Bring our troops home
The time is long overdue to bring our troops home and put an end to this.
This war was badly planned, had so many mistakes not been made perhaps we wouldn’t be sitting in this mess today.
We owe our troops and their families better. We can’t remain in Iraq forever without accountability and our military can’t continue much longer at this rate.
Our soldiers are tired and weary. They need a break and time with their families. We can’t continue to ship them over for tour after tour with no end in sight.
The Bush Administration policies aren’t working in Iraq and things are getting worse, not better.
We are spending billions and for what? Failure. We need to stop this and soon.
This letter has not been edited.
Not to mention the war is illegal...
Posted by Roy on July 20, 2007 02:14 PMDefine a legal war.
Posted by on July 20, 2007 02:24 PMRoy, you are wrong, the war is a continuation of the first Gulf War, considering it was authorized by Congress and the U.N. in 2000. It only stopped as a cease fire with the follwing conditions, 1) Saddam and Iraq comply totally and immediately with all UN waepons inspections (they never did) 2) Iraq cease all use of weapons against any coalition forces (SAMs continously were fired at coalition aircraft on a daily basis 3)No weapons of NBC (Nuclear Bilogical or Chemical) be used in any sort (Entired villages of Kurds and Shiite were wiped out using mustard gas and several others)
I fought in the first gulf war and have deployed to this one 3 times so far. I know my duty to country. I am glad that your setiment was not around in WW II, I can only imagine how many ,illions would have died with such cowardice. The war now is still authorized since Iraq violated ALL conditions of surrender the Iraq generals signed, but never Saddam so officially the war never ended, It was a cease fire, much like the Korean war
Define a legal war.
Posted by on July 20, 2007 02:24 PM
One that is declared by the Congress.
Posted by Roy on July 20, 2007 02:41 PMAn illegal war occurs when god speaks into your ear and says: Attack. W. Bush admits the Jew sired "from the loins of David" told him to attack Saddam. I'll post his exact words if you so desire.
Posted by Richard Grimes Deicide r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf and ask for free copy of FreeThought Today) on July 20, 2007 02:43 PMThe Democrats tried and failed, as usual.
The decider has decided that the troops will stay. Get over it.
Posted by Republican Guy on July 20, 2007 02:43 PMIn time of war, defeat is not an option, as the Democrats would have it. Our troops will come home when they have accomplished their mission.
Posted by Brian Stuckey on July 20, 2007 02:44 PMAs the first Iraq War (Gulf War) was not declared either, saying this one is a continuation doesn't make it legal. UN resolutions do not trump the US Constitution, as we are not the police arm of the world government. The congress, by law, is not allowed to transfer it's powers to the executive, just as any branch of government cannot legally transfer powers granted to it by the constitution (the people), to another branch, as that defeats the point of separation of powers...
It doesn't matter how many conditions of UN resolutions Saddam violated, as our country is not run and governed by the UN.
What is the mission?
Posted by Larry on July 20, 2007 02:47 PMSorry, I meant, what is the mission this week?
Posted by Larry on July 20, 2007 02:48 PMNick, Republican Guy, Brian Stuckey
Why do you hate the troops???
Posted by conservative media on July 20, 2007 02:53 PMRoy - So Congress voting to allow Bush to do whatever he wants means that it is illegal because it was not titled Declaration of War?
Posted by on July 20, 2007 02:58 PMPosted by on July 20, 2007 02:58 PM
No, because it is illegal for congress to allow Bush to do anything he wants. Besides that, A declaration of war has real goals and real measurements of success and failure, unlike our current conflict with no goals and no real measurements of success and failure...
Posted by Roy on July 20, 2007 03:02 PMThat would mean that:
President Truman sent troops to fight in Korea was illegally. (Troops are still there by the way).
Presidents Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon/Ford sent troops illegally to Vietnam.
President Reagan sent troops illegally to Granada.
President Bush sent troops illegally to Kuiwat.
President Clinton sent troops illegally to Kosovo and Somilia.
Does that about cover it?
Posted by Frank on July 20, 2007 03:04 PMWhat is the mission?
Posted by Larry on July 20, 2007 02:47 PM
Perpetual war...so even with accomplishing the mission, the war won't be over...ever
Posted by Roy on July 20, 2007 03:04 PMDoes that about cover it?
Posted by Frank on July 20, 2007 03:04 PM
Pretty much.
Posted by Roy on July 20, 2007 03:13 PMconservative media, I am one of the troops and I will do my duty. I have served in that area before and I shall do so again until my duty is done. The combat action in Iraq was authorized in 2000, is still authorized in accordance with US Congressional actions from then as well as UN dictates. And what would you do if we pulled out now and a replay of the Cambodian killing fields take place? Except this time it will be much larger. Would you be happy then?
Posted by Nick on July 20, 2007 03:19 PMPosted by Nick on July 20, 2007 03:19 PM
Don't you realize that this country is not run by the UN? It doesn't matter what the UN dictates, as it has no authority over the US Constitution.
The Congress had no right or legal authority to allow the executive branch to decide when and where it wants to fight a war.
And what would you do if we pulled out now and a replay of the Cambodian killing fields take place? Except this time it will be much larger. Would you be happy then?
Posted by Nick on July 20, 2007 03:19 PM
Do you suggest we take over the world to make sure no one kills each other without our supervision?
Posted by Roy on July 20, 2007 03:33 PMNick -- Thank you for your service and best of luck to you in the future. You make some very legitimate points that are a little lost on those arguing primarily from emotional views. I worked for a foreign owned company in the al-Anbar Provence for quite a while. The war I saw while there (and still receive letters about from people living there) differs dramatically from what I see in the media.
Richard -- I'll bite once on your anti-religious rhetoric; please do provide the quotes you allude to in your posting. You have my curiosity up pertaining to that line of reasoning
Posted by darfor on July 20, 2007 03:38 PMRoy and those who think they know what they are talking about should take a course that would teach them that a war does not have to be declared by Congress to be legal. He is just parroting what he has heard two-faced Democrats in political positions say. First the Democrats overwhelmingly approved the war, and then claim that it's illegal.
Diane Brashaw and many others use the emotional arguments that portray our military as either victims who have been force into combat by the Bush administration or as moronic robots who just don’t know any better. Except for enlistees who don’t get good entrance scores and end up in the infantry, those who choose to become members of infantry units actually volunteer twice; once when they join the military and a second time when they request to go into the infantry. Many service members who join units in the Airborne infantry, Special Forces infantry or Rangers volunteer three times. Most people don’t give them honorable views for the fact that many in those units could have easily gone into lucrative careers as doctors, lawyers, accountants, you name it. They are far more intelligent than smug civilians give them credit.
What Diane Brashaw conveniently forgets is that this is an all volunteer military and that they are not complaining about going back. I work with the military on a daily basis. I have not heard one minor grumble of complaint from any of our soldiers who have either been there, who are on their way there or those who may go back. Not one. In fact, many Marines and Army soldiers volunteer to join or be transferred to certain unit for the very purpose of returning to Iraq. The men and some of the women fighting this battle in Iraq are cut from the same cloth as those who fought during the Revolutionary War, in WWI and in WWII. They are the same type who fought at San Juan Hill, Iwo Jima, Normandy and Hamburger Hill. They know the stakes that Roy and Diane are too complacent to realize.
I am not trying to glorifying the war. It's terrible that we are involved in it, to be sure. I'm just telling you what I know to be true from my personal experience.
Posted by Mountain Cat on July 20, 2007 03:55 PMPosted by Mountain Cat on July 20, 2007 03:55 PM
Here I am now parroting the Constitution:
"The Congress shall have the power...To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
Posted by Roy on July 20, 2007 04:25 PMPosted by Mountain Cat on July 20, 2007 03:55 PM
As your only argument is that a few democrats are stupid morons, I don't think you'll get much argument from me, though the rest of what you say is all emotional propaganda...It makes no difference if the troops support the war or not (the reality is most likely more of a mix regarding support for the war in Iraq). If they are having a good time over there, let them stay on their own dime, rather than on the borrowed dime of the Federal Reserve and China. The Democrats, while sometimes vocally against the war, are war-mongers all the same. If they were in charge and indeed brought the troops home, they would send them to Sudan the next day.
Posted by Roy on July 20, 2007 04:36 PMRoy --
In response to your posting re Congress only can declare war, it must be remembered that Iraq is not a declared was; only a congressionally approved war that fell under the War Powers Act of 1973.
The United States has not formally declared war since World War II. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has sole power "to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal." But Article II, Section 2 provides that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." While it's clear that the Framers intended for Congress alone to declare war, presidents don't always check with Congress before acting. After President Harry Truman bypassed Congress to go to war in Korea, presidents have paid almost no attention to the constitutional requirements.
Under the War Powers Act (1973), the president has 90 days after introducing troops into hostilities to obtain congressional approval of that action. It looks good on paper, but presidents have generally ignored the War Powers Act, citing Article II, Section 2 as their authority to send soldiers into combat.
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;
The War Powers Act of 1973
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Under the act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where ''imminent'' hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific Congressional mandate.
The President can extend the time the troops are in the combat area for 30 extra days, without Congressional approval, for a total of 90 days.
The act, however, does not specify what Congress can do if the President refuses to comply with the act. Congress could presumably suspend all funds for such troops and override a Presidential veto.
Nick: "I am glad that your setiment was not around in WW II, I can only imagine how many ,illions would have died with such cowardice."
That kind of crap is sickening. Nick needs to learn some civic lessons as well as some common sense.
Good God, how stupid do you have to be to believe it is cowardice to want others to be taken out of harm's way. Or to believe it is courageous to be willing to put others in harm's way.
Posted by Truth on July 20, 2007 06:10 PMTruth -- Guys like Nick walk the wall so that people like you are free to complain and yearn for utopia in peace.
Posted by darfor on July 20, 2007 06:19 PMAs for Article II, Section II, as the end says, 'when called into the actual service of the United States', which means when Congress calls the military into actual service'.
Posted by Roy on July 20, 2007 06:29 PMGranted, Roy, but under the War Powers Act Congress approved the invasion of Iraq. They ratified the President's decision (I'm not arguing the wisdom of the decision) to invade and fight. It is a Congressionally approved (not declared) war. Once approved it's almost impossible to withdraw that approval.
Hence, many congressional people who originally voted for the war are now left saying something to the effect of "I was for the war before I was against it"; or (and more honestly), "If I knew then what I know now I never would have voted for the war".
Either way, for whatever reason, congress approved the war. Reversing that approval is not as easy as originally giving the approval.
The War Powers Act provided a mechanism which allowed the President to invade or commit our armed forces to a conflict or action for up to 90 days before obtaining congressional approval. Once the approval is granted within that 90 day period (and it was in regard to Iraq), there is no provision or mechanism to withdraw that original ratification of the president's action and subsequent follow through. That's where things stand now -- it was approved and there is no direct method or procedure to now disapprove or reverse the approval.
Posted by darfor on July 20, 2007 06:43 PMThats it )blowing a large whistle). Time, I want my ball back. I do not like thew way this is going so I am going to take my ball and go home. I know Ried , Nancy, Biden, and others agree its time to quit. Go home and play somewhere else.
Posted by on July 20, 2007 06:52 PMInteresting how those on both sides of this thread have let it get sidetracked into a dense argument over legality.
Let us all try to get it back on track.
The Invasion of Iraq was a colossal mistake.
In September of 2001 we were attacked by a non-governmental group of religious fundamentalists.
The attackers numbered 19.
14 were from Saudi Arabia.
2 were from the United Arab Emirates.
1 was from Lebanon.
1 was from Egypt.
They were all affiliated with a non-governmental organization called Al Qaeda.
This organization was led by a Saudi Arabian millionaire named Osama Bin Laden.
This organization had training facilities in the lawless areas of Somalia and Afghanistan.
This organization used the militant fundamentalist message taught at Islamic schools called madrassas to attract recruits.
These madrassas were, and still are, funded by the Wasabi branch of Islam which is heavily funded by Saudi Arabia.
At the time of the attacks on America the nation of Iraq was led by a secular dictator by the name of Saddam Hussein.
Hussein was one of a number of brutal dictators who gained power during the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Like many other dictators he was adept at playing the two superpowers off each other. At times he was favored by the Soviets at other times the Americans.
Hussein was not a religious leader and his Iraq was not a religious nation.
Since his rule was secular and not religious he was reviled by Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda organization.
Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on America in September of 2001.
Until the invasion of Iraq Al Qaeda did not have training facilities nor operatives in Iraq.
After the attacks on the US the world was sympathetic to America and to American ideas and beliefs.
The United States invaded Afghanistan. This invasion was widely supported by those on both the left and right as well as around the world. This support was in part due to the fact that the Al Qaeda organization and its leadership were known to be based in Afghanistan and supported by the Afghani rulers the Taliban.
For reasons which may never be known, the American President, George W. Bush, abandoned the hunt for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan as well as the goal of creating a democracy in a part of the world which has been lawless for most of the last 5,000 years.
Rather than continue to fight against those who had attacked it the United States, after less than a year, decided to invade Iraq and overthrow Hussein, although there was no connection to the the attacks upon America.
Many Americans and most of the rest of the world was aghast at this diversion from the war against Al Qaeda.
Those in opposition pointed out that the long term consequences of an invasion of Iraq would be an inflammation of religious tensions which had remained dormant under Hussein's rule. While acknowledging the savage brutality of Hussein in Iraq those opposed to the invasion pointed out that other regimes, notably Saudi Arabia, were equally as brutal. Hussein was not involved in the attack against the US and an invasion would simply act as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.
Those in opposition to the invasion of Iraq were belittled and dismissed. The opponents of the attack against Iraq were called cowards and even traitors.
The United States invaded Iraq and overthrew Hussein.
The US did not have adequate plans for dealing with the resulting chaos.
Everything the opponents of invasion predicted would occur did occur.
As a result of the invasion Al Qaeda remains a powerful enemy and has thousands, if not millions of new recruits.
As a result of the invasion of Iraq the opinion towards the United States of fellow nations, including long-time allies, is as low as it has been in the history of the United States.
As a result of the invasion, the United States has spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives in a battle it should have never fought.
As a result of the invasion, the true enemies of the United States have gained more than they would have in their wildest dreams.
As a result of the invasion, those who instigated this calamity have for some mysterious reason not been "run out of town on a rail."
As one of the many who opposed this debacle from the beginning, I submit that those in favor have shown such faulty judgement that their opinions should no longer be solicited, and when their opinions are offered they should be ignored.
You guys messed up so monumentally is it any wonder we really don't care what you think?
Posted by Colorado Dave on July 20, 2007 07:06 PMHEEEEYYYY KOOLAID!
Posted by on July 20, 2007 07:12 PMCORRECTION:
I previously said that 14 of the September 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
Actually 15 of the September 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
I apologize for the error.
Posted by Colorado Dave on July 20, 2007 08:02 PMColorado Dave said:
"I submit that those in favor have shown such faulty judgement that their opinions should no longer be solicited, and when their opinions are offered they should be ignored."
But somehow they still keep getting propped up on TV as "experts", and in the opinion section of the Rocky Mountain Police Blotter...
I guess many are accurate predictors in their sad way- it can be guaranteed that their predictions will not come to pass.
Doesn't bode well for The Rapture does it?
Posted by Charles B on July 20, 2007 08:29 PMI believe that going into Iraq was a mistake from the word go. Not finishing what was started in Afghanistan, including the capture or death of bin Laden and the total disruption of al-Qaeda, with full force and intensity is bewildering.
However, that being said all attention has to turn to how to finish, conclude or otherwise end our involvement that will not escalate the deaths of both American military personnel Iraqi citizens.
My argument on the legality of the war was just that -- it was entered into and ratified legally, with no US laws broken or circumvented; there was no moral debate involved in my argument. Short of Bush deciding to start a withdrawal, it's probably going to take a new sitting president to withdraw from the theater.
But we cannot just pick up our ball and go home without considering the ramifications to the Iraqis. We went into a region of bullies and smacked one of them down. We can't just walk back out of the region without expecting retaliation and consequences to both the neighbor residents (Iraqis) or ourselves during withdrawal. (NOTE: I'm not addressing the debate as to whether or not they'll "follow us home".)
We cannot pull out and create a vacuum behind us that will result in the escalation of death for Iraqis. I don't care about their internal political bickering at the government level. Their military and police are growing stronger very rapidly. There are coalitions of sectarian militias joining together to fight the common enemy of al-Qaeda associated groups (and wannabes) in accordance to the old adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
We can bitch and moan about whether or not we should be in Iraq; whether or not we should bring our troops home (my son among them); but, a couple of things remain as fact. First, as immoral as some believe our involvement is, it was, according to our laws, entered into legally and there is no corresponding legal mechanism to force Bush to end the occupation. The how to and when to withdraw has to consider the relative safety of those we leave behind since we initiated the war in and around them.
Meanwhile, thank guys like Nick above who are willing to go over there to protect his fellow soldiers and buy more time for the Iraqis to develop the ability to protect and police themselves; while we at home endlessly debate the morality of something we have no control over.
Posted by darfor on July 20, 2007 08:39 PMCharles B,
Yes, they keep getting propped up as experts. Since I do not own a TV I can only imagine how they are still perceived as experts.
In the Rocky Mountain News they are indeed given favored status. This does show the true conservative nature of journalists.
As for you comment about "The Rapture." That is a fictional and mythical event the use of which only diminishes your own opinions.
Remember those of us who have been opposed to this war all along have been right all along.
We do not need to resort to rhetorical devices, insults or metaphors.
We do not need to parse words.
Speak the truth. Speak in complete sentences. Do not fall into hyperbole nor sarcasm.
We have the truth on our side, we have no need of devices.
Posted by Colorado Dave on July 20, 2007 08:45 PMOh those brave war supporters. It must be extremely difficult for you and your family to have to post your nonsensical opinions as much as two three and even four times a night. When your small child asks "Where is Daddy" the answer usually is "he is upstairs on the computer honey, supporting the war effort".
All those bumper stickers you slap all over your rear windshield must make it very difficult to see.
Why you even max out your credit card in order to keep the economy humming along.
darfur,
With all respect, you are wrong.
There is going to be a bloodbath in Iraq.
There is going to be a bloodbath in Iraq if we stay.
There is going to be a bloodbath in Iraq if we leave.
If we leave we will have no control over the coming bloodbath.
If we stay we will have no control over the coming bloodbath.
This is why we should never haver gone into Iraq in the first place.
Excuse me but anyone who was in favor of this action has already proved their incompetence.
If we leave now the result will be the same as if we leave ten years from now.
We will spend the next 40 years fixing the errors of the Bush Administration.
We should stop compounding the errors already made.
We should leave Iraq today.
We should today begin to repair the damage of the last 7 years.
Posted by Colorado Dave on July 20, 2007 08:55 PMSo let's say we begin an immediate retreat from Iraq beginnning tomorrow. Whatever happens in Iraq just happens. But what are the consequences for the US?
How do we fight the war on terror after we give up the fight in Iraq?
Or do you think there is a war on terror? Do you think that after we leave Iraq we will be transported back into a pre-9/11 world where there is no terrorist threat?
Posted by James Jones on July 20, 2007 09:31 PMJames Jones says, How do we fight the war on terror after we give up the fight in Iraq?
You see James that is the point. Iraq never had anything to do with the war against Al Qaeda. In fact the invasion of Iraq has been nothing more than one long distraction from the war against Al Qaeda.
Do you think that after we leave Iraq we will be transported back into a pre-9/11 world where there is no terrorist threat?
You see James Iraq had nothing to do with the threat to our nation from Al Qaeda. Fighting in Iraq has actually distracted us and strengthened Al Qaeda.
I know this is hard for you to accept but it is true.
We need to begin rebuilding our international relations.
We need to renew our friendships with our long time allies.
Al Qaeda is a serious threat to all of us in the west. The will never win but they can do serious damage.
Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.
By staying there we are only compounding a mistake.
We need to stop making the same mistake. We need to begin to renew our position in the world as a shining light of liberty, democracy and reason.
We have no business in Iraq.
We never did.
Colorado Dave:
You're so wrong.
It's always a good time for a joke about "The Rapture".
Posted by Charles B on July 20, 2007 09:53 PMThe war against Al Qaeda is more difficult because of the invasion of Iraq.
Had we followed through on the invasion of Afghanistan and pushed against Al Qaeda we could have broken them up.
We could have incapacitated them.
We blinked.
We flinched.
We played school yard bully and went and picked on the scrawny kid that never threatened us.
That is why those of us opposed to the invasion of Iraq are so mad.
This is all about missed opportunities.
We could have won.
We got distracted.
We took our eyes off of the ball.
We made things worse.
Your bravado and chest pounding neither impresses nor threatens us.
You are paper tigers and school yard bullies.
It is time to let people with a grasp of the world make the decisions.
The decisions which have been made over the last 7 years have been based on fantasy.
You, James Jones, and those who agree with you are wrong.
You have been proven wrong.
I see no reason to listen to you any longer.
Posted by Colorado Dave on July 20, 2007 09:55 PMFolks, have you observed the vast similarities between "Colorado Dave" and George Bush? Both use some actual facts intertwined with a lot of emotions and personal opinions; then lace those with specious "facts" and intermittent non sequiturs to arrive at a self righteous, inescapable conclusion for the world to pay homage to. Anyone who disagrees is automatically declared, at the best, wrong and without understanding of such complex issues, but generally as ignorant, or a traitor, or not worth listening to.
Amazing!. Identical intellectual (midgets) twins with one pontificating from the right, and the other pontificating from the left. Only in America...
Posted by carl on July 20, 2007 10:34 PMI just heard on the news that Bush is going in to have a colonoscopy (leaving Cheney as "acting president" -- now that's comforting!). The last time Bush had a colonoscopy didn't they find his head? (Maybe Colorado Dave oughta go in fo colonoscopy.)
Posted by carl on July 20, 2007 10:46 PMCute Carl....
I should be satisfied that you think Bush is an idiot along with myself.
Care to actually dispute what I have written or are you simply going to call me a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Please Carl, dispute what I have posted.
Was invading Iraq in our national interest in 2003?
Did many Americans say that invading Iraq was not in our national interest?
Has it not proven to be a failure?
Your words are bold Carl. Please prove me wrong.
Posted by Colorado Dave on July 20, 2007 11:02 PMCarl, and just why did you fly into this discussion when you should be outside catching insects to eat?
The only comparison between Colorado Dave and Bush is that they both live in the U.S. unlike you who lives, hanging upside down in a cave.
Everything CD said is true but if emotion gets you all wrapped up then hang out with the Bush guys, they can`t even smile anymore.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 20, 2007 11:07 PMI wonder why the Democrat controlled Congress just doesn't defund the war. They have the necessary votes to end this war tomorrow.
Posted by jgd777 on July 20, 2007 11:13 PMjgd777 - Bush has vetoed, or threatened to veto, any bills which deal with war funding. Again, it goes back to the mechanism being in place to ratify a war, but sorely lacking in the ability to withdraw that support.
Unless Congress can come up with enough votes to override a presidential veto they are hamstrung in any effort to cut off funding.
Posted by darfor on July 20, 2007 11:25 PMDarfur,
Congress does not need to override a Presidential Veto because Congress does not need to send him a funding bill at all.
Without funding, this insanity would stop.
The House and the Senate are under no obligation to send Bush a funding bill.
Posted by Colorado Dave on July 20, 2007 11:29 PMGood night all.
I wonder where this thread will be come dawn.
Posted by Colorado Dave on July 20, 2007 11:31 PMI think the House and Senate members are afraid that they will be called traitors if they stop funding the war. that means, to small minded people, that they are not funding the troops.
Talk radio pretty much equates it this way: support troops=fund the continuation of the war.
Hannity, Rush, Beck, none of them can separate the war funding from supporting the troops because their credibility rides on the war going on until they can blames its failure on the Democrats.
All this defeatocrats, cut and run, support the troops in their mission talk has some in government hesitant to pull the plug on the money pool for Bush.
They may want to end the war, but they don`t want the American people to hate them. or to blame them for deaths in Iraq. I am glad I am not in their shoes and all you tough talking boys are glad too.
If it was your hand on the pen, and you could sign to bring them home to their families or sign to expend the war, what would you do?
Posted by Sharon B. on July 20, 2007 11:42 PMDarfor,
I knew you would never believe me, when I say that is not true. This is a statement made by Russ Feingold (Senator (D) from Wis)
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/02/how_to_end_the_war.php
Posted by jgd777 on July 20, 2007 11:46 PMDarfor,
I knew you would never believe me, when I say that is not true. This is a statement made my Russ Feingold (Senator (D) from Wis)
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/02/how_to_end_the_war.php
Posted by jgd777 on July 20, 2007 11:46 PMCD - I'm not a section of the Sudan, Darfur; just like you're not Colorado Springs Dave. If you want to add power to your points you don't have to intentionally slight people (twice now). You make some good points in your debate; there's no reason to be rude in order to reinforce them.
While congress doesn't HAVE TO legally send Bush a funding bill, realistically they have to play ball with him to some degree or he will essentially freeze everything else they may try to do. Unfortunately, politics in Washington have devolved to a point that in order to get the support for one's own projects, support has to be given to another's project. This applies at all levels.
Congress doesn't play ball with Bush, Bush doesn't play ball with Congress. Congressional members have to compromise and play ball with Congressional members on the opposite side of the aisle (or issue) in order to get support for their own pet projects. I'm not advocating such compromise; especially where lives are on the line. But, it's a fact of life.
Why do you think not much comes out of Washington that is truly good for this nation as a whole?
Posted by darfor on July 20, 2007 11:52 PMWhat can Congress do in the face of a commander in chief that will not change course? In October, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino asked, "How would they force the president to withdraw troops? Yell?" On September 26 before the election, Rep. Charlie Rangel explained to the Hill how it could be stopped, "You've got to be able to pay for the war, don't you?" As John Walsh wrote recently:
"Bush is now asking for another $127 billion to ‘stay the course.' If either the House or the Senate refuses to pass that request, the war cannot be prosecuted. It only requires a simple majority in one chamber House or Senate. That is it. The power is there."
Indeed, the most important power the Democrats have is the "power of the purse." This is the first article described in the Constitutional powers of the Congress. The Constitution does not to put war making power in the hands of the president. Only Congress has the power to declare war, and beyond that, as James Madison said during the Virginia ratifying convention, Congress's power of the purse controls the president's war-making power. Congress has complete control over the raising, funding, and size of the military. It can block a president's war-making simply by refusing to allocate funds for a conflict. Senator Byrd described this as:
". . . the fulcrum of the people's leverage. As enshrined in the Constitution, it is one of the chief protectors of all our cherished freedoms. This control of the purse is one of the most effective bulwarks ever constructed to repel a despot, control a tyrant, or shackle the hands of an overreaching chief executive."
jdd777 - I'm familiar with Feingold's legislation. In fact, I alluded to it in my 5:19 PM post (last sentence). However, this legislation was introduced in February of this year and has gotten nowhere since they can't get the necessary support to overcome a presidential veto. And you can refer to my 11:52 PM post for political "reasons" the Congress can just "not fund" the war.
Posted by darfor on July 21, 2007 12:02 AMColorado Dave,
If I understand you correctly you think that we are engaged in a war on terror and that our enemy is Al Qaeda. You think Iraq is a diversion from the true fight and that we are hampered by the fact that we alienated our long time allies.
Fair enough?
But in re my questions you are a bit vague in the particulars.
For instance, who are our long time allies now alienated and how do we win them back?
Once we have won them back, how do we unite to win the war against Al Qaeda? What is the strategy after we have left Iraq?
Under ordinary circumstances, when plan "A" fails one moves on to plan "B". Then, perhaps, to plan "C", etc.
Which might work. IF there were any plan "A" to start with, from which to move on. This Administration has amply demonstrated that it never had a plan in the first place, much less alternates in case the first one turned out to be a complete failure.
We blundered into Afghanistan.
We blundered around in Afghanistan; and acomplished nothing of any importance there.
We blundered into Iraq.
We are blundering around in Iraq; and actually accomplishing little, or nothing, of importance there, too. Unless, that is, one calls destabilizing a volatile hornet's nest some kind of "accomplishment". Which of course, supporters of the Administration do, since they have nothing else to offer.
This Lame Duck Administration will continue to blunder around, wherever the Great Decider decides to blunder next; since blundering around is the only "strategy" this Administration has ever had.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 21, 2007 07:30 AMOld Grouch,
What are your credentials in military tactics, that enables you to make such statements? History has proven time and time again, the enemy can and will change how they will fight a war. Our commanders have done a great job adjusting to and learning from these changes, but it takes time.
Can you explain why the Democrat controlled Congress doesn't stop the funding of this war if it is the mess that you keep referring to.
They could give Bush three or six months to start removing the troops, before the funding is stopped, or they could make him do it tomorrow.
Maybe it is because the Dems are using the war as a political pawn, getting people like you all stirred up like a volatile hornets nest. Maybe they are more afraid to take the responsibility for the cut and run policy. Could be possible they feel for every soldier who dies in the middle east they increase their votes in "08'
Maybe if we actually listen to the commanders and the men/ women in the field instead of a bunch of arm chair quarterbacks sitting in their easy chairs, things might change. Of course that would mean the liberal press would actually have to report the WHOLE true about what is happening and not just the ones that promote the Dems drive for the Presidency in 08.
Confirm a general and his war plan, finance the war, and then the next day stand in front of Congress and the nation and tell the world "We have already lost the war" Supporting the troops My butt!
The Dems could stop Bush, why don't they?
Posted by jgd777 on July 21, 2007 09:02 AMColorado Dave,
You're correct , and I admire your patience with those who refuse to admit they were, and are, wrong.
dmz
Colorado Dave has told me that I am wrong but he has not told me what it is that I am wrong about. So it is a bit difficult to own up.
I have not said, I do not know anyone who thought, that Saddam was party to the attacks of 9/11 or that Iraq under Saddam was an Al Qaeda stronghold prior to the invasion.
It can be argued that the invasion of Iraq was, or was not, a good idea. What is the point of that debate at this point in time?
So what exactly is it that I am, or we are, wrong about?
Posted by James Jones on July 21, 2007 10:30 AMAs a liberal Democrat I just want to say some people do not get it.We know that the troops want to fight the war but they are making the terrorists real mad.When Hillary becomes president and pulls the troops out and begs the terrorists not to hurt us they will not listen.If we Democrats can get the troops out now then we can say we stopped the troops from attacking you now please show mercy on us.Now I think people will know where we stand.It is not that we are cowards.We just do not want to get hurt.
Posted by True on July 21, 2007 10:33 AMJust for you darfor:
The Vagaries of Religious Experience Edge, 2005 President Bush said, “God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did,” most Americans were not alarmed to learn that their leader was receiving orders that no one else could hear. America is an unusually religious nation, but even in the world’s least religious nations the majority of people claim to believe in God.
“God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem of the Middle East . If you will help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.” Source: Ha’aretz (Israeli periodical), June 24, 2003 FT 8/03
Deicide Corner: Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses. “We should get rid of it as quick as we can” Author, Arthur C. Clark, Popular Science, Aug. ’04 FT 8/04
True,
Oh! I am very sure people know exactly where you stand hiding in some corner begging for mercy. I am really curious of your definition of a coward.
Posted by jgd777 on July 21, 2007 11:02 AMjdg777,
Stated principal objectives in Afghanistan: 2
1. Capture and eliminate Osama bin Laden, thereby severely weakening Al Qaida, if not prety much putting it out of business altogether.
2. Remove the Taliban from control of the Afghanistani Government.
Achievenments of stated objectives in Afghanistan: 0, Zilch!, Zip! None!
1. Osama bin Laden is very much alive and well today - several years after our abandonment of action in Afghanistan; and Al Qaida is actually flourishing, and recruiting more than ever before.
2. The Taliban have taken over in several Provinces, and threaten several more.
Stated principal objectives in Iraq: 2
1. Overthrow the government of Sadam Hussein.
2. Bring peace and democracy to Iraq.
Achievements of stated objectives in Iraq: 1-Positive. And a host of negative problems added on.
1. Sadam Hussein has been overthrown, and he, his family, and a large protion of his government officers have been hanged.
2. Iraq is now in the throes of a Civil War.
3. Our occupation forces have stated that only 40% of the country is "safe" - less than 1/2 in some 5+ years of fighting.
4. The puppet Parliament, and the puppet Prime Minister have both indicated that the U.S. ought to get out and go home.
5. The puppet Parliament has managed to meet only 8 of the 18 points established for its success in being the fruit of our bringing "peace and democracy".
6. Where there was no previous presence of Al Qaida - since Sadam did not allow such a group under his dictatorship - Al Qaida now recruits freely in Iraq.
7. Iraq's internal infrastructure is in shambles; and continues to become worse, not better.
8. There is no plan for withdrawal from Iraq.
9. Instead of following the previous plans for rotation, current Armed Forces in Iraq have had their tours of duty increased, both in numbers and duration.
10. An additional "surge" of troops has not improved the situation measurably.
SO FORTH.
jdg777, I don't have to be a "military strategist" to know that NO OUTSIDE FORCE can "win" another nation's civil war for it, no matter how often there be "changes" in battle tactics, on any or all sides.
You blather about "not funding". The appropriations bills have already been passed; and Congress has no machinery by which to cut off expenditure of funds already appropriated. Bush can blunder on until the next Congressional session is called upon to appropriate monies. And he will.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 21, 2007 12:16 PMEnd the WAR NOW, get another VIETNAM and CCAMBODIAN KILLING FIELDS. You KNOW what is BEST. Well we could pull out let IRAN ran things, create even more unstability in the region, allow RADICAL MUSLIMS to CLAIM A VICTORY. Americans are spoiled, I admit we shouldn't have went to war in IRAQ (after all it was already pretty much contained), but, we can no longer afford to withdraw. Americans must learn patients, not everything in life is instant gratification. As for those who claim the war is illegal, please define how you arrive at your conclusions, CONGRESS authorized the use of force.
Posted by Chris on July 21, 2007 12:27 PMJames Jones, 10:30,
Since you asked, everything . "You People" (to use Rush's favourite phrase) have cheered from your comfortable armchairs since "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED", has been proven wrong. eg;
NO "WMDs"....
NO "greeted as liberators"...
NO" insurgency in it's last throes"...
NO "connection between Saddam and 9/11."
Only death and destruction for our dead and maimed GIs, their families , as well as the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who have suffered as a result of the birth of G. W. Bush.
Barbara should have aborted, the world would have been a much better place.
She's got a fetid womb indeed.
OK anti-abortionists....Bring it on.
Posted by dmz on July 21, 2007 12:38 PMChris I told you once: When Arab Allah orders holy jihad it is as much an illegal war as when Jewish Jesus orders war. These two dudes are fiction: How can a fiction mandate war? Brain dead or brainwashed leaders comply. Bush is a deadhead. He is nuts; he is as nuts as Osama bin Laden. They are two peas in a pod. These two peas are still on the loose. Revisit "God told me to strike..."
Deicide Corner: “The Use of the Understanding, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature and Evidence for or against it, and in judging of it according to the seeming Force or Weakness of the Evidence.” -- Anthony Collins
Chris: Anthony Collins is saying: Look at the evidence. Saddam had been reduced to impotency. 9/11 was not his brainbaby.
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide: r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org and ask for free copy of Freethought Today) on July 21, 2007 12:50 PMjgd777,
You seem to think that all Congress has to do is wave some magic wand, and change must happen.
Please show me the place in the Constitution that tells us that Congress can "defund" - anything - once the appropriations bills have passed and been signed.. Or is that something you learned by "living in a socialist country"; that Congress "ought to do", or "ought to be able to do?
Or perhaps, your superior knowledge of American government - gained as it is from your experience elsewhere - has, somehow, taught you that the President does not have veto powers?
Do enlighten us here, please.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 21, 2007 12:52 PMOld Grouch,
"2. Iraq is now in the throes of a Civil War"
Over half of the "insurgents being killed and captured are foreign fighters.
"4. The puppet Parliament, and the puppet Prime Minister have both indicated that the U.S. ought to get out and go home".
That has been recanted, and I am sure you read that.
6. Where there was no previous presence of Al Qaida - since Sadam did not allow such a group under his dictatorship - Al Qaida now recruits freely in Iraq
Ansar al islam:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/ansar-al-sunna.htm
There were Al Qaeda in Syria, Iran, Pakistan,Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and almost every other country in the middle east, but none in Iraq? Get real!
8. There is no plan for withdrawal from Iraq.
Unless you count the "Cut and Run" policy of the Dems. There can be no realist plan for withdrawal until you can evaluate the stability of the situation. Anything other than that is not withdrawing it is called retreating or surrendering
10. An additional "surge" of troops has not improved the situation measurably.
SO FORTH.
The full compliment for forces have been in place for less than a month, What can you expect from a general and plan that was confirmed by the Senate and then have the Senate majority leader stand in front of the Senate and the country and declare "The war is lost" Why not give it a chance?
"jdg777, I don't have to be a "military strategist" to know that NO OUTSIDE FORCE can "win" another nation's civil war for it, no matter how often there be "changes" in battle tactics, on any or all sides."
Good thing the French didn't believe the way you do, or we may have lost our Revolutionary War.
"You blather about "not funding". The appropriations bills have already been passed; and Congress has no machinery by which to cut off expenditure of funds already appropriated. Bush can blunder on until the next Congressional session is called upon to appropriate monies. And he will."
They just appropriated the funds a few months ago, Why would the Dems do that, when it has been clearly stated that 71% of the people want us out and have stated opening "we will end this war" . A simple majority in either the House or the Senate could have stopped this war. You call it blathering and I call it stating a fact. Do you just choose to ignore this fact because you have no answer as to why a Democrat controlled Congress could have ended this war and didn't ? Or is it just easier to blame Bush?
Posted by jgd777 on July 21, 2007 01:00 PMOld Grouch,
As little as a few months ago, a simple majority in the House or Senate could have stopped any funding of this war. However the Dems seemed more concerned about using the war funding bill to pass some "nanny state" spending programs.
Being the Constiutional "expert" I would think you would have known that. It worked in Vietman, why not didn't the Dems do it for the Iraq War?
Posted by jgd777 on July 21, 2007 01:30 PMNO "WMDs"....
Everyone thought Saddam had WMD. That's why he was in violation of a couple of dozen UN resolutions.
NO "greeted as liberators"...
We were - Saddam's statue came down with millions of ink-stained fingers waving definatly in your face
NO" insurgency in it's last throes"...
Remind me who said that.
NO "connection between Saddam and 9/11."
No one said there was.
Your vile remarks about Barbara Bush are best ignored.
I wish I were as sure as some of you are that we could and should leave Iraq. Don't any of you believe we have a moral obligation to try to repair the damage we have done?
Jim J, 1:57
*If "everyone" jumped off a bridge, Would you do it too?
* While Fox news had it's cameras trained on the "statue", other Iraquis were looting everything else in the country because only the oil installations were being gaurded. ( So much for " This war isn't about oil".
*Dicky Cheney said " last throes" over and over, and over.......and over ...Weren't you watching Faux News?. (like a good little brownshirt.)
ARE YOU KIDDING??? The Bush gang used "Saddam / 9/11" as their mantra for all the times Kerry looked good. That also explains why they used it so much..
Your future remarks will be best ignored for lack of connection to the real world.
I also meant to say I like the way Colorado Dave has laid out the sequence of events and his comments. One tiny point--it's Wahabi or Wahhabi.
Posted by Dona Dunsmore on July 21, 2007 03:49 PMHow many Iraq citizens have left for other countries? If we stay long enough maybe they all can get out and then Bush and all his Christian friends can move into the country for the oil fields.
JJ, VP said the insurgency is in its last throes in one of those touch-feely interviews he had on Fox where they asked him the sweetest little questions and never once contradicted him.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 21, 2007 03:49 PMBush has never been succesful at any endeaver in his life. He has run every business into bankruptcy and now is doing it to the US. It is all about money people, Bush and Co. are making sure their friends are getting all of our US treasury. Keep an eye on Bush after his term and see how many of these companies he made billions for he is a consultant or CEO for. It has nothing to do with anything but money and power. Congress approval ratings are so low because they are afraid. if they don't fund this war they own it, They let Bush off the hook and he can say it was working but they cut off the funding. Plus it is all about reelection, the Dem's are mad at them and so are the Repub's.
Posted by Michael D on July 21, 2007 04:46 PMMichael D.
So the Dems answer is to finance the war and then say the war is lost and undermine any effort to succeed? And they are doing this for political reasons so they can win the election in "08"? Wow! The troops are dying so a Democrat can be President. I can't see how anyone could support either party!
Anon. 05:08 - More accurate and truthful words cannot be spoken. It's way past time to totally clean house and insert fresh blood. Any and all incumbents running or reelection, an any Democratic or Republican candidates should be soundly defeated.
Face it, a fresh bunch of rookies feeling their collective way along the ropes of the federal government couldn't do us any worse than the official screwing we're already receiving from the establishment.
Posted by darfor on July 21, 2007 05:29 PMMaybe we should not be talking about bringing the troops home until August is over. That might spoil the vacation the Iraqi parliament will be taking in August. It wouldn't be nice to make them return to Baghdad when it is so hot there. Even though the parliament is air-conditioned, there is still that trip back and forth. And those trips always get slowed down by those GIs loaded down with gear, bullet proof vests and wearing those steel helmets. After all, the parliament is just taking seriously our commitment to making their lives better. And the parliament never made any commitment to making the life of our troops better.
Posted by Truth on July 21, 2007 06:16 PMWow! That sounds just like our government, They haven't done a damn thing for so long I can hardly remember when was the last time they found a solution for anything.
Guess Iraq has a democracy after all.
Posted by jgd777 on July 21, 2007 07:02 PMdmz
Dicky Cheney said " last throes" over and over, and over.......and over ...Weren't you watching Faux News?. (like a good little brownshirt.)
Actually he said it once and I did miss it. Apparently you missed this:
Cheney Defends His Decisions, Role in Bush Administration
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Cheney said he now recognizes that the insurgency in Iraq was not "in its last throes," as he said in May 2005. "I think there is no question but that we did not anticipate an insurgency that would last this long," the vice president said.
ARE YOU KIDDING??? The Bush gang used "Saddam / 9/11" as their mantra for all the times Kerry looked good. That also explains why they used it so much..
Bush has never said there was any link:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 18, 2003
(CBS)
Quote
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.
President Bush
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.
I don't think it matters especialy to you what anyone says. You are a fundamentally corrupt man.
Did the Bush administration try to leave the impression that Saddam had something to do with 9/11? Could it possibly be that the Bush administration thought it would be able to sell the invasion of Iraq if the American people thought that Saddam had some connection with 911/
Judge for yourself:
President Bush:
Oct. 14, 2002: "After September the 11th, we've entered into a new era and a new war. This is a man [Hussein] that we know has had connections with Al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use Al Qaeda as a forward army."
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
Sept. 26, 2002: "Yes, there is a linkage between Al Qaeda and Iraq."
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
Sept. 25, 2002: There "have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of Al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time."
Could that possibly be why a poll on July 1, 2003 showed that 70% of the American people thought that Saddam was connected to 9/11? And why a poll on September 6,2003 showed the same thing?
It wasn't until September 16, 2003 that the Bush administration came clean and admitted what the news media had been reporting, that is, that there was no connection.
Posted by Truth on July 21, 2007 08:29 PMJJ embellished:
"Saddam's statue came down with millions of ink-stained fingers waving definatly in your face"
You have a gift for fiction Jim.
Posted by Charles B on July 21, 2007 09:15 PMTruth
Pollution continues to flow from your mind like a sewer discharge
"Could that possibly be why a poll on July 1, 2003 showed that 70% of the American people thought that Saddam was connected to 9/11? And why a poll on September 6,2003 showed the same thing?"
Here's an article on the topic from the time:
Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds
By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 6, 2003; Page A01
Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.
Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll. That impression, which exists despite the fact that the hijackers were mostly Saudi nationals acting for al Qaeda, is broadly shared by Democrats, Republicans and independents.
Almost two years later, most Americans believe Saddam Hussein, shown in this undated photo, was involved in the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. (AP)
The main reason for the endurance of the apparently groundless belief, experts in public opinion say, is a deep and enduring distrust of Hussein that makes him a likely suspect in anything related to Middle East violence. "It's very easy to picture Saddam as a demon," said John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University and an expert on public opinion and war. "You get a general fuzz going around: People know they don't like al Qaeda, they are horrified by September 11th, they know this guy is a bad guy, and it's not hard to put those things together."
Now you can either tell us
a) how Meuller is wrong or
b) why you are so determined to pervert truth
Charles B,
You are quite right. The Iraqi elections did not take place on the day the troops entered Baghdad.
I should have been more careful with my language. When you told me you were going to start ignoring my posts I stopped worring about confusing the dimwit contingent.
Knowing that you are still reading my stuff, I will be more vigilant in the future. I am glad you were not confused in this instance anyway.
Posted by James Jones on July 22, 2007 05:57 AMJames:
Is it more dimwitted to correctly contest your inaccuracies or to make up stories about events that never happened to support your unproven contentions?
Thanks for correcting your mistake for the record though...
Posted by Charles B on July 22, 2007 07:16 AMIt's quite easy to tell when you have demolished one of James Jones asinine posts. He'll respond with something like this:
"Truth Pollution continues to flow from your mind like a sewer discharge"
Anybody with a working brain knows that the Bush administration intended to leave the American public with the impression that Saddam was somehow tied to 9/11. Of course the American public was distrustful of Saddam. That made for fertile ground in which the Bush administration could plant its seeds of deception. After all, the first thing Bush wanted to know after 9/11 was whether there was some way to blame Iraq for it. Which is no surprise since it is well known that the Bush administration had in mind ever since it came to power to find a way to invade Iraq. That is why the Bush administration did not want the inspectors to finish their job; they might make it more difficult to for the Bush administration to lie about WMDs.
Posted by Truth on July 22, 2007 12:11 PMJJ, let me give you an analogy to the "Bush never said Iraq or Sadam was linked to 9-11."
A woman I know sells jewelry at flea markets, a friend of mine, a Navajo, bought a ring and then stayed to look at some additional items.
Later, the seller discovered a bracelet missing, or so she thought at the time.
She referred to my friend as "that Mexican" and talked about her missing bracelet in the same sentence to at least a dozen other vendors.
Follow me here.
"that Mexican" ....yada yada...my bracelet was stolen
She went all over the flea market repeating "Mexican and Bracelet" together until she found the damn thing and shut up.
Kind of like Bush ans his endless: "9-11...yada yada...Iraq...Sadam" mantra before the invasion.
Now, you are a bright man and you know this happened and a lot of people put :9-11 and Iraq and Sadam together just like Bushes handlers told him they would.
This must be the hundredths time we have pointed this out to you, it was a clever strategy, and for that I credit Carl Rove.
JJ, Bush saying Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 while using this subtle method of ALWAYS linking the two together produced the desired results: the uninformed in this country supported and still support this invasion.
A further example: James Jones....yada...yada...stupid...I did not say James Jones is stupid.....yada...yada....James Jones.....stupid.......James Jones...stupid.
Now I will sit undr my lead umbrella while you throw a hail of insults my way.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 22, 2007 02:12 PMJames Jones, in referrence to your comments posted at 07:26 PM on the 21st, look at the date when Bush uttered the words. It was September, long after the fall of Saddam. Prior to that he many times used the terms Iraq and al Quaeda, Sep. 11 and terrorists all together and often. Perhaps you need a colonoscopy and perhaps they might find your head while performing it.
Posted by A True American on July 22, 2007 02:43 PMDoes it ever to occur to any of you to produce a quote from Bush linking Saddam to 9/11.
That would be easier and simpler wouldn't it?
Posted by James Jones on July 22, 2007 05:03 PMYou all just need to hush now. The Constitution is only a piece of paper. I am the decider, and I've decided we're not gonna cut and run like a lilly-livered liberal Democrat.
Bring it on. Don't mess with Texas. Mission accomplished. Kiss my grits.
Posted by George Bush on July 23, 2007 08:48 AMjdg777,
Sorry. Because of a computer glitch, I was unable to return to the Internet earlier; and so missed answering your material in a more timely way. However, as to the matter of "unfunding", "de-funding", or otherwise not providing monies for the Bush war recently:
This is just another example of an untrue assertion - a straw man - being set up in order to lay blame for not knocking it down. Simple lies always seem to suit simple minds.
Appropriations bills - as do ALL BILLS passed by Congress - go to the President for signature, passage by time lapse without signature, or veto. It takes a 2/3 majority, in both Houses, to over-ride a veto, NOT A "simple majority".
The Congressional political process is NOT an "instant coffee" form of getting results.
There have been times in the past when Congress has refused to pass appropriations - for whatever causes - and, in the process, caused the machinery of government to grind to a halt. This is a very problematical method of getting results, one that no political party undertakes without a significant amount of bi-partisan support. A simple majority - currently in the Senate numbering one (1) - is not sufficient for any such venture currently.
In this term, Congress has sent several items - among other things, concerning the Iraq debacle - to the White House. These, together with a number of other pieces of good legislation, have been vetoed by Bush. And, no 2/3 majority has yet been assembled to over-ride any of his vetoes.
When appropriations come up again for consideration - to fund the next fiscal period, and meet the required budget - this may provide opportunity to restrict - or even halt - spending on Bush's war. Not all Republicans are complete idiots, nor are they all simpletons who are unable to discern the actual concerns of their constituents.
But any statement that such non-funding, or "defunding", or "unfunding", were possible in the recent months - by "simple majority", or otherwise, as the Constitutional format of both Congress and Presidency is established - is, simply, a fantasy designed to deliberately mislead by untruth.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 23, 2007 09:52 AMjdg777,
The Old Grouch does not have a good understanding of the constitutional issues.
This idea that the Congress doesn't want to pass an appropriation bill denying the funds because of the veto threat is obviously unture. They have already sent Bush a funding bill with the full knowledge it would be vetoed. And it was.
There are however interesting Constitutional issues.
The Constitution grants the ability to declare war not to the President, who conducts the was as Commander-in-Chief, but to the Congress.
The Congress granted Bush the authority to wage war in with the Iraq War Authorization bill which reads in part:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
Consequently, the Congress does not have the constitutional authority to tell the President how to defend the national security by legislating appropriations.
Congress does, however, have the constitional authority to end the war by repealing the Iraq War Authorization bill.
Would Bush veto the repeal bill? Probably not. I doubt Bush would go to that length. But even if he did, the question would likely have to be decided in the Courts.
It is obvious that the Framers intended the Congress using its power to declare and end wars, but not to attempt to micromanage a war. That is the view that would almost certainly prevail.
In any event, the Democrats could certainly move to find out if that was their desire.
The Democrats have not moved to end the war in Iraq not because the don't have enough numbers to over-ride a veto but because they are more interested in playhing politics then in practicing responsible leadership.
JJ, one tiny point Bush did not "link" Sadam and 9-11 in a direct way.
He just used "Sadam" "9-11" and "Iraq" in the same sentences over and over.
He let people make the "link" in their own minds. It worked. Now it has been exposed and it is time for those he tricked to own up.
I would feel quite ashamed if I had fallen for this, it was so obvious.
Political commentators pointed this out after ever one of Bushes speeches. Every single time.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 24, 2007 12:23 PMSharon B
The truth is that Al Qaeda was operating in Iraq but there is no evidence that Saddam had direct knowledge of the 9/11 attack.
So Rove decided that Bush should fool everybody by telling them that Al Qaeda was operating in Iraq but there is no evidence that Saddam had direct knowledge of the 9/11 attack.
What a cunning plan - lie by telling the truth.
Not quite cunning enough to fool you though - obvioulsy.
Posted by James Jones on July 24, 2007 01:19 PMMountain Cat,
You assume much about my letter and my views.
I'm an Air Force veteran. I took the oath. Troops have little choice in Iraq or anywhere they are sent. They serve where they are told to serve.
If they refuse to go they risk jail, being called cowards and much more.
Posted by Diane Bashaw on July 24, 2007 06:49 PM