Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Pres. Bush, willing to risk out soldier's life by playing politics. What an outrage!

Pres. Bush, willing to risk out soldier's life by playing politics. What an outrage!
Thread Tools
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2007, 10:54 PM
 
Pres. Bush decided to veto a the War Funding Bill that would fund our troops, a bill that was pass by both the Senate and the House. However, Pres. Bush is willing to risk the lives of our troops by playing politics and vetoing the bill. Doesn't he know his is not King George and can't have everything his way? How unpatriotic of Pres. Bush to veto a bill that would provide funding to our troops. What an outrage!!!
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2007, 11:01 PM
 
But wait, the media are telling me that it's the Democrats who are refusing to fund the troops, and President Bush who wants to support them.
     
hyteckit  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 12:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
But wait, the media are telling me that it's the Democrats who are refusing to fund the troops, and President Bush who wants to support them.
Damn liberal media!
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 12:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Pres. Bush decided to veto a the War Funding Bill that would fund our troops, a bill that was pass by both the Senate and the House. However, Pres. Bush is willing to risk the lives of our troops by playing politics and vetoing the bill. Doesn't he know his is not King George and can't have everything his way? How unpatriotic of Pres. Bush to veto a bill that would provide funding to our troops. What an outrage!!!
I think you got your fiction all messed up. It is the Democrat controlled Congress and Senate that refuse to fund the troops.

It is NEVER EVER the role of Congress or the Senate to EVER decide on weather or not we go to war. The ONLY thing Congress has control over is the funding.

You have the Democrats trying to play politics at the risk of our troops. They want to pile on a whole bunch of conditions and pork barrell crap on the bill that will put this whole country at risk.
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 12:30 AM
 
A veto doesn't mean the military won't get funded. It just means that Congress will have to do some more work on the bill before he'll sign it.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 12:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
I think you got your fiction all messed up. It is the Democrat controlled Congress and Senate that refuse to fund the troops.

It is NEVER EVER the role of Congress or the Senate to EVER decide on weather or not we go to war. The ONLY thing Congress has control over is the funding.

You have the Democrats trying to play politics at the risk of our troops. They want to pile on a whole bunch of conditions and pork barrell crap on the bill that will put this whole country at risk.
I think you're a little confused as to who's fiction is messed up. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War," and, as has already been pointed out here, in another thread, Congress does indeed have the power to initiate foreign policy. As to the pork barrell issue, both sides participated in that.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
BlueSky
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ------>
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 12:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Doesn't he know his is not King George and can't have everything his way?:
No.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 12:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
You have the Democrats trying to play politics at the risk of our troops. They want to pile on a whole bunch of conditions and pork barrell crap on the bill that will put this whole country at risk.
Doesn't make a lot of sense. A little pork barrel is going to put the whole country at risk? Somehow I doubt it. I don't recall Bush (or you) having any problem with the $300 million Bridge to Nowhere.

Bush needs to be talking to the Democrats instead of sending Cheney out to call them terrorists.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo
It is NEVER EVER the role of Congress or the Senate to EVER decide on weather or not we go to war. The ONLY thing Congress has control over is the funding.
I must have missed that Constitutional amendment!
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 01:16 AM
 
I must have missed that Constitutional amendment!
It not an amendment. The President is Commander in Chief. It's Article II.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 02:15 AM
 
Yes, the President is the Commander in Chief; the Congress has the authority to declarate war, which is what Buckaroo incorrectly asserted. Two different things.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 02:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
It is NEVER EVER the role of Congress or the Senate to EVER decide on weather or not we go to war. The ONLY thing Congress has control over is the funding.
Um. Yeah, the constitution gives the right to declare war to Congress.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
hyteckit  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 02:31 AM
 
From the same site that chabig posted:

Article I of the constitution
LII: Constitution

Says Congress has the power to declare war.
--------------------
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
....
To declare war...
--------------


Article from American Conservative.

Recasting the Constitution

"Constitution explicitly requires the Congress to “declare war.”

"The U.S. Constitution says that the Congress decides what needs to be done. Today, anyway, many Republicans might prefer that the Constitution read differently. It does not."
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 02:33 AM
 
You guys are right. It's late at night, I'm tired, and I was mistaken. Rather than edit my post, I'll just openly admit my error...

Congress declares war.
The President is Commander in Chief.
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 05:03 AM
 
The funding bill does not cancel out the resolution (Public Law 107-243) Congress passed in 2002 giving the president the authority for military action in Iraq. Unless said authorization is reversed, which it has not been, then all that stuff you are talking about above is yet again mistaken. If congress would like to remove its support for the troops being there then they can do so. In point of fact: they have not done so as a body of government.

Therefore the "people" who pushed though the funding block are playing politics at the troop's expense because those "people" do not have the support to do what they would like which is to recall the troops. In effect they are using political coercion to try and get their way because they don't have the votes to do anything else. It is the equivalent of a child holding their breath until they get their way because there's nothing else they can do.

Incidentally you should be talking about the War Powers Act and not the Amendments but I know some of you (and you know who you are) would be confused by big wordy legal documents so if you need help let me know and I will use small words for those who need it.
And just so you are aware, no one has declared war.
( Last edited by Captain Obvious; Apr 11, 2007 at 05:16 AM. )

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 09:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
I think you got your fiction all messed up. It is the Democrat controlled Congress and Senate that refuse to fund the troops.

It is NEVER EVER the role of Congress or the Senate to EVER decide on weather or not we go to war. The ONLY thing Congress has control over is the funding.

You have the Democrats trying to play politics at the risk of our troops. They want to pile on a whole bunch of conditions and pork barrell crap on the bill that will put this whole country at risk.
Congress can declare anything they want, but it doesn't mean it won't get vetoed or ignored.

The military takes orders from the President.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 09:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
I think you got your fiction all messed up. It is the Democrat controlled Congress and Senate that refuse to fund the troops.

It is NEVER EVER the role of Congress or the Senate to EVER decide on weather or not we go to war. The ONLY thing Congress has control over is the funding.

You have the Democrats trying to play politics at the risk of our troops. They want to pile on a whole bunch of conditions and pork barrell crap on the bill that will put this whole country at risk.
You are joking, right? I mean, you do know that it is ONLY Congress that's supposed to decide when we go to war, right?

I tell you, I see so many stupid things posted that I don't know when people are being serious anymore. By the way, you used the wrong "weather."
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 09:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
Congress can declare anything they want, but it doesn't mean it won't get vetoed or ignored.

The military takes orders from the President.
Oh, you weren't joking. Then that's just sad.

It's called Checks and Balances. The President is commander and chief, but only Congress can declare war. So he takes his marching orders from the Congress.

It's amazing how little some conservatives understand democracy.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 09:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
The funding bill does not cancel out the resolution (Public Law 107-243) Congress passed in 2002 giving the president the authority for military action in Iraq. Unless said authorization is reversed, which it has not been, then all that stuff you are talking about above is yet again mistaken. If congress would like to remove its support for the troops being there then they can do so. In point of fact: they have not done so as a body of government.

Therefore the "people" who pushed though the funding block are playing politics at the troop's expense because those "people" do not have the support to do what they would like which is to recall the troops. In effect they are using political coercion to try and get their way because they don't have the votes to do anything else. It is the equivalent of a child holding their breath until they get their way because there's nothing else they can do.

Incidentally you should be talking about the War Powers Act and not the Amendments but I know some of you (and you know who you are) would be confused by big wordy legal documents so if you need help let me know and I will use small words for those who need it.
And just so you are aware, no one has declared war.
You know what I think is obvious, Captain, is that the last election was a referendum on the war. So as much as you and I might agree that withdrawing from Iraq is a mistake, it is clearly the will of the people that the US start moving in that direction. Bush's stubborn refusal to listen to those people and acknowledge that a major policy change in Iraq is needed is what's causing this friction.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 12:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
I think you got your fiction all messed up. It is the Democrat controlled Congress and Senate that refuse to fund the troops.

It is NEVER EVER the role of Congress or the Senate to EVER decide on weather or not we go to war. The ONLY thing Congress has control over is the funding.

You have the Democrats trying to play politics at the risk of our troops. They want to pile on a whole bunch of conditions and pork barrell crap on the bill that will put this whole country at risk.
What I saw in the Bill was funding for the troops offered as an incentive to encourage Iraq to take care of itself and bring US troops home.

I don't see anything but support for US troops in that. "Supporting the troops" is not helping them continue to risk their lives in a war that is pointless to the average American. In that scenario, "supporting the troops" is helping them get home, and out of harms way, as soon as possible.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 12:48 PM
 
Both sides are risking soldiers' lives by playing politics. One is risking far more, by trying to set an arbitrary and capricious deadline for things that can have no set date.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 12:52 PM
 
An early deadline doesn't risk soldiers' lives. It may or may not risk more people's life overall, but not those of American soldiers.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 01:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
An early deadline doesn't risk soldiers' lives. It may or may not risk more people's life overall, but not those of American soldiers.
It does risk soldiers' lives, because until congress gets off its ass and passes a bill without stupid deadlines and pork written into it, the soldiers that are there in harm's way won't get the funding they need.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 01:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
It does risk soldiers' lives, because until congress gets off its ass and passes a bill without stupid deadlines and pork written into it, the soldiers that are there in harm's way won't get the funding they need.
Or, until the US President gets off his ass and stops vetoing bills that don't fit with his agenda, the soldiers that are there in harm's way won't get the funding they need.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 01:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
...the soldiers that are there in harm's way won't get the funding they need.
Thanks for adding to my point.

So you're "willing to risk our soldier's lives" by playing politics over: "The President's agenda".

The President also happens to be the Commander-in-Chief and has a right to have set an agenda. Congress (as Captain Obvious pointed out- and notice, hasn't been credibly challenged) has no overriding authority without first voting to defund the war- the same war they voted for in the first place. They haven't done that, and don't have the conviction to even try it. So they resort to playing games like this.

So they're the ones overstepping and abusing their authority, and the ones playing politics at the expense of the troops.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 02:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Thanks for adding to my point.

So you're "willing to risk our soldier's lives" by playing politics over: "The President's agenda".

The President also happens to be the Commander-in-Chief and has a right to have set an agenda. Congress (as Captain Obvious pointed out- and notice, hasn't been credibly challenged) has no overriding authority without first voting to defund the war- the same war they voted for in the first place. They haven't done that, and don't have the conviction to even try it. So they resort to playing games like this.

So they're the ones overstepping and abusing their authority, and the ones playing politics at the expense of the troops.
Seems to me like both sides are playing politics.

The US Congress obviously wishes to end this war; possibly because they want to stop the spending tied to it, or they feel that's why the American people voted them in, or they're just doing what every opposition party does and oppose the government in power. If they're able to do it, how is it that they're overstepping their authority?

The US President obviously wishes to continue this war; possibly because he feels it has value to the American people, or possibly because there is some value in it for him personally.

In any case, it makes for entertaining politics to watch.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Seems to me like both sides are playing politics.

The US Congress obviously wishes to end this war; possibly because they want to stop the spending tied to it,
RIght, and yet they HAVEN'T voted to stop the spending tied to it. That's where your side of the argument completely loses. What they are doing now, is playing politics with the funding, not voting to stop funding, which they don't have the guts to do.


or they feel that's why the American people voted them in, or they're just doing what every opposition party does and oppose the government in power.
Ah, so "opposing" doing thier job and funding the troops is the excuse for playing politics. In other words, the title of this thread applies to the Democrats.

If they're able to do it, how is it that they're overstepping their authority?
They're able to stop funding legitimately, by actually voting for it. In the meantime, back in the real world, they VOTED to fund the war in the first place. Now it's their job to either do so, or vote to defund it. What they are doing now, is a cowardly game of doing neither, at the expense of the troops.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 02:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
They're able to stop funding legitimately, by actually voting for it. In the meantime, back in the real world, they VOTED to fund the war in the first place. Now it's their job to either do so, or vote to defund it. What they are doing now, is a cowardly game of doing neither, at the expense of the troops.
Perhaps they see value in funding a planned withdrawal, as opposed to cutting funding which would likely require an immediate withdrawal?
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 02:42 PM
 
What are you people talking about? This isn't about playing games or "playing politics." Democrats believe our presence in Iraq is harming the Middle East and US interests, and they believe a timetable for withdrawal would improve the situation. They genuinely believe that, and they believe they have a mandate for their position (rightfully, if you look at public opinion). Bush believes that we should stay in Iraq without any timelines. He genuinely believes that. These are not games, they're for real. And it matters - yes, just about everyone agrees that we ****ed up big time with this war, but what we do now will have significant consequences both for us and for the Middle East. This matters. It's not just "playing games."
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Perhaps they see value in funding a planned withdrawal,
Right, and they obviously see the 'value' in shoveling in pork on top of it. It's clear that Democrats are just doing what they can to exploit the troops need for funding to tack their own agendas onto it- about as gutless a thing as can be done.

as opposed to cutting funding which would likely require an immediate withdrawal?
As opposed to actually having the guts to make an actual decision OTHER than the one they DID make: to fund the war in the first place.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 03:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Democrats believe our presence in Iraq is harming the Middle East and US interests, and they believe a timetable for withdrawal would improve the situation.
And they believe the planet is going to burn up from people driving SUVs and using light bulbs. So friggen what. They voted to fund the war in the first place. Setting timetables for the enemy and other assorted bullshit is not in the interests of the US or the troops, and the Democrats have been warned that if they tried to do it, the bills would be vetoed by the President. An honorable person, knowing this is the case, would put the troops needs ahead of their own petty wants. But as we all know, the Democrat's #1 agenda is ALWAYS: "Further the Democrat agenda" and everything else is ALWAYS secondary, at best.

They genuinely believe that, and they believe they have a mandate for their position (rightfully, if you look at public opinion).
What mandate says gives anyone any go ahead to shovel pork into a bill that supposed to be for funds to the troops?

This is like if I owed you money, and I so I write down a list of terms to pay you back. One of my stipulations I throw in, is to pop you in the nose as hard as I wish. Now go ahead, sign the agreement. Which of us is playing games? Me for tacking a bunch of useless crap into an agreement, or you for refusing to play the game and sign such bullcrap?

The Democrats in congress need to stop being asses and do what THEY voted for in the first place.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 03:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
And they believe the planet is going to burn up from people driving SUVs and using light bulbs. So friggen what. They voted to fund the war in the first place. Setting timetables for the enemy and other assorted bullshit is not in the interests of the US or the troops, and the Democrats have been warned that if they tried to do it, the bills would be vetoed by the President. An honorable person, knowing this is the case, would put the troops needs ahead of their own petty wants. But as we all know, the Democrat's #1 agenda is ALWAYS: "Further the Democrat agenda" and everything else is ALWAYS secondary, at best.
First, it's not just the Democrat's agenda, it's very clearly the American people's. Second, Bush has said he will veto it, Congress has said they will pass it. Whoever thinks that means the Congress has to change and Bush doesn't needs to go back to junior high school civics class.

This bill simply puts Bush's own statements about withdrawal from Iraq into law. If he can't sign it, he wasn't telling the truth about his plans for our future in Iraq.

What mandate says gives anyone any go ahead to shovel pork into a bill that supposed to be for funds to the troops?

This is like if I owed you money, and I so I write down a list of terms to pay you back. One of my stipulations I throw in, is to pop you in the nose as hard as I wish. Now go ahead, sign the agreement. Which of us is playing games? Me for tacking a bunch of useless crap into an agreement, or you for refusing to play the game and sign such bullcrap?

The Democrats in congress need to stop being asses and do what THEY voted for in the first place.
Ha ha, someone who votes Republican complaining about pork. This bill has less pork than the Republicans have ever passed and Bush has ever signed in one of these military pending bills. There's always been unrelated spending in bills like this, but in the time Republicans were in congress it skyrocketed into unseen heights, including in these military spending bills. That's the reddest of all the red herrings I've seen in this debate.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 03:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
First, it's not just the Democrat's agenda, it's very clearly the American people's. Second, Bush has said he will veto it, Congress has said they will pass it. Whoever thinks that means the Congress has to change and Bush doesn't needs to go back to junior high school civics class.
It's a FUNDING bill, not a timeline bill. If congress wants a timeline bill, they should vote on one based on its own merits. They clearly know they can't get the pres to sign a timeline bill, because it's a stupid idea, so they're tacking it into one that has to pass. That's the nature of pork, but it's completely shameless to do it at the expense of the troops. But then, consideration for the needs of the troops is NEVER anything Dems give a good rip about.

Congress OWES the troops funding, since they voted to fund them in the first place.

This bill simply puts Bush's own statements about withdrawal from Iraq into law. If he can't sign it, he wasn't telling the truth about his plans for our future in Iraq.
Classic example of playing politics at the troops expense. The purpose is to FUND the troops, not withdrawl from Iraq, or set stupid timelines, or anything to do with testing Bush's statements. Like I said, Democrat Agenda #1 is ALWAYS: "Further the Democrat Agenda".

There's always been unrelated spending in bills like this, but in the time Republicans were in congress it skyrocketed into unseen heights, including in these military spending bills. That's the reddest of all the red herrings I've seen in this debate.
Please show me where Republicans put in pork or timelines that only serve to help the enemy and delayed the passage of a troop funding bill. Produce one example.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 03:58 PM
 
Here is what I don't get. How does withholding funding somehow harm the troops? If funding stops and people don't get paid, they would just get sent back home.

Besides, isn't all of this moot considering the war is unwindable no matter how much USD$$ is thrown at it?
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 04:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post

So they're the ones overstepping and abusing their authority, and the ones playing politics at the expense of the troops.
I just like to point out how ironic it is for anyone to criticize the Democrats for overstepping and abusing authority with a straight face while this administration is still in power.

It makes me snicker.
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 04:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
You know what I think is obvious, Captain, is that the last election was a referendum on the war. So as much as you and I might agree that withdrawing from Iraq is a mistake, it is clearly the will of the people that the US start moving in that direction. Bush's stubborn refusal to listen to those people and acknowledge that a major policy change in Iraq is needed is what's causing this friction.
Let's say it was a referendum. Congress has the power to put it to a vote and choose to recall the troops. It’s a pretty straightforward process. This passive aggressive bullshit about bringing them home by withholding funds is a coward’s way out. Not only will it not work because it allows for a veto it also circumvents having to take actual action which they could be held accountable for. It’s a guise of taking a stand and acting on the "will of the people" they are supposedly brought in to enact.

If they want to end our military involvement then they have to actually take the steps to do it rather than puss around by dancing around the issue. They won't mind you because then they'd have to shoulder some actual responsibility.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 04:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG View Post
I think you're a little confused as to who's fiction is messed up. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War," and, as has already been pointed out here, in another thread, Congress does indeed have the power to initiate foreign policy. As to the pork barrell issue, both sides participated in that.
I have a degree in political science; I closely studied and wrote on the subject of Congress' power over war. The power to declare war is one of the powers of Congress, and Congress' other major power over war is to fund it. The power to conduct war belongs, however, chiefly to the president as commander-in-chief. Declared war is an unusual undertaking from Congress that has rarely been used because of the very serious implications declared wars have on the country and its diplomacy. The last time a declaration of war was made was in WWII. American jurisprudence recognized early on that the country may engage in limited wars without formal declarations from Congress.

Bush got the authority to go into Iraq from Congress, and that's the way limited wars are approved of by Congress. That authorization was not limited in time or scope. Now Congress does have a role to play in wars once they're authorized - it isn't expected to be subservient to the president even though he is commander-in-chief. Congress has the power to investigate the war and to limit spending if it wishes to in order to bring about resolution, so what the Democrats are doing is constitutional. Yet, it's also constitutional for the president to veto Congress' attempts to limit the war. Our country functions properly when the coequal branches assert themselves independently while remaining respectful of the limitations on each imposed by the separation of powers and checks and balances.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 04:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Nicko View Post
Here is what I don't get. How does withholding funding somehow harm the troops? If funding stops and people don't get paid, they would just get sent back home.

Besides, isn't all of this moot considering the war is unwindable no matter how much USD$$ is thrown at it?
You know, I get sick of this:

The war is unwinnable...funding the war...yada yada yada

What war? We're not fighting any damned war. We won the war years ago.

We're managing an occupation. There's a big difference and that is why things haven't gone too well.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 04:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
I just like to...
...obfuscate and smokescreen, rather than deal with the actual issue at hand? Yeah, we know.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 04:35 PM
 
Gee, that's an old trick known for centuries. Even when there were still kings around (parliamentary monarchies), the parliaments limited the king's/queen's ability to make politics (in particular to go to war).

Remember that previous presidents have vetoed quite a few bills for certain reasons (e. g. Clinton's 38 vetoes or Reagan's 78 vetoes). Hence it is not really without precedent and to those who complain that `unfair' tactics are used, remember that this is all part of the US political system. A president can veto (reject) a bill, but he doesn't have the power to make his own bills.

It's not just Congress that `owes' funds to US troops, it's also the President. The other things is that both, Bush and Congress have been elected by the people. The Democrats have put `get the troops home' on their banner and won the last election just like Bush promised to continue his `War against Terror' and was re-elected for a second term: this is how democracy works and how your representatives are eligible to the people. From that perspective, the people consented to the `Democrat's agenda' (although I doubt there has ever been such a thing).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
...obfuscate and smokescreen, rather than deal with the actual issue at hand? Yeah, we know.
Hmmm...I wonder what I could accomplish my reducing your post to only four words that have nothing to do with the point. Let's see...you use the word "hand." I'm sure I could spin that into a masturbation joke.

But that would be pointless, now wouldn't it.

My point was clear. Bush has extended the power and authority of the Executive branch more than any single president since Lincoln.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 05:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Gee, that's an old trick known for centuries. Even when there were still kings around (parliamentary monarchies), the parliaments limited the king's/queen's ability to make politics (in particular to go to war).

Remember that previous presidents have vetoed quite a few bills for certain reasons (e. g. Clinton's 38 vetoes or Reagan's 78 vetoes). Hence it is not really without precedent and to those who complain that `unfair' tactics are used, remember that this is all part of the US political system. A president can veto (reject) a bill, but he doesn't have the power to make his own bills.

It's not just Congress that `owes' funds to US troops, it's also the President. The other things is that both, Bush and Congress have been elected by the people. The Democrats have put `get the troops home' on their banner and won the last election just like Bush promised to continue his `War against Terror' and was re-elected for a second term: this is how democracy works and how your representatives are eligible to the people. From that perspective, the people consented to the `Democrat's agenda' (although I doubt there has ever been such a thing).
Wow...a balanced and reasonable response. Gee, you should be a moderator!

Oh wait...
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 06:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
You know, I get sick of this:

The war is unwinnable...funding the war...yada yada yada

What war? We're not fighting any damned war. We won the war years ago.

We're managing an occupation. There's a big difference and that is why things haven't gone too well.
But when does the US reach the point of diminishing returns in Iraq? They are there by choice, they can leave whenever they want.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2007, 07:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Nicko View Post
But when does the US reach the point of diminishing returns in Iraq? They are there by choice, they can leave whenever they want.
I don't know what kind of returns we're getting. I think that it depends on what "returns" people expected. Some people believe that our primary purpose was to establish a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. A stable democratic Iraq seems far off now, so by that yardstick we're not doing well. Some people, though, wanted us in Iraq in order to promote our economic interests. By that measure, the success is mixed. We have built favorable deals for big oil right into the Iraqi constitution, but will that constitution survive the bloodshed increasingly termed "civil war?" Finally, still others believe we had to go into Iraq to draw the terrorists out so we can fight them there instead of on our own shore. I'm sorry if this is indelicate, but I find that argument to be so specious as to be unworthy of comment.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2007, 09:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
But then, consideration for the needs of the troops is NEVER anything Dems give a good rip about.
Yeah, all Democrats are terrorists. We've heard your insane spiel many times, Crash.

Congress OWES the troops funding, since they voted to fund them in the first place.
This doesn't make any sense. The troops are there to do our bidding. If we want to pull them out, we can pull them out.

Classic example of playing politics at the troops expense. The purpose is to FUND the troops, not withdrawl from Iraq, or set stupid timelines, or anything to do with testing Bush's statements. Like I said, Democrat Agenda #1 is ALWAYS: "Further the Democrat Agenda".
Again, no sense. Congress has its power to use it. If Bush doesn't want to acknowledge elections results and cooperate with Congress, well then this is what he gets. It's certainly not unprecedented; see McCain's votes in 1993 for Somalia and 1994 for Haiti.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2007, 09:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
This doesn't make any sense. The troops are there to do our bidding. If we want to pull them out, we can pull them out.

Again, no sense. Congress has its power to use it. If Bush doesn't want to acknowledge elections results and cooperate with Congress, well then this is what he gets.

What don't you understand? The part where I explained it in english?

Congress under the War Powers Act can recall the troops if they take it to a vote.
With Democrats in power they can initiate a vote. They have not done so. Therefore if they do not try to do it how serious can the Dem leadership be about bringing the troops home? If you saw a baby drowning in a 2 foot pool would you pull them out or would you instead try and resolve the issue by scooping the water out with a bucket? This is the same type of plan of action the funding bill takes.

This nonsense is a smokescreen to fool idiots into believing that anyone wants to end the situation in Iraq, or rather in the democrats case to end it before the 2008 election. And by these posts it seems to be doing just that because all this bill was meant to do was to create political waves domestically. It doesn't help the troops in any way shape or form.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2007, 10:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
Congress under the War Powers Act can recall the troops if they take it to a vote.
With Democrats in power they can initiate a vote. They have not done so. Therefore if they do not try to do it how serious can the Dem leadership be about bringing the troops home? If you saw a baby drowning in a 2 foot pool would you pull them out or would you instead try and resolve the issue by scooping the water out with a bucket? This is the same type of plan of action the funding bill takes.
Perhaps the US Congress doesn't want to cut-and-run from Iraq in a way that would totally negate all the effort and deaths since the invasion? Perhaps the US Congress wants to end the US occupation of Iraq in a way that encourages Iraq to stand on it's own two feet and hopefully creates the stability in Iraq necessary for the imposed democracy to be successful ... things which the US occupation of Iraq are counterproductive to?

Oh, and the US military in Iraq is analogous to a baby drowning in a 2 foot pool of water? Or, is that Iraq?
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2007, 10:47 PM
 
If there is really an overwhelming mandate to get out of Iraq, Congress can override the veto. If they're unable to do so, it's clearly not even close to unanimous. At any rate, if you can look at the bill Bush vetoed and bash him for playing politics, I strongly suggest you take a step back. That bill was the most roundabout, political way of doing things I can imagine. Not only that, but Bush already told them he'd veto the bill, and they went ahead with it anyway. If they didn't have the necessary votes to actually get it through, passing it was pure politics.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
hyteckit  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2007, 11:17 PM
 
Congress gave what Pres. Bush needed without given him unlimited funding. It's way over budget and will bankrupt the US soon. The money spend on Iraq could have save thousands of lives here in the US, money that could have spent on health care and crime prevention.

Congress gave Pres. Bush funding for the troops and enough time for redeployment, to areas where the soldiers are needed, which is not in Iraq, which is in a civil war. A deadline is needed. You can't keep tossing money into a losing plan. It's a sunken cost. Need to recuperate whatever we can. Need a timeline, need to redeploy, need to take our troops out of Iraq.

Congress already voted to stop funding after a certain date. It's the Pres. Bush decision on how to proceed with the deadline. Pres. Bush got his funding he needed to safely redeploy the troops. Now Pres. Bush, stop playing politics and do what you need to do to safely redeploy our troops.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2007, 05:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
What don't you understand? The part where I explained it in english?

Congress under the War Powers Act can recall the troops if they take it to a vote.
With Democrats in power they can initiate a vote. They have not done so. Therefore if they do not try to do it how serious can the Dem leadership be about bringing the troops home? If you saw a baby drowning in a 2 foot pool would you pull them out or would you instead try and resolve the issue by scooping the water out with a bucket? This is the same type of plan of action the funding bill takes.

This nonsense is a smokescreen to fool idiots into believing that anyone wants to end the situation in Iraq, or rather in the democrats case to end it before the 2008 election. And by these posts it seems to be doing just that because all this bill was meant to do was to create political waves domestically. It doesn't help the troops in any way shape or form.
I think the part I didn't understand was the silly metaphor. I guess you think I am really slow, but I really have no idea what war has to do a baby in a two-foot pool.

The bill is meant to help end the war. It does so by putting pressure on the two political groups which have refused to make the changes needed to end the war successfully: the Iraqis' own leadership, and Bush. Yeah, it creates political waves. But every general you ask will say that we can't win this war unless we create political waves. There is no purely military solution, so yes politics are going to come into it. In any nation-building exercise, managing politics is extremely important.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2007, 05:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Not only that, but Bush already told them he'd veto the bill, and they went ahead with it anyway. If they didn't have the necessary votes to actually get it through, passing it was pure politics.
What? Of course they went through it anyway. Bush was playing politics by saying he'd veto the bill, instead of meeting with them and organizing a compromise. They played politics right back. Pure politics? I guess so, on all sides, unfortunately. Bush needs to pay attention to the results of the last election.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:19 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,