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.

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?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I think the "war" (Occupation) will last until Jan 25th, 2009.
And, The Congress does control the purse strings.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I think the "war" (Occupation) will last until Jan 25th, 2009.
And, The Congress does control the purse strings.

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.

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!!!

quote:


They have that right. If they don't have the votes...then oh well... I guess they will have to compromise with Bush.

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.