of his statements (including Politifact), as it's a distinction without a difference. I'm also not sure why you think I said Obama did not say combat troops, either. Perhaps that's your poor reading comprehension shining through again?

Are you claiming he said brigades when he said troops? We both know he said troops.

I'm not sure you understand the argument; Obama's statements on Iraq withdrawal have been consistent and saying combat troops instead of or in place of brigade is a distinction without a difference and does not detract from his overall statements on the issue.

He said he would remove all the combat troops within 18 months. You like to pretend he did not say this, but I posted the video of him saying that exact thing. Even posted the timestamp so you could not claim to be unable to find it.

And nothing there contradicts or detracts from what I originally said; that Libya wasn't a war of the same magnitude as other wars so comparing them the way you did was, well, stupid. Apparently your point was about Congress declaring war, a totally irrelevant nonsensical point I never argued.

So quickly you forget what you said. I will quote you again:

It's not a war.

Care to admit you said it is not a war yet, or are you going to do what you are trying to do with Obama and claim it was never said?

You wouldn't be able to explain how if you life depended on it.

You say the Constitution is wrong with what it calls a war, you also say the dictionary is wrong with what it calls a war. Tell me, what does the "First's Idiotic Guide To Word Meanings" say?

Cutting the military budget wouldn't be bad if the wars aren't cut specifically, so your point is moot. And stupid. But you probably know that.

Nope, but being wrong is something you are good at. We all play to our strengths, so I suppose I should expect it from you.

But I guess formerly banned members are like that.

If you are a fomerly banned member, what are you doing here?

 

[blackangst1]

He honored the commitments of his predecessor over a lot of objections from Repubs, who want to maintain some presence in Iraq, despite the desires of the Iraqi govt.

He certainly does have something to do wrt troop pullout, whether his detractors want to admit it or not.

Correct. Thank you for making my point WRT your second paragraph, incorrect. The bottom line is, the troops are pulling out at the end of the year, and Obama had nothing to do with that. Talking about would he could have done is moot. Your statement would be accurate if it had said "He certainly could have have had something to do wrt troop pullout..."

 

[WelshBloke]

It is still stupid to cut the military's funding while men are fighting and dying in a war.

Why is it stupid?

Is the level of needed funds the same?

Are you saying military spending should never be cut s long as there are combat troops on the ground somewhere?

 

[cybrsage]

Why is it stupid?

Is the level of needed funds the same?

Are you saying military spending should never be cut s long as there are combat troops on the ground somewhere?

No, I am not saying that. I will clarify it a bit, though. I am saying that cutting military funding while there are troops actively engaged in large scale combat missions such as those in Afghanistan.

Once the fighting in Afghanistan is over (or we are there in a very minor role, such as training), then we can, and should, cut the military budget.

 

[WelshBloke]

No, I am not saying that. I will clarify it a bit, though. I am saying that cutting military funding while there are troops actively engaged in large scale combat missions such as those in Afghanistan.

Once the fighting in Afghanistan is over (or we are there in a very minor role, such as training), then we can, and should, cut the military budget.

But won't the needed expense have gone down now that Iraq has been scaled back?

 

[Ausm]

Or, they could run and hide in another jurisdiction until they get their way...

oh wait, that is the Democrats' way of handling tough situations...

It's called Filibustering ..Get over it.

 

[zsdersw]

No, I am not saying that. I will clarify it a bit, though. I am saying that cutting military funding while there are troops actively engaged in large scale combat missions such as those in Afghanistan.

Once the fighting in Afghanistan is over (or we are there in a very minor role, such as training), then we can, and should, cut the military budget.

By the time these cuts kick in that's exactly what we'll have: minor roles only.

 

[cybrsage]

It's called Filibustering ..Get over it.

A filibuster requires you to have the floor to prevent further action. By performing an out of order action, specifically fleeing the state, they yielded the floor.

 

[cybrsage]

By the time these cuts kick in that's exactly what we'll have: minor roles only.

Hopefully so, but that cannot be guarenteed. We should not even propose them until we are sure. Our troops deserve nothing less. Even if someone says the war is wrong, the troops still need all the funding they can get.

Once done with the war, cut the budget.

 

[zsdersw]

Hopefully so, but that cannot be guarenteed. We should not even propose them until we are sure. Our troops deserve nothing less. Even if someone says the war is wrong, the troops still need all the funding they can get.

Once done with the war, cut the budget.

"Done with the war" cannot be guaranteed, either... unless the budget forces it.

The bogeyman of troops being left stranded in harms way without equipment as a reason to not make big cuts at the Pentagon is as ridiculous as the bogeyman of the plug being pulled on grandma as a reason to not make big cuts to Medicare.

The welfare state and the military-industrial complex are two things that, essentially, have the government's "unlimited checkbook"; the former through legislated largess (or, more accurately, lack of legislated fiscal restraint) and the latter through the blanket justification of "national security". Neither will actually shrink their fiscal footprint unless forced to do so, and using the already existing automatically engaged cutting mechanism is the best way to force the issue that we've seen in decades.

 

[cybrsage]

"Done with the war" cannot be guaranteed, either... unless the budget forces it.

Congress simply has to withdraw their authorization for war and the President suddenly has 90 days (60 days with an automatic 30 day extension) to withdraw all troops.

With as many as we have there, it would take longer, but provided he is actively withdrawing in good faith I am sure Congress will not hold him to the fire over it.

It is called the War Powers Act and was created in response to Vietnam.

But yes, there is no guarentee the war will ever end, but cutting the military budget will not end it either...it will only make it harder for the troops to do their jobs. Harder, in the miltiary field, means more dangerous.

 

[WelshBloke]

... troops deserve nothing less...

Is that the same as an "Omg, think of the children" argument?

 

[zsdersw]

Is that the same as an "Omg, think of the children" argument?

Yes it is... and it's just as ridiculous.