Ending the war in Iraq
Yesterday, House Democrats, backed by the will of the American people, took action again to end the war.That vote marks just the beginning Unfortunately the Roadblock Republicans, supporting an unpopular President, are trying to stand in our way.
More than six months into the President’s troop surge, it is clear that his strategy isn’t working. A new report this week confirmed that the Iraqi government has failed to meet the agreed-upon political, economic and military benchmarks. Democrats will continue to hold the President accountable and fight to ensure that the Iraqi people take control of their own country.
With each passing week, we see the tragic consequences of the President’s failed policy in Iraq. More than four years have passed and more than 3,600 American lives have been lost. More than 26,000 of our troops have been wounded. More than $450 billion has been spent. Democrats are demanding a New Direction and an end to this war.
This letter has not been edited.
"..backed by the will of the American people..."
Just about all the reputable and recent polls I've seen reveals that the vast majority of Americans want to win the war in Iraq. A small minority are "cut-n-runners" who have invested into an American (Bush) defeat and are exploiting and compromising, for political reasons, the safety of our troops who the don't support. This small number of traitors has knowingly adopted a back-stabbing, BENEDICT ARNOLD solution.
As the writer knows by now, the most recent polls reveal that only 13% of Americans approve of Congress. The "will of the American people" is squarely against and massively disapproves of both Reid and Pelosi by nearly 8:1. The Islamocrat position is widely rejected by most Americans.
Posted by hank on July 21, 2007 02:30 PMHank, could you name a poll that says "the vast majority" that is over 50% right? Win the war by staying in Iraq?
Cut and run is a naval term, oh expert on all things military.
If only 13% approve of Congress what does that have to do with how many approve of the troops coming home?
A Bush defeat is not an American defeat, Bush is only 1/300,000,000 of America.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 21, 2007 03:23 PMHank, who really supports the troops? The war president who leaves them there wilth extended tours not enough equipment, a bad policy and no strategy to win. Or those that want to bring our citizens home alive from a region that nobody wants them there anyway. I would love to see you post something that didn't call somebody who disagrees with you a traitor or Islamocrat. It would be fun to see a debate with you face to face, how angry do you get?
Posted by Michael D on July 21, 2007 03:35 PMHank, who really supports the troops? The war president who leaves them there wilth extended tours not enough equipment, a bad policy and no strategy to win. Or those that want to bring our citizens home alive from a region that nobody wants them there anyway. I would love to see you post something that didn't call somebody who disagrees with you a traitor or Islamocrat. It would be fun to see a debate with you face to face, how angry do you get?
Posted by Michael D on July 21, 2007 03:39 PMRemember the Democrats will stop at nothing to give the terrorist a victory in Iraq.Lying is easy for Democrats because they have no moral basis for their beliefs.
Posted by An American on July 21, 2007 05:03 PMRebecca, I'm sure you know that the vote was all for show. The Dems could easily vote to defund the war and "end it" but they will not, as that would not provide them the cover they need. The perception is that they are weak on defense matters. If they actually vote the way they talk, it exposes them. Instead, they hide behind the "but Bush will veto any legislation" argument.
Why the rush to end things when some reports out of Iraq are saying that the surge is showing some early results? Is it because it would blow out of the water Harry Reid's "we can't win" proclamations? The final troops for the surge have been in country for less than a month. The Dems were saying we needed a change of strategy and Petraeus is doing that. Give it a chance to work. Or, be honest enough to admit that you just want us out no matter how things are going there. Harry Reid has basically said that if Petraeus reports positive things, he won't believe him. In other words, his mind is already made up.
Some of us believe that most Americans want us out regardless. Some of us believe that most Americans want to see a measure of success rather than saying we can't win and essentially handing Al-Qaida a propaganda victory as we withdraw.
To paint this Democrat orchestrated vote as anything other than a dog and pony show for the anti-war crowd is to show how oblivious you are to the political reality of this war. It's all about getting the Democrats back into power in the white house and their hatred of Bush. I don't care for Bush at all - I care about this country.
If we leave now, nobody in any future war, whether foreign country or citizen national in his right mind, will cooperate with and ally himself with the U.S. We will prove once again that the U.S. will leave you high and dry if you help them. They will become the biggest targets in Iraq for retaliation and marked for death in the slaughter that will follow.
But I'm sure that matters not a whit to you if it helps your heroes retake the white house.
Posted by RU Serious on July 21, 2007 05:13 PMBush gave them the victory with no plan and no exit strategy. So I see now the playbook is to try to blame the democrats for the insanity of Iraq because Bush did nothing but make a total cluster f%$k when he decided (he is the decider) to invade a country with no terrorist ties at the time. I didn't know war was a moral value!!
Posted by Michael D on July 21, 2007 05:18 PMThe lame argument of there were no terrorist in Iraq is so assine. You all seem to easily forget and refuse to remember that the largest firefight during the war itself took place 60 miles north east of Bahgdad. It involved 300 marines from the 2nd marine division and 625 enemiy. This included 300 republican guard members and 325 of the terrorist they were training in a camp set up explicitly for the trainning of terrorist. Not to mention that Saddam did support and train Hammas according to Russian intelligence, British, and Isreali Mossad. But hey you liberal leftists say Isreal lies .... what about the Russians, did they lie too. A country that had no motive to.
You all bitch and moan about President Bush and his war. Well for your limited intellect it is our war too. It is being faught here in the States right now. The F.B.I. pre Clinton was stopping over 900 terrorist threats a year. Fact repoorted not only in the national archives but reported on by the left leaning PBS as well. To remind you this figure was released when those Japanese red army faxtion was caught with dynamite and other nbombs in Jearsey back in the late 80's. During the CLinton administration these figures have been covered up as to the significant rise in attempted and successful attacks. The first trade center bombings, Embasy attacks ect.
Now you all want to claim legality on a war that was a continuation of the first Bush who is the opne who should be blamed for this mess by not letting the military finish the job in 1991. Congress athorised this with thier vote it is in the record look it up. The United Nations sanctioned this, in the record look it up. About time you get your heads oput of the sand or what ever dark wrm place you have conveniantly stuck it into.
In Michagan Sharia law is being used instead of American Constitutional law. CAIR is trying to establish preferential; treatment of one culture over all others. A very antiAmerican thing. It is time you stand beside or step aside and let the Military do thier job.
Posted by on July 21, 2007 06:33 PMI see another blather about Congress being able to "defund" the war.
I do wish those who keep on posting this kind of nonsense would actually read the Constitution some time; and then cite the Article which allows Congress to "defund" - anything - AFTER the appropriations bills have been passed, and signed by the President.
Perhaps they might also explain how, should Congress actually attempt to pass a bill to "defund" - ex post facto, as these nincompoops seem to think possible - the bill could possibly take effect over a Presidential Veto, unless there be a 2/3 majority of both Houses to over-ride that veto.
Just more silly assertion of something impossible - a straw man - so that they can blame others for not doing something that can't be done in the first place. But, typical of the mental level of this administration's most faithful spokes-persons on this blog.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 21, 2007 06:43 PM
Rebecca, our orginal letter writer, speaks from common sense AND a moral duty to end the insanity that is the debacle in Iraq, created by Bush, the Vietnam-era coward and his supporters.
Does the phrase "Fighting a losing battle" ring a bell with hank, RU, "An American" et al?
To cut and run certainly describes Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, O'Riley, Limbaugh and many other chickenhawks when called for duty in Vietnam, but don't hesitate to put our best and brightest in harms way when there's a buck to be made off their sacrifice.
If you need to call someone a "traitor", there's your "men".
REAL Americans have seen through the BS and are mad as hell.
And the Dems will prevail when the Cons return home and find their constituants demanding accountability for supporting Bush when it's obvious to all but the brain-dead that he's a fool and a "stay and die" madman.
Or worse yet, "Stay and be tortured" when our GIs are captured , which will surely happen. It's just a matter of time.
Will it be YOUR Son, Daughter, Husband, Wife or other loved one?
I truly hope not, but if you're loved one is in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or (soon ) Iran, I'd be REAL worried, as this sorry excuse for an Executive branch has set the rules for treatment of prisoners, and it's NOT what America has been proud of for better than 230 years.
RU Serious said of Democrats:
"The perception is that they are weak on defense matters."
At least muster the self-respect to get your facts right jingo..
Check out the results of a Fox News poll:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/062807_release_web.pdf
Scroll down near the bottom:
24. If there is an all-out war between the United States and various radical Muslim groups Worldwide, who would you rather have in charge -- Democrats or
Republicans?
Democrats: 41%
Republicans: 38%
So the perception really isn't is it?
Posted by Charles B on July 21, 2007 07:18 PMOld Grouch,
You want to keep carrying on about Congress not be able to de-fund the war after the appropriations have been authorized. However, why did Congress just a couple months ago approve any funds at all for the war? Article 1 section 8 gives the "power of the purse" to Congress alone. They could have and should have denied any funds to the president for the war. They had the power to do so. If the Dems wanted this war to end like they keep talking about, they could have accomplished it, simply by denying the funds
Or am I wrong?
Posted by on July 21, 2007 08:03 PMCharles B
"If there is an all-out war between the United States and various radical Muslim groups Worldwide, who would you rather have in charge -- Democrats or
Republicans?"
To bad we can't asked the radical Muslim groups that question, the Dems would definitely be favored.
Last I heard they are backing the Dems for president by 99 to 1
Posted by on July 21, 2007 08:11 PM8:11 I seriously doubt that was the last thing you heard from your terrorist, radical, muslim friends who love you so dearly and confide in you daily.
Well, isn`t that what you meant?
Posted by Sharon B. on July 21, 2007 08:55 PMSharon B.
That makes him a candidate for warrantless wiretapping doesn't it? Who is our friend 08:11 getting his info from?
Posted by Charles B on July 21, 2007 09:07 PMWhat I meant is the Dems are afraid of their shadows and the terrorists know it. A Democrat President would sit back and let them do what ever they please. When they control 75% of the world' s oil and have wiped Israel off the map, which will take place while we are "negotiating" with them, then I am sure they will be willing to have mercy on us. On the good side we will have an extra 30 millions illegals to help us fight them and we will have a government controlled health care program.
Posted by on July 21, 2007 09:11 PMCharles B.
Lets examine how the Democratic Party has been tough on terror , and the things they have proposed ,and in some cases, implemented:
-Offer appeasement to an enemy that has sworn to either religiously convert or kill you.
-Insinuate "we" are the real terrorists.
-Give captured terrorists the same rights as American citizens.
-Deny any strident interrogation .
-Reveal our military secrets and tactics.
-Bad mouth our country daily and even while on foreign soil.
-Question our soldiers integrity.
-Oppose realistic international surveillance programs that work.
-Demand military Rules Of Engagement that hamstrings our forces and favors our enemies.
-Encourage illegal immigration and unsecured borders.
-Embolden our enemies by backing a cut and run "strategy".
-Downplay the very real war on Islamofacisism at every opportunity.
-Knock out legislation that encourages Americans to report suspicious activity.
That last one is truly outrageous and already days old , not one mainstream media outlet has reported on it.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/07/20/2007-07-20_disarmed_by_the_dems.html
Why would that be?
So ,explain to me again how the "party of defeat" dems would better protect America .
.
Posted by Get Real on July 21, 2007 09:59 PMRebeccca Markel lied when she said “More than six months into the President’s troop surge, it is clear that his strategy isn’t working.” The surge only started on June 15th. General Petraeus was given until September to show progress, but the Democrats are frightened that he might actually be able to bring about progress and are insisting instead on an immediate pull out. Heck, whenever he and other military leaders do announce any good news the Democrats pooh-pooh it and carry on with their cynical hand-wringing.
Rebecca also arrogantly speaks for "the American people." That's a term used way too much in politics. It falsely insinuates that all Americans feel the way the person using the term feels.
Funny...no, make that outrageous how the people who matter the most, the military service members who are either in Iraq now or who have been there, are never listened to.
Just as with the Vietnam War the troops consistently tell the world about success and positive outllooks only for those who have not been there to say otherwise. Unfortunately, their voices are consistently stifled. The Bush administration is ridiculously inept with communication, and the media offers the consistent drum beat of doom and gloom. People like Rebecca, Old Grouch, Charles B., and Sharon B., et al think they are informed because they either listen to the media or net surf onto sights they agree with. They wouldn’t be caught dead reading articles from Michael Yon or other reporters who have actually been there recently. They believe Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who sit in Washington D.C. and try telling us what is happening in Iraq but will discredit those like General Petraeus who is in Iraq.
The Democrats allowed their "base" to believe that if they were returned to power in Congress, then two things would happen.
First, the troops would be withdrawn from Iraq. Second, Bush would be impeached.
They were reurned to power and the "base" has had to settle for the thin gruel of somebody named Libby getting a commuted sentence and all-night pajama parties in the Senate where the leaving Iraq drama is played out in full political theater.
The "base" however remain steadfast and will keep their dream alive. People animated primarily by hatred are easily duped. The Democrat leadership gets that.
Posted by James Jones on July 22, 2007 06:32 AMGet Real,
You make a bunch of unsupported assertions and punctuate it with and opinion piece. Totally meaningless.
Care to actually debate the point of my post?
You may perceive Democrats as weak on "Terra", but that is not the perception among a majority of Americans despite you clicking your heels together and wishing it were so...
Posted by Charles B on July 22, 2007 07:02 AMJames Jones said correctly:
"People animated primarily by hatred are easily duped. "
You've got that right. Two points for irony.
Posted by Charles B on July 22, 2007 07:07 AMYou can see by reading the Democrats postings that they hate the US.All their arguements are based on lies.What these US haters count on is spewing so many lies that they can not be countered.The bottom line is these people are allies with the terrorists and want to destroy the US.They are either cowards or US haters.
Posted by An American on July 22, 2007 07:22 AMAn American
You're trying to be funny, right?
Posted by conservative media on July 22, 2007 08:59 AMThe only thing An American understands is venom spread by the likes of Hannity, Beck, Limpbone, and his sweetie , Man (hater)Coulter.
Your posts have been noted and dismissed as the fascist bile it is, fed to you by the aforementioned Mass-corporate-media whores.
And there's nothing funny about dead U.S troops. Ask their families.
The very people you call cowards have read, and understand, our Constitution as well as the Geneva convention accords.
I suggest that you have a literate friend read them to you, and explain how they were crafted to protect us, and our troops.
Until then, go away.
How else do can you explain Harry Reid's comment "The war is lost"? For the man who is, if I am not mistaken, fourth in line for the presidency to tell the terrorist that they have already won the war while we still have men and women in the battle, is either being a coward or US hater. And these are the type of people the Dems want us to believe on strong on defense and are trying to protect the troops.
If this country is ever attacked, and I am in some foxhole defending it, I sure as hell wouldn't want people like him watching my flank. I can hear it now "We lost, let's surrender" or "Oh well, time to go home"
Posted by on July 22, 2007 10:17 AMA REAL American,
How does being able to read and understand the Constitution and the Geneva convention, rule you out from being a coward? Come to think about it some of the biggest cowards in this country are teaching in our Universities. An educated coward is still a coward.
Posted by on July 22, 2007 10:33 AMI have news for all you Bush supporters. So far the war on terror is lost. Instead of going after the real man that was responcible for 9/11 he blinded all of you with WMD's and we have to get Saddam. Bin Lauden now sits rebuilding his forces laughing his "A" off. If you were all true American lovers and not true Republican Bush lovers you would be outraged. You keep buying into that 9/11 is the reason that we're in Iraq. Can someone please tell me why the real madman is running loose? Why we can't take the 150000 + troops out of Iraq and send the into the hills and hunt this madman down?But then again those hills don't have oil and Haliburtan wouldn't make their billions. Remember when we were in Afganistan going after this guy all America and the world were united? Now we're divided.
Posted by larrymc on July 22, 2007 11:00 AMLarrymc
You are correct in your statement about the war on terror is lost. However our military weren't the ones that are responsible for losing it. It was a flawed military plan and the cowards back home that did it. We have lost the will to win, which is exactly what the terrorist were counting on. It worked in Vietnam and the terrorist knew it would work in Afghanistan and Iraq. They now understand they are free to do what ever they want to do.
This country will never win a war again. High body count will drive us out of any battle or war. That is simple fact of life. We are now a country of defeatist, with no backbone to stand up for anything.
Welcome to the United States of Cowards.
Posted by on July 22, 2007 11:54 AMConservative Media I am glad you asked that question"Am I trying to be funny"? The answer is no.The reason the leader of the Democrat Party Harry Reid said we lost the war is because he is a coward.If that was said in World War 2 after losing 3,700 lives what would you call the person that said it.I think nobody is looking at what the word means.If Harry Reid is not a coward then he must be trying to help the enemy.Here is what coward means"one who yields unworthily to fear or pain".That fits the Democrat Party 200%.
Posted by An American on July 22, 2007 12:26 PMThe Democrats allowed their "base" to believe that if they were returned to power in Congress, then two things would happen.
First, the troops would be withdrawn from Iraq. Second, Bush would be impeached.
Posted by James Jones on July 22, 2007 06:32 AM
Pelosi: Impeachment 'off the table'
RAW STORY
Published: Monday October 23, 2006
In an interview with CBS's 60 Minutes, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pledged that impeachment of President George W. Bush was off the table should Democrats gain a majority next month.
11:54AM:
It's not that we are cowards it's that type of wars we fight today. I'm a veitnam vet. We fight wars that we don't know who and where the enemy is. That is why we spun our wheels in nam and why we are spinning our wheels in Iraq. There is no front lines to move or hills to take. We can't raise an American flag on a hill and say it's ours lets advance. Bush can put 100 or 200 thousand more troops on the ground in Iraq and car bombs and suicide bombers will still go on. What people don't understand is these people that we're fighting have been doing this for years. The differance is that Saddam being the madman he was crushed anyone that didn't agree with his side. We are to much of nice guy's. Like veitnam if our soldiers go into a hot area and start fighting by their rules we bring them home and try them as murders. This war won't be won because one side plays by the rules and the other doesn't. If the broncos played a game against the raiders and the raiders could hold, intervere, and break every rule in the book and the broncos could'nt they would lose and thats a fact. If I had a big red ant hill in my back yard and I stood out there stomping those ants I would stand there forever and they would just keep coming. The only way is to pour gas on it and burn it. Now if we did that in Iraq we would be breaking the rules. So we won't do that. There fore this war can't be won.
11:54AM:
It's not that we are cowards it's that type of wars we fight today. I'm a veitnam vet. We fight wars that we don't know who and where the enemy is. That is why we spun our wheels in nam and why we are spinning our wheels in Iraq. There is no front lines to move or hills to take. We can't raise an American flag on a hill and say it's ours lets advance. Bush can put 100 or 200 thousand more troops on the ground in Iraq and car bombs and suicide bombers will still go on. What people don't understand is these people that we're fighting have been doing this for years. The differance is that Saddam being the madman he was crushed anyone that didn't agree with his side. We are to much of nice guy's. Like veitnam if our soldiers go into a hot area and start fighting by their rules we bring them home and try them as murders. This war won't be won because one side plays by the rules and the other doesn't. If the broncos played a game against the raiders and the raiders could hold, intervere, and break every rule in the book and the broncos could'nt they would lose and thats a fact. If I had a big red ant hill in my back yard and I stood out there stomping those ants I would stand there forever and they would just keep coming. The only way is to pour gas on it and burn it. Now if we did that in Iraq we would be breaking the rules. So we won't do that. There fore this war can't be won.
Charles B.
What, have you been living in a cave the last six years?
You don't even follow what you own party does?
Every single one of the things I listed is a valid retort to your claim that Dems are tough on defense.
Maybe You could try debating my assertions.
And the JOHN DOE legislation the dems blocked is outlined in the opinion piece I supplied.
If the MSM were doing their job this would have been widely reported on and you would know about it.
The dems did what they did and just because it is described in an opinion piece does not make it disregard-able.
You get all the anti conservative news you could ever wish for from the MSN.
I have to search out the truth because the MSM will downplay or not even report any positive republican stories while under reporting any negative liberal pieces.
Here is another example which I'm sure you never read.
http://newsbusters.org/node/14130
Now imagine if that had been a solider who murdered an anti-war activist in cold blood on the FOURTH OF JULY,
Do you think you would have known about it?
My point is the poll may suggest Americans believe dems will be tougher than repubs but ANY truly informed observer that can see through the MSM smokescreen knows the truth.
Oh,until YOU start seeking out the real truth YOU can click your heels all you want and it won't make any difference.
You are an uninformed hack that will remain that way until you seek out alternative news sources that give you the other side of the story that is not being reported by the traditional liberal media.
Yes, I read Newsbusters,Townhall and Little Green Footballs.
I also read Daily Kos,Dem Underground ,Huff post and Media Matters.
See, unlike yourself,I make it a point to get both sides of a story and then make a rational decision on where I stand.
You ought to try it sometime.
Posted by Get Real on July 22, 2007 12:51 PMOld Grouch - let me simplify this for you, even though 8:03 made my point. When I say "de-fund the war" I am not speaking of taking away money from appropriations bills already passed. That should be obvious but to you it is not, apparently.
I mean that when war spending bills come up, don't vote to allocate the funds. Simple enough for you? Quit trying to create confusion and spin my meaning into something entirely different.
Time for the Dems to put their money where their mouths are. They say they want to end the war. They can do this by simply not allocating the money, but then they would "own" defeat.
If you remember, this is how Vietnam ended, by congress refusing to fund it any longer.
Larrymc - I wouldn't say we have lost the WOT but right now it appears we are losing. We indeed took our eyes off the ball when we allowed Bin Laden to escape into Pakistan. However, not capturing or killing OBL is not the entire story and that failure should not determine whether or not we "lost."
By that reasoning, not capturing or killing Hitler in WWII meant we were losing the war?
There are delicate political considerations regarding Pakistan and Musharref that are frustrating efforts to find and get OBL and contain the spread of the resurgent Taliban. We can't simply go into Pakistan or Musharref might get toppled and the result might be the Islamist jihadists gain power and take over that government. I'm sure you know that.
I'm no Bush supporter but I see that if we think there is a problem now, imagine if Iraq and Pakistan become state sponsored terror training bases.
We can fight them now or fight them later. Just because we say, "we quit" doesn't mean this enemy will decide to quit.
Posted by RU Serious on July 22, 2007 12:54 PMGet Real continued to prefer jousting with a Straw Man rather than addressing the subject when he retorted:
"Every single one of the things I listed is a valid retort to your claim that Dems are tough on defense."
I never said "Dems are tough on defense". I merely provided evidence to counter your claim that Democrats are perceived as weak on terror.
You have yet to refute my contention.
Posted by Charles B on July 22, 2007 02:03 PMCharles B.-
Since you seem to be having a hard time understanding the examples I have given,
Honestly take all the time you need and ponder this.
The fact that our sworn enemies have publicly endorsed the Democratic Party and their policies over the Republican Party SAYS IT ALL.
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/11/03/democrats-no-comment-on-terrorists-endorsement/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwnd.com%2Fnews%2Farticle.asp%3FARTICLE_ID%3D52775&frame=true
Try to think about this rationally for a moment.
YOUR countries enemy prefer YOUR political party controls America.
This should be rather damning evidence and persuade you to put more thought into your vote.
But you and millions of Americans never heard of that story before now, did you Charles?
And of course no comment from you on any of my points or the airman killed by the moonbat protester.
Just continue to live in your own little ill informed world and ignore anything that doesn't fit your progressive agenda, like a good little Dhimmi should.
Posted by Get Real on July 22, 2007 03:06 PMRepugnats,
Speaker Pelosi did say that - and yet the "base" continues to clamor for Bush's impeachment.
She probably realized that once you have duped the "base" that at some point you need to get them back to responsible behaviour.
But it's difficult to turn herd from the cliff once they're headed that way.
The old adage - Uneasy rests the head that wears the crown - comes to mind.
That's the inevitable consequence of abandoning the truth.
larrymac,
I have nothing but respect for our military, and stated the war was not being lost because of the men and women in the field. We have the best trained, well equipped, and most loyal military that has ever existed. No country in the world can defeat us on the battle field.
Our defeats have come not from the military, but the politicians. You are correct when you say the government basically ties the military hand and then says go out and win.
War tactics have changed in almost every war we have fought, but lately the politicians refuse to give the military time to understand the tactics and adjust to them. In Nam, there were pugi sticks, children strapped with hand grenades, and our hands being tied by the politicians. We had that war won at least two different times and then the politician grasped defeat from the hands victory.
The cowards I talk about are not wearing the uniforms of the US military, they are hiding in the halls of Congress, trying to get reelected.
Posted by on July 22, 2007 08:15 PMRUSerious,
Then why use a word such as "defund", as if it meant an action to be taken presently?
All bills, including appropriations, go to the President, who then may veto them. To over-ride a veto thakes a 2/3 majority.
Presently, the Democrats have a simple majority - in the Senate, it is a majority of one (1) - and it would be impossible to over-ride a Presidential veto without a bi-partisan effort.
The Congress did pass appropriations with strings attached, insofar as that goes. The President did not get the blank check he wanted. But, in order to keep the government operating, a reasonable political comprimise was reached.
You seem to think - or at least write as if - the political process were a kind of "instant coffee", just pass something and it happens.
Several bills have passed this Congress and been vetoed, even though they were good legislation. Again, the 2/3 majority necessary to over-ride a veto being not present, the bills did not become law.
When appropriations come up again, there is indication that even a few of the Republicans in Congress are beginning to get a glimmer of good sense, and are turning away from the kind of blind, deaf, dumb, and stupid support of Bush that Dubya seems to think he commands. At that time, perhaps we may see the kind of restored balance that a simple majority does not have presently; since not all Republicans are complete idiots.
But, that's something for future possibility.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 22, 2007 09:33 PMOld Grouch,
Nice run around!
"The Congress did pass appropriations with strings attached, insofar as that goes. The President did not get the blank check he wanted. But, in order to keep the government operating, a reasonable political compromise was reached".
The bill passed was the "War funding bill" nothing to do with keeping the government running., simply keeping the war going. The Dems used it to get money for some of their social programs. If they were in fact so determined to stop this war a simple rejection for any funding would have brought the war to an end.
Were is your outrage about the Dems continuing to fund this evil war by Bush?
I believe the word you like to use so often is HYPOCRISY
Posted by on July 23, 2007 05:41 AMMost people understand what happens or doesn't happen AFTER a bill is sent to the President. The question, as I understand RU Serious, was why the bill sent to the President in the first place. A war funding bill, is a bill to only fund the war isn't it?
Old Grouch, could you tell me, Would not sending the President a war funding bill have caused the war to eventually come to an end?
Posted by on July 23, 2007 05:52 AMGet Real:
You seem to like dancing around the question rather than just admitting that you were wrong when you said: "The perception is that Dems are weak on terror".
So you continue to pretend we were talking about something else. Aren't you getting embarrassed?
You also said:
"YOUR countries enemy prefer YOUR political party controls America."
What is my political party Get Real? Do you really know what you think you know?
Posted by Charles B on July 23, 2007 08:44 AM05:52 AM,
Not necessiarily. There are several presumptions there.
First: You are presuming that there be a separation of a "war funding bill" from the general appropriations measures.
Second: You are presuming that Members of Congress, somehow, always vote as a "block"; and that a simple numerical majority is sufficient to always ensure passage, or defeat, of a measure.
Third: You are presuming that refusal to send a specific appropriation - i.e. "war funding" - will prevent use of alternate sources of funds to continue the program for which the "non-appropriation" is made.
And, these are just three of the more obvious presumptions that come immediately to mind.
As with many other questions that involve presumptions such as these, the only answer is: "It is possible." Which answer more or less includes the automatic concomitant, "In theory, anything is possible."
And I do see that you, yourself, have included the word, "eventually" in your question. Which, in and of itself, is really part of the answer:
In theory, it is possible that, eventually, an action such as you propose would have the result you indicate.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 23, 2007 10:27 AMLarrymc you say it is not that you are cowards but do not approve of the type of war we are fighting.Larry you are not fighting this war people who have volunteered are fighting it.Why would you try to stop our troops that want to fight this war?Why would you be in a party that is underminding our troops confidence and giving aide and comfort to the enemy?
Posted by An American on July 23, 2007 12:00 PM5.52 am
You have asked a good question and it deserves a good answer.
I have posted this in another thread and will paste here because it is important to understand the issue clearly.
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 war 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.
Posted by James Jones on July 23, 2007 12:00 PMOld Grouch,
First, the bill a couple months ago was a "war funding bill" and had nothing to do with general appropriations. That is until the Dems threw in all of the pork and social program spending. It started out as a "war funding" bill, period.
Second, for a democrat to vote against denying funds for the war would be political suicide. As for your statement they don't vote by "block", Right!! All of those who agree with Old Grouch's statement , raise your hand.
I counted about two maybe three, who think the same way as you do. Voting by "block" has been the accepted norm for quite a while.
Third, How long do you think the "non-appropriated" funds would last? It might last a couple of months, but I doubt much longer than that and the educated outcry from such actions would surely force the government to start removing the troops.
Posted by on July 23, 2007 01:07 PMPosted by on July 23, 2007 01:07 PM:
"...for a democrat to vote against denying funds for the war would be political suicide."
Could you explain how voting the way a solid majority of Americans would prefer you to is "political suicide"?
Posted by Charles B on July 23, 2007 02:43 PMfor a democrat to vote against denying funds for the war would be political suicide."
for a democrat to vote against (a bill) denying funds for the war would be political suicide."
Posted by on July 23, 2007 08:49 PM08:49 AM, 01:07 PM - both Anonymous,
Marvelous logic there. You fault the Democrats for not voting the way you think they "should"; and then indicate that, were they to vote that way it would be "political suicide". Ain't having one's cake while consuming it at the same time wonderful?
Straw men, all round, of course. You begin with the assertion that it was a "war funding bill", until the Democrats turned it into an appropriations bill. No Republicans involved there? Rather absurd claim; but to be expected from the level of political knowledge otherwise demonstrated.
As to how long "non-appropriated" funds would last, perhaps you ought to take time enough to study the actual workings of government some time. You might begin by doing a bit of study on the matter of National Debt. (That's money borrowed, and due - someday, maybe, if our Great Grandchildren have sufficient resources to pay it.) The sources for the "loans" include quite a number of Treasury Accounts that hold funds previously appropriated for other use. And there is quite enough to run the Bush war for a good deal longer than a couple of months, should Congress cut off appropriations.
The "educated outcry" you speak of certainly has done nothing to stop the increase of our National Debt up to now. And that's true, simply because the Administration refuses to pay any attention to it. After all, it is Bush & Co. who are running up that debt, continuously, in the face of the Democratic Party - and a whole host of other concerned citizens - with educated outcry from all over the country against it.
But, again, the marvelous "logic" of: "It's the Democrats fault that Bush won't do whatever it is that's not being done, or is doing whatever it is that shouldn't be done."
Which, of course, does help to make this forum fun after all.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 24, 2007 08:06 AMMy mother, who is 85 and lived through WWII, is sickened by this 2-party bickering. She says that is what is making this country weak and I must agree. She says that the terrorists prey on weakness and I agree. During WWII when we were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, this country pulled together, backed the war and all went to work to win it. Mom became a "Rosie the Riveter" working on B-52's. Our troops knew that everyone backed them so their morale was up and they could give full attention to their job instead of hearing about all the bickering and division that our brave soldiers are putting up with now. Does the media ever showcase the troops that say we are making progress and that we should stay on course? No, they are hell bent on bashing the President and printing their negative trash so all the Bush haters have more fuel. Can't you see what you are doing to this country? The Democrats want POWER and that is the bottom line. THEY DO NOT HAVE ANSWERS. We are falling apart and the terrorists know it. I don't like the war either. War is not fun. Should we have backed down when we were attacked on 9-ll? Should we have invited the terrorists for milk and cookies so they could discuss their reasons for attacking us? We sat back when the towers were hit before, when they attacked the USS Cole and the Sears Towers and numerous other attacks against this country. What should we have done????? The terrorists love what you anti-Bushers are doing and we will continue to pay the price. I agree that more attention should be given to border control. I invite any of you to go to Dearborn, MI and read the highway billboards written in Arabic with no English translation, streets with only Arabic signs and prayer sirens that go off several times a day. It is a very uneasy feeling. They are here and we do not know who is good and upstanding and who is not. They are patient. They are waiting for the right moment and they are here. Think about coming together for the sake of this country. I'm sick of the division and the commotion and discord that it is causing. My mother is smart, she has seen alot in her life and I think she has a good point. We can have our own points of view without being venomous. It is only making us weak in the eye of the enemy.
Posted by C on July 24, 2007 10:30 AMWell, all I have to say is yes, there have been some bad decisions made about the War in Iraq, I will definetly agree with you there. BUT, if we pull out now...we LOSE! And as Americans, I thought we were a powerful country, if we pull out of this war, we lose the war, making us weaker, whicn in turn will show itself to many of the Muslim Nations. If we pull out right now, imagine how many MORE people will die. We can't focus (but we can remember) on how many soldiers have fallen, but we must foresee on how many more WILL die if we pull out now. Now I don't know exactly how this would be accomplished, all I'm saying is that if we pull out now, more death will come than if we were to stay in there
Posted by Jonathan Sweeting on July 24, 2007 10:56 AMC, you are right .All this bickering is weakening our country.That is exactly what the US hating liberal Democrats are trying to do.I am trying to let everybody know this fact.The liberal Democrats want the terrorists to win the war."My enemies,enemy is my friend" is what they believe.
Posted by An American on July 24, 2007 11:28 AMAn American,
It's not so much they want the terrorists to win as it is they want Bush to lose.
Bush is, for reasons that are not clear, the focus of a hatred that consumes all reason.
They have a sort of vague understanding that the terrorism is a threat. But since we have not been attacked for nearly 6 years, the threat of a terrorist attack has faded.
However, irrational fear of "Bush the Evil Tyrant" is fanned daily by irresponsible Democrat leadership (and their fellow travelers in the press) that has abdicated statesmanship if favor of partisan politics.
This degradation of one of our two major parties cheapens the debate and damages the fabric of our society.
Posted by James Jones on July 24, 2007 11:55 AMOld Grouch,
Let me take this a step at a time so it will be easier for you to understand.
1, Dems are running around yelling about why this war is bad and how they are trying to bring this war to an end.
2. A couple of months ago they had the opportunity to deny funds for this war, thus bringing the war to an end. It started out as a "emergency war spending bill", but turned into a time line issue and some 'social state" programs.
3. Had the Dems simply said we will not send a bill to the President, they had the majority and could have done that, Had any Dem broken ranks and voted to send the President a bill it would have been political suicide for them. A bill in front of the senate or the house that fails to receive a sufficient amount (simple majority) of votes is thus stopped and never reaches the President's desk. The veto issue never comes into play, because there is no bill for him to veto.
4 They had the opportunity to stop this war, by denying Bush the funds and choose not to.
5 But still the Dems are running around talking about how, if they are elected and in power they would stop this war.
Question: Do they want to stop the war or get elected?
Congress has absolute power in declaring and funding wars. The President has absolute power in how the war is conducted. If a majority in Congress do not like this war or how the president is conducting the war and wants out, they can simply deny the President the funds.
As you have stated numerous times, "It is in the Constitution" Look it up!!! Article 1, Section 8
The point I am making if the Dems had a opportunity to stop the war and didn't. then they should stop running around telling everyone, "We are looking for ways to stop this war" or "When we are elected we will bring the troops home" They had the chance and didn't!!
Posted by on July 24, 2007 12:55 PMAs I read Jonathan Sweeting's post I kept imagining the voice was a young man trying to convince his Catholic girl to let him...well...you'll figure it out. With apologies to Mr Sweeting:
"BUT, if I pull out now...we LOSE! If I pull out right now, imagine how many MORE people will die. We can't focus (but we can remember) on how many soldiers have fallen, but we must foresee on how many more WILL die if I pull out now. Now I don't know exactly how this would be accomplished, all I'm saying is that if I pull out now, more death will come than if I were to stay in there.
My heartfelt apologies for the above post.
Posted by Charles B on July 24, 2007 04:37 PMCharles B,
They may not be your most moronic post but it's one of your most vulgar.
Do yourself a favor - try to contribute something that will spare you the need to plead for forgiveness.
Posted by James Jones on July 24, 2007 05:15 PMJames,
Thanks!
Posted by Charles B on July 24, 2007 08:13 PMGood posting James!Let me explain why these Democrats hate our country and not Bush.If you think about it Bush stands for everything that is the US.Bush stands for all the principles that this country was founded on.I think most traditional Americans would agree with this statement.[Not the European,leftist,anti-American,Democrats] He is a symbom of the US.That is why people can not understand why people hate Bush so much.It is not him they hate. It is the US.Think about all the Democrat issues.Not one is based on what this country has stood for in the past.
Posted by An American on July 25, 2007 12:47 PM