"Senate votes to require Iraq withdrawals"

"Senate votes to require Iraq withdrawals" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Vendaval -> "Senate votes to require Iraq withdrawals" (4/26/2007 11:09:23 AM)
"Senate votes to require Iraq withdrawals" By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 14 minutes ago " WASHINGTON - A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war. " http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070426/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_168;_ylt=AhpOzpTojEkovv63MYLXVViMwfIE

cyberdude611 -> RE: "Senate votes to require Iraq withdrawals" (4/26/2007 5:56:50 PM)
Why is this even called a "showdown?" Bush vetos it and unless the votes are there to override, it's over. That's how our checks and balance system works. Congress does not get a final say. Neither branch will get anything unless there is compromise. You need 2/3rds of both houses to override a veto. Democrats barely have 50% majority on this bill. And congress has NEVER attempted to put a time limit on a war in the history of our country. Not even during Vietnam had they tried this. So questions of whether it is even constitutional are popping up. Because the constitution only says that congress has power to declare war, not to revoke war declarations. The president on the other hand is considered the commander-in-chief and the leader of the armed forces. Congress has no power over war strategies.

minnetar -> RE: "Senate votes to require Iraq withdrawals" (4/26/2007 5:58:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 Why is this even called a "showdown?" Bush vetos it and unless the votes are there to override, it's over. That's how our checks and balance system works. Congress does not get a final say. Neither branch will get anything unless there is compromise. You need 2/3rds of both houses to override a veto. Democrats barely have 50% majority on this bill. And congress has NEVER attempted to put a time limit on a war in the history of our country. Not even during Vietnam had they tried this. So questions of whether it is even constitutional are popping up. Because the constitution only says that congress has power to declare war, not to revoke war declarations. The president on the other hand is considered the commander-in-chief and the leader of the armed forces. Congress has no power over war strategies. As far as i know currently, the Democrats don't have the votes to override it. We know Bush will veto it. minnetar

farglebargle -> RE: "Senate votes to require Iraq withdrawals" (4/26/2007 6:09:14 PM)
So, the Jeffersonians/Jacksonians will say, "Bush is refusing to support the troops, we GAVE him more money than he wanted, over 100 Billion MORE DOLLARS ( on top of the LAST money we gave him! ) ( This is what his father must have been experiencing during Bush's College Days... "You need ANOTHER $ 2,000???" ) The Hamiltonians will spin it their way and say, "They're making a political statement, by sending a bill they know Bush will choose to veto". Those who understand that POLITICIANS ARE PAID TO MAKE POLITICAL STATEMENTS will respond, "SFW?"

cyberdude611 -> RE: "Senate votes to require Iraq withdrawals" (4/26/2007 6:22:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle So, the Jeffersonians/Jacksonians will say, "Bush is refusing to support the troops, we GAVE him more money than he wanted, over 100 Billion MORE DOLLARS ( on top of the LAST money we gave him! ) ( This is what his father must have been experiencing during Bush's College Days... "You need ANOTHER $ 2,000???" ) The Hamiltonians will spin it their way and say, "They're making a political statement, by sending a bill they know Bush will choose to veto". Those who understand that POLITICIANS ARE PAID TO MAKE POLITICAL STATEMENTS will respond, "SFW?" No. Other than their own wallets, politicians only care about re-elections. And the Democrats right now are worried about losing the anti-war vote for the 2008 election. That is all this is about. So the Democrats feel they need to force some kind of timetable for withdrawl before November 2008. Look at history fargle, the United States Congress has never passed a timetable resolution for an ongoing war. It is NOT the job of the congress to form that strategy. If the Congress is that angry about the conduct of the war THEN IMPEACH BUSH!!! They have that right. If they don't have the votes...then oh well... I guess they will have to compromise with Bush. Sorry, but that's how our government works. Reid can stand up there all he wants and preach about what Americans voted for last November...but when I went to the polls, I must have missed the question of whether I support pulling troops out. It wasn't on the ballot! So how does Reid know what Americans want? Public opinion polls? Give me a break. This country is not a true democracy nor is it ran by statistically inaccurate opinion polls. The Iraq war is NOT the only reason the GOP lost control of congress. However, the only reason the Democrats won control was because of the anti-war vote.

minnetar -> RE: "Senate votes to require Iraq withdrawals" (4/26/2007 6:24:28 PM)
Cyber didn't the last election tell you what the people wanted in regards to Iraq? Look at Bush's popularity ratings. Look to see whether the country feels we are going in the right direction - i believe i saw tonight that only 22% thought that. minnetar

popeye1250 -> RE: "Senate votes to require Iraq withdrawals" (4/26/2007 6:37:16 PM)
I think the "war" (Occupation) will last until Jan 25th, 2009. And, The Congress does control the purse strings.

minnetar -> RE: "Senate votes to require Iraq withdrawals" (4/26/2007 6:38:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I think the "war" (Occupation) will last until Jan 25th, 2009. And, The Congress does control the purse strings. Unfortunately i believe You are right. minnetar

cyberdude611 -> RE: "Senate votes to require Iraq withdrawals" (4/26/2007 6:41:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: minnetar Cyber didn't the last election tell you what the people wanted in regards to Iraq? Look at Bush's popularity ratings. Look to see whether the country feels we are going in the right direction - i believe i saw tonight that only 22% thought that. minnetar The approval rating of Bush and the Congress are BOTH about 38% right now. So I don't think either has that much political capital anymore. Right now, it doesn't appear as if Americans are happy with either branch of government. As for polls... As a wiseman once said: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Statistics is a form of math that attempts to find the truth with the least amount of error. But rest assured, there is ALWAYS error. A poll is never 100% accurate unless it contacts all 300 million Americans. The way a question is worded alone can skew the results. "Do you agree with President Bush that more troops should be sent to Iraq?" This question throws in "President Bush" an unpopular president. Asking the people this question would cause people who dislike Bush to answer "No" even though they may support more troops in Iraq? So you end up alinating that portion of the sample, and your poll is now inaccurate. A better question: "Do you feel more troops are needed in Iraq?" This question is straight to the point. And it doesn't contain any type of political bias. It doesn't hint to victory or defeat. And you are more likely to get a more accurate opinion of what people think of the war. If you did two different polls, one of each question....your final results will be significantly different. This is just one example of how public opinion polls can be manipulated. The media does this all the time. This is why I do not trust an opinion poll as anything more than a sample's response to a specific question.

Sinergy -> RE: "Senate votes to require Iraq withdrawals" (4/26/2007 6:43:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I think the "war" (Occupation) will last until Jan 25th, 2009. And, The Congress does control the purse strings. What popeye said is correct. With the added issue that everybody who does not vote to override the veto, regardless of what party they are in, should probably leave Congress and go start packing up their office. That is why this vote is important. I actually doubt Bush will order the troops to come home and will simply ignore what they do. A veto is a politically risky move which will probably destroy the Republican party, and Im sure they are telling him this as we speak. What I find interesting is that even after all the lies that Bush spews, people think he actually means it when he says he is going to veto this bill and the money bill. The problem with making a statement and then not following through on it, everything you say after that lacks credibility. Bush is finally learning that showing up for a battle of wits unarmed (or with only half your wit) is a stupid thing to do. Sinergy

farglebargle -> RE: "Senate votes to require Iraq withdrawals" (4/26/2007 6:44:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle So, the Jeffersonians/Jacksonians will say, "Bush is refusing to support the troops, we GAVE him more money than he wanted, over 100 Billion MORE DOLLARS ( on top of the LAST money we gave him! ) ( This is what his father must have been experiencing during Bush's College Days... "You need ANOTHER $ 2,000???" ) The Hamiltonians will spin it their way and say, "They're making a political statement, by sending a bill they know Bush will choose to veto". Those who understand that POLITICIANS ARE PAID TO MAKE POLITICAL STATEMENTS will respond, "SFW?" No. Other than their own wallets, politicians only care about re-elections. And the Democrats right now are worried about losing the anti-war vote for the 2008 election. That is all this is about. So the Democrats feel they need to force some kind of timetable for withdrawl before November 2008. As a Far, Far, FAR Right Wing Conservative, whatever it takes to get us out of the middle of a 4 way civil war, is what it takes. Bush Fucked Up. You don't let someone who Fucked Up CONTINUE FUCKING UP. You spank their ass, and hold them accountable. quote: Look at history fargle, the United States Congress has never passed a timetable resolution for an ongoing war. It is NOT the job of the congress to form that strategy. If the Congress is that angry about the conduct of the war THEN IMPEACH BUSH!!! 1. THIS IS NOT A WAR. Congress did not Declare or Fund War. Remember what the TWO goals of the Iraq AUMF were? ( leaving aside "Did Bush Ever REALLY meet the REQUIREMENTS FOR ACTION under it... ) If BUSH had the BALLS to ask for a real declaration of war, MAYBE you would have a point, but since he tried to do it on the cheap, and avoid all sorts of procedural issues, we are where we are. quote: They have that right. If they don't have the votes...then oh well... I guess they will have to compromise with Bush. Is that what picking off the geese at the end of the flight are, working your way up to the leader? Cheney's immobilized due to the conviction of Libby. Rove is immobilized due to the DOJ/Email investigation. Gonzales is a Joke. He's the first to go. Rice is next in line apparently. Hard to get anything done when your cabinet is all really worried about seeing the inside of a federal prison. quote: Sorry, but that's how our government works. Reid can stand up there all he wants and preach about what Americans voted for last November...but when I went to the polls, I must have missed the question of whether I support pulling troops out. No. There was just never an Act of War passed by Congress PUTTING THE TROOPS IN. Bush had his shot under the Iraqi-AUMF. Bush failed. Period. IF HE HAS THE GRIT, He has until September to deliver on his promises. Good Luck to Him. He need it.

Sinergy -> RE: "Senate votes to require Iraq withdrawals" (4/26/2007 6:49:14 PM)
farglebargle, I dont spank people who fuck up. They like it too much. As far as offering prison scenarios to the Cabinet, I personally think that was their goal going in; to get punished and allowed to go get gang-raped in prison. If it were up to me I would use the Inuit approach and give them each a rock in the Aleutian Islands with no boat or means of reaching land. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125