[Chuckit]

Bush supports $120B Iraq war compromise - Yahoo! News

The Democrats have given up on setting a deadline for withdrawal in exchange for Bush allowing a little pork through.

People will remember I said back when the demands for withdrawal first started that the Democrats were totally just playing politics and would eventually cave. Turns out they have managed to live up to my expectations yet again. So much for this mandate they were supposedly dedicated to.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Well since Democrats are constantly harping on Bush's low approval ratings as their "mandate" to play at being the "commanders-in-chiefs", I wonder if this has anything to do with Congressional approval numbers being even LOWER?

[besson3c]

It was a lose-lose situation for them once Bush declared that he would veto withdraw deadlines.

[OldManMac]

Disgusting. I've already written my reps.

[peeb]

They should have let him veto, and sent him the same thing back.

[stevesnj]

This just shows that Bush will do anything to keep our troops in harms way for his political and personal agenda. Here was a chance to bring soldiers home from this disaster of a war that shouldn't have been fought in the first place. Bush will end his Presidency with an 'L' in the win loss column. Seems he just cares more about himself. "Mission Accomplished' yeah right!!

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

"Mission Accomplished' yeah right!!

Uh oh, you're going to bring down the Wrath of Kevin with that comment.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

This just shows that Bush will do anything to keep our troops in harms way for his political and personal agenda. Here was a chance to bring soldiers home from this disaster of a war that shouldn't have been fought in the first place. Bush will end his Presidency with an 'L' in the win loss column. Seems he just cares more about himself. "Mission Accomplished' yeah right!!

So Congress lacks the will to bring the troops back, while Bush is accomplishing his goals…and somehow you think this makes Bush look worse?

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So Congress lacks the will to bring the troops back, while Bush is accomplishing his goals…and somehow you think this makes Bush look worse?

Congress doesn't lack the will, they lack the votes. The president will veto every funding bill with withdrawal deadlines knowing that Congress can't override his veto. Unless they can get two-thirds of congress to agree, the president still has the power.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

Congress doesn't lack the will, they lack the votes. The president will veto every funding bill with withdrawal deadlines knowing that Congress can't override his veto. Unless they can get two-thirds of congress to agree, the president still has the power.

And if there's actually the will in Congress to pull the troops out, they can override the veto. As it turns out, no such consensus exists.

[peeb]

They could force Bush to pass it by not offering an alternative.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

They could force Bush to pass it by not offering an alternative.

That as well. The simple fact is, this was a really half-hearted attempt. Just for show, really. Come next year, they want to be able to say, "See, we really tried to get us out of Iraq!"

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

... in exchange for Bush allowing a little pork through.

What a laugh. Yeah Bush, that champion of fiscal conservatism, reluctantly let some pork into a defense authorization.

Anyway, I just don't know what they could do. Anyone who thinks Congress could stop Bush from having his wars and his surges doesn't understand Bush. Not having the money or not having Congressional oversight never stopped him before. That doesn't mean the Democrats aren't pussies, but that's certainly no surprise to anyone.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by peeb 

They should have let him veto, and sent him the same thing back.

Exactly. Then who's vetoing troop funding? Bush!

The media has never asked this question. Why not just keep sending the same bill to the president? They could have let Bush veto it over and over, then who's betraying the troops? And best of all, if it kept up, there wouldn't have been any funding and the troops would have been forced to leave.

The bottom line, if you want out of Iraq, vote Ron Paul!

[peeb]

The war is over. The US has lost, it's a question of getting out now, or in 18 months time.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Exactly. Then who's vetoing troop funding? Bush!

The media has never asked this question. Why not just keep sending the same bill to the president? They could have let Bush veto it over and over, then who's betraying the troops? And best of all, if it kept up, there wouldn't have been any funding and the troops would have been forced to leave.

I don't think you understand politics too well. Democrats would have still got the blame (as they should have) had they pushed the same bill repeatedly knowing it would get vetoed.

Basically the Democrats were trying to mix two completely different things with their bill and most people in the nation saw through their act and knew that they were playing politics with the lives of the soldiers of America. Bush was ready to sign for funding months ago, they just had to keep their other political agenda out of the funding portion to get the signature.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

The war is over. The US has lost, it's a question of getting out now, or in 18 months time.

They won the war against Sadam Hussien and against the armies of Iraq, but they have deffinitely lost control (if they ever had it) of the civil war in Iraq.

[goMac]

I'm disappointed, but I get a feeling Bush hasn't read the bill. The Dems just moved the benchmarks. Instead of holding the U.S. responsible, they're holding the Iraqi government responsible and withholding money that goes to the Iraqi government if they do not meet metrics.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by peeb 

The war is over. The US has lost, it's a question of getting out now, or in 18 months time.

I hate hearing this.

We won the war.

We dominated the war.

That was years ago, though. We're not fighting a war and haven't been for a long, long time.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I don't think you understand politics too well. Democrats would have still got the blame (as they should have) had they pushed the same bill repeatedly knowing it would get vetoed.

Basically the Democrats were trying to mix two completely different things with their bill and most people in the nation saw through their act and knew that they were playing politics with the lives of the soldiers of America. Bush was ready to sign for funding months ago, they just had to keep their other political agenda out of the funding portion to get the signature.

Why would the Democrats be blamed? Couldn't they do a media storm of talking points and keep repeating over and over that "Bush vetoed the troop funding, it's his fault".

As far as sending up the same bill, couldn't the Democrats have claimed "ok, we'll move the timeline back 2 months" and so on, make small changes, but still hit home the idea that Bush is the one who's starving the troops of the funds they need.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I hate hearing this.

We won the war.

We dominated the war.

That was years ago, though. We're not fighting a war and haven't been for a long, long time.

Yet Bush today talked about fighting Al Queda with his latest troop surge, as if Al Queda is our central issue right now.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Why would the Democrats be blamed? Couldn't they do a media storm of talking points and keep repeating over and over that "Bush vetoed the troop funding, it's his fault".

As far as sending up the same bill, couldn't the Democrats have claimed "ok, we'll move the timeline back 2 months" and so on, make small changes, but still hit home the idea that Bush is the one who's starving the troops of the funds they need.

It seemed pretty clear to me that Bush was emphatic about no deadline, and this seemed to put the Democrats in a rock between a hard place, because they might stimulate public opinion that they are harming the troops by not giving them the money they need.

I don't know if this would have been true, but this is definitely a potent political card.

[TheWOAT]

They folded, but they were bluffing the whole time. They raised but Bush didnt even blink, so they mucked their hand. Bush didnt even look at his hand, he used his gut feelin on this one.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

They folded, but they were bluffing the whole time. They raised but Bush didnt even blink, so they mucked their hand. Bush didnt even look at his hand, he used his gut feelin on this one.

The Dems aren't done yet. We'll see another bill that tries to force a withdraw. But the lesson here is that the Dems won't be able to do anything without decent support from the right.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by goMac 

The Dems aren't done yet. We'll see another bill that tries to force a withdraw. But the lesson here is that the Dems won't be able to do anything without decent support from the right.

First they have to show some spine aka show that they got a pair (ovaries in the case of Pelosi)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Bush supports $120B Iraq war compromise - Yahoo! News

The Democrats have given up on setting a deadline for withdrawal in exchange for Bush allowing a little pork through.

People will remember I said back when the demands for withdrawal first started that the Democrats were totally just playing politics and would eventually cave. Turns out they have managed to live up to my expectations yet again. So much for this mandate they were supposedly dedicated to.

Not to steal your thunder, but they should remember me saying the same things. For those that seemed to be looking forward to a report of failure in September, I advised they'd do well to at least hope for success seeing as our soldiers would be funded for an indefinite stay.

I wish people would start seeing a win/loss in Iraq as more than just a win/loss for Bush and Republicans.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I wish people would start seeing a win/loss in Iraq as more than just a win/loss for Bush and Republicans.

No one even knows what a win/loss is. It's just a Republican slogan: "We want to win, the Defeatocrats want to lose!" In the first Iraq war, a victory was defined as getting Iraq out of Kuwait. They don't define a victory for this war, because it's all about political punting to the next president rather than having a serious national security plan. It's slogan over strategy.

[besson3c]

That's right, there is no winning or losing at this point, nor is there an "us versus the enemy", or "freedom lovers versus freedom haters". All of these simplistic propaganda phrases are politicians taking advantage of the laziness of the civilian population to learn about what is going on.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I hate hearing this.

We won the war.

We dominated the war.

That was years ago, though. We're not fighting a war and haven't been for a long, long time.

We all hate hearing this, but, while the US won some impressive battles, it has definitely lost the war.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yet Bush today talked about fighting Al Queda with his latest troop surge, as if Al Queda is our central issue right now.

Of course.

[peeb]

He's just trying to keep the embarrassment level manageable until he can pass the problem off to someone else to actually deal with.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's right, there is no winning or losing at this point, nor is there an "us versus the enemy", or "freedom lovers versus freedom haters". All of these simplistic propaganda phrases are politicians taking advantage of the laziness of the civilian population to learn about what is going on.

I agree and would add; neither is there a "stay the course" or "Bush lied" unless you consider 12 years of failed economic sanctions, "the course" and the host of Dems that supported our action in Iraq, liars. When the insurgents have been relegated to silly, archaic wanna-be criminals wearing white conical hats and dancing around flaming crosses or maybe an HBO special with weird hair streaks and bad accents... we've won. I'm sure a great many thought the KKK and the mob was around for the long haul too. I don't know how people expect this to occur in 4 years. I'm not sure I understand how you expect Iraqis to fight Iraqis without civil war. Bush has merely engaged the job Clinton, Kennedy, and a host of other Dems and Reps started both in rhetoric and in action. It'd be a good idea to forget about the partisanship that has been so convenient and divisive these past few years and start reasoning with common sense.

While "win" may be a foreign concept to some of you rest assured, a premature pull-out of Iraq would most definitely be a loss and not just for the US.

[macintologist]

ebuddy we already won. We got rid of Saddam and his weapons. Iraq is no longer a threat to the US. Saddam's sons are dead. Let's GTFO before more of our soldiers die for no good reason.

[Rumor]

What is the point of the continued bloodshed of our soldiers? Sometimes a civil war is necessary. Look what it did for the US. I understand the fears some have of Iran or another nation moving in, but that could be prevented with UN support.

Our troops sitting there is breeding more animosity every day. There were no Al Quieda clans in Iraq before we disposed of Saddam. We did Iraq a favor, overthrew their dicator (which they should have done themselves), now it's time for them to step up and reshape their country, not us.

[ebuddy]

Believe me guys, I understand your disgust in this. Every day I see; "another suicide bomber..." on my news ticker, I get a rock in my gut. I'm tired of it. The problem is if we pull out now what makes you think we won't be sitting back in there creating animosity under another President in two years? Only then, we'll have to initiate deployment entirely anew, reestablish all of our resources in that theatre under duress of reactive frenzy against a more fortified enemy who's had two years of unfettered traffic and development.

I'm not as quick to claim that the elimination of Saddam was a victory. If that's all we went to do, we've only eliminated a major enemy of Iran. Iran has always been the goal. We need several key goals accomplished in Iraq, we need to continue feeding a reformation movement in Iran, and we need to calm tensions in Iraq by sealing the borders entirely and exhausting the enemy's resources. That's all we've got at this point. 30,000 troops ain't going to cut it. I'm afraid I'm with the Dr. on this one. We should've declared war and fought it like one. We're in one hell of a pickle right now, but if we pull out prematurely, rest-assured we'll be right back there in two years. Mark my words.

[Rumor]

Iran was always the goal? Then what? Saudia Arabia? The rest of the Middle East? Take each country one by one?

If Iran was always the goal, then we should have went to Iran. Iraq was not a threat and hasn't been for many years.

Where are these extra troops going to come from? The US population is war weary. Recruitment numbers are dropping. It was a flawed plan to begin with. Leaving and coming back almost seems like a better idea than staying. At least that way, a real plan can be drawn up and troops redeployed in a more effcient manner.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Iran was always the goal? Then what? Saudia Arabia? The rest of the Middle East? Take each country one by one?

Yes Iran, but with no desire to engage them militarily. Not everything requires invasion. It was a policy of "domino democracy" and the Iranians want it. I believe they're more willing to fight for it. We'll see. Our goal was to implant democracy at the core of the Middle East for other to witness, want, and fight for. The Iraqis wanted it, the Iranians want it. BTW; we're not "taking" these countries.

If Iran was always the goal, then we should have went to Iran. Iraq was not a threat and hasn't been for many years.

Staging grounds, from the core of the Middle East outward. Not every action of foreign policy requires military action. Iraq was not a threat neither militarily or globally, but Saddam was enough of a pain in the ass of the world that our actions were justifiable. Remember, we were acting on UN mandate of "serious consequences" for non-compliance.

Where are these extra troops going to come from? The US population is war weary. Recruitment numbers are dropping. It was a flawed plan to begin with.

This is where I entirely agree with you and would've gone the Powell route. I believe Rumsfeld sold a delusion of grandeur. We should've declared war, fought it like a war up to and including doing a better job of securing Iraqi infrastructure, sealing the border, and sending a more awesome military presence there in the first place. There was certainly no "war weary", "declining recruitment numbers" issue to contend with at that time as both were pushing through the ceiling. We had a window of opportunity and blew it on political pandering and "dipping our feet in the water". We botched it plain and simple. Irreparably in my opinion? A feeble; "no". When the Iraqi parliament had actually considered a two month leave for vacation, I was literally yelling from the top of my lungs; OUT NOW!!! I don't think I can stomach 4 more months of incompetence and stupidity just as you are weary, I am weary. I believe we're obligated to see this through 'til September for a report on progress. If there is no discernible progress, we need out. I'm still concerned we'd need to return, but this is where I'd concede your point below...

Leaving and coming back almost seems like a better idea than staying. At least that way, a real plan can be drawn up and troops redeployed in a more effcient manner.

[Rumor]

Very well said. I've never heard the term "domino democracy" before. Pretty nifty.

I can see how Iraq was the easiest place to get into for a staging grounds.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The problem is if we pull out now what makes you think we won't be sitting back in there creating animosity under another President in two years?

What makes you think that our staying there isn't creating animosity for our next President in two years?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What makes you think that our staying there isn't creating animosity for our next President in two years?

That's a good question and one only a clairvoyant could answer. That's often the problem with war. It's very unpredictable. My statement was in response to someone who was concerned that our staying is causing trouble. My take is that our leaving will cause trouble to the extent that we'll need to return.

Unfortunately, we'd be returning to a more fortified enemy having had time to gather resources entirely unfettered.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's a good question and one only a clairvoyant could answer. That's often the problem with war. It's very unpredictable. My statement was in response to someone who was concerned that our staying is causing trouble. My take is that our leaving will cause trouble to the extent that we'll need to return.

Unfortunately, we'd be returning to a more fortified enemy having had time to gather resources entirely unfettered.

The Shia/Sunni conflict has been going on for centuries. I have no reason to believe that this conflict will cease within the next few years, just like how the Israel/Palestine war has been a long and drawn out conflict.

Unfortunately, we don't have the resources to just hang out for several more years with our current troop levels. There is no point in simply buying time. There is nothing we can do there now.

Cynical perhaps, but also quite pragmatic.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Sometimes a civil war is necessary. Look what it did for the US.

The US civil war was NOT necesary. We could have ended slavery without resorting to a war. You can blame Mr. Lincoln for that.

Nations and empires that ended slavery through compensated emancipation

* Argentina
* Bolivia
* British Empire
* Chile
* Colombia
* Danish colonies
* Ecuador
* French colonies
* Mexico and Central America
* Peru
* Spanish Empire
* Uruguay
* Venezuela

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The Shia/Sunni conflict has been going on for centuries. I have no reason to believe that this conflict will cease within the next few years, just like how the Israel/Palestine war has been a long and drawn out conflict.

This suggests that the two sects are nothing more than barbarians, incapable of civility and rule of law. I believe this is mistaken. Remember, during these "centuries long" conflicts between Sunni and Shia, there have been long periods of peace between them. Clerics between Sunni and Shia have signed agreements in the US for peaceful coexistence for example, because they acknowledge that no matter what, both parties exist. They know they must find a way to coexist peacefully. In Iraq, one Iraqi-sponsored opinion poll taken in a largely Sunni area in December 2004 shows that the overwhelming majority of those polled, 86% oppose the use of violence for political ends. The Iraqi population is almost 27 million; 60% of which are Shia and approximately 40% are Sunni. While the current level of violence in Iraq is of tragic proportion, If the majority of both parties adhered to notions of violence for political action the level of violence would be of Biblical proportion. Poll after poll taken in Iraq suggests the Iraqi people both Sunni and Shia, do not want the country split. They are in most respects not happy with the current government and I don't have an easy answer to that at this point. There is most definitely a power struggle there as most with open eyes can admit. However, the amount of Iranian poison being sent into Iraq via Iranian-trained Sadrist splinter groups which are designed specifically to perpetuate violence there is unquestionable. This is a failure of our operation in not sufficiently sealing the borders during this rebuilding, not indicative of barbarians incapable of civility and rule of law.

Unfortunately, we don't have the resources to just hang out for several more years with our current troop levels. There is no point in simply buying time. There is nothing we can do there now.

Believe me besson, I'm coming closer and closer every day to agreeing with you 100%. I think the US now has an obligation (with significant leaning on Iraqi contribution and in fact, entirely contingent upon it) to make the system work.

Cynical perhaps, but also quite pragmatic.

I cannot blame you for pessimism besson, my optimism is waning daily.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

The US civil war was NOT necesary. We could have ended slavery without resorting to a war. You can blame Mr. Lincoln for that.

Uhh...the American civil war was not a war based on emancipation. Lincoln very clearly stated that he did not give a rat's ass either way about slavery, but felt that the United States could not function with the South the way it was. Quite bluntly, you are wrong. The civil war was almost unarguably inevitable.

Slavery was not the cause nor the goal however. It was mainly a difference in culture between the north and the south that led to different views regarding the power of the states, the economics involved with said power, and various other problems stemming from different beliefs in the role of a federal/central government, and vast differences in culture between northerners and southerners.

That said...if you base your arguments regarding our civil war off of blatant misinformation, how the hell do you intend to be an expert on Iraq's situation?

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Uhh...the American civil war was not a war based on emancipation. Lincoln very clearly stated that he did not give a rat's ass either way about slavery, but felt that the United States could not function with the South the way it was. Quite bluntly, you are wrong. The civil war was almost unarguably inevitable.

Slavery was not the cause nor the goal however. It was mainly a difference in culture between the north and the south that led to different views regarding the power of the states, the economics involved with said power, and various other problems stemming from different beliefs in the role of a federal/central government, and vast differences in culture between northerners and southerners.

That said...if you base your arguments regarding our civil war off of blatant misinformation, how the hell do you intend to be an expert on Iraq's situation?

The Civil War was not necesary and Lincoln was in the wrong. States entered into the union voluntarily and should be able to leave. Lincoln was a murderous imperial asshole.

[ebuddy]

Actually, you may both be well right. The fact that there were no skills trained or other such education given to the recently freed slaves leaving them basically unskilled, homeless, and unemployable was one indication that Lincoln wasn't concerned much for them. Lincoln freed the slaves to bring down the economy of the South; agriculture. It worked.

Where macintologist is concerned; I think you underestimate the will of the South. They did not want to be part of the Union and from everything I understand, were wholly willing to fight for it. Repeatedly saying it wasn't necessary and Lincoln was wrong doesn't really address what Snow-i said at all. I was genuinely curious if you had anything more to back that up.

That said, what are we asking the Iraqi people to do? Take control of their own country. We're asking them to address the militant factions within Iraq. No matter which way you cut it, we're asking Iraqis to fight Iraqis which by definition is civil war. BTW, while ugly it is not necessarily a bad thing, but a painful part of reformation. I'm entirely hopeful this occurs in Iran.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

The Civil War was not necesary and Lincoln was in the wrong. States entered into the union voluntarily and should be able to leave. Lincoln was a murderous imperial asshole.

Great...I present support for my arguments, you present ambigious, misguided blabber about states being able to leave the union.

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Very well said. I've never heard the term "domino democracy" before. Pretty nifty.

Yeah and probably as realistic as the communist domino theory from 50 years ago...

PB.