Bush gets it right

[billvon 3,089]

Bush yesterday:

"The clock is ticking for our troops in the field. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible."

They finally passed it. If he vetoes the troop-funding bill, the American people will indeed know who to hold responsible.

[rwieder 0]

I was floored by his remarks. I can't believe he let that come out of his mouth.

On CNN right now; The King Of Saudi-Arabia is calling our presence in Iraq unauthorized. He also canceled the meeting with GWB next month. I can speak from personal experience, Saudi-Arabia can make our lives a living hell.

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

I was floored by his remarks. I can't believe he let that come out of his mouth.

On CNN right now; The King Of Saudi-Arabia is calling our presence in Iraq unauthorized. He also canceled the meeting with GWB next month. I can speak from personal experience, Saudi-Arabia can make our lives a living hell.

I bet if they start being assholes GWB will suddenly remember how most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. We can turn in an instant on old friends. Just ask Saddam.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 3,089]

Republicans want to make it clear that they want open-ended war in Iraq. They have made their point. For some, that is not enough. The president believes that the longer he can delay funding for our troops, the more likely he is to force the country to accept endless war, a failure to plan for the future, and his pet spending projects. This is not going to happen. Our men and women in uniform desperately need these emergency war funds. The Secretary of Defense has warned that if the president does not approve the emergency funding for our troops by April the 15th, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so would their families.

The president has sent his message, now it's time to send the money. This is an important moment, and a critical decision for an embattled president. Our men in women in uniform should not have to worry that lame duck politicians in Washington will deny them the funds they need to remain safe. The president needs to sign the funding bill without delay. We expect Bush to do his duty and fund our troops, and so do the American people.

(adapted from - you guessed it - GWB.)

[kelpdiver 2]

Why is Congress doing an indirect pullout anyway? Instead of withholding money, they should be demanding the pullout.

"On the question as to who has ultimate say so, Section 5(c) of the War Power Resolution makes this crystal clear, stating, “Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.” In other words, Congress can mandate the removal of troops at anytime, if there has not been a formal declaration of war."

[billvon 3,089]

>Instead of withholding money . . .

They're not. They approved the funding.

>they should be demanding the pullout.

Right. And Bush would say "fuck you too!" and order more troops in. He's the commander-in-chief; the military obeys him, not Pelosi or Reid.

>In other words, Congress can mandate the removal of troops at
>anytime, if there has not been a formal declaration of war.

Right. And it's unconstitutional to wiretap without a court order, or to deny people the right of Habeas Corpus. Since when does Bush care about any of that? If Congress did push such a bill through, he'd sign it and attach a signing statement saying "The president interprets this such that he can keep troops in a country when he determines there is a clear and present danger to the security of the United States of America."

[ryoder 1,590]

From Jon Stewart on The Daily Show:

Quote

The Senate passed a funding bill including a plan requiring the troops be pulled out of Iraq. The Republicans denounced this plan as an "Admission of Failure". This is as opposed to the Republican plan of: "Failure without Admission".

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>In other words, Congress can mandate the removal of troops at
>anytime, if there has not been a formal declaration of war.

Right. And it's unconstitutional to wiretap without a court order, or to deny people the right of Habeas Corpus. Since when does Bush care about any of that? If Congress did push such a bill through, he'd sign it and attach a signing statement saying "The president interprets this such that he can keep troops in a country when he determines there is a clear and present danger to the security of the United States of America."

Until Congress forces the issue on the WPA and gets a SCOTUS decision, it remains in doubt.

Of course the White House will push as far as it can. It always has. Now that there is an opposing party controlling Congress, they can actually do something about it.

[billvon 3,089]

>Until Congress forces the issue on the WPA and gets a SCOTUS decision,
>it remains in doubt.

Why would the Supreme Court be involved? A signing statement is a legally-authorized way to modify interpretation of a bill, one the president has used over 100 times as of six months ago. Why would they suddenly get involved now?

The only way I could see that working is to pass it, have him refuse to adhere to it, and impeach him for violating the law (as Congress sees it.) I hope it doesn't come to that. We have enough problems as it is.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The only way I could see that working is to pass it, have him refuse to adhere to it, and impeach him for violating the law (as Congress sees it.) I hope it doesn't come to that. We have enough problems as it is.

Actually, I think this is a perfect illustration of where impeachment would be appropriate - to determine the scope of powers between the two divisions of government on war making ability. I don't think it's necessary to impeach to get the SCOTUS answer, though.

Getting a court determination of signing statements would also be beneficial to the country.

[willard 0]

Clinton got a blowjob.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Clinton got a blowjob.

... From an ugly fat chick who doesn't wash her clothes!

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Royd 0]

"The clock is ticking for our troops in the field. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible."

Quote

They finally passed it. If he vetoes the troop-funding bill, the American people will indeed know who to hold responsible

What a load of crap. What does spinach, peanuts and visitors to Congress have to do with funding the troops?

I believe that if someone takes such a bribe in order to coerce them into voting for the bill, it is criminal. Maybe not legally, but it is morally.

If I had my way every single item would be a separate bill. There would never be any attachments.

[Gawain 0]

A bill loaded with earmarks that aren't linked to this country's security in any way.

Congress is trying to implement policy. That is not their job. They have decided to spill the political rhetoric beyond the waters' edge and I for one, am keeping a tally of who voted for what in this instance. In 2008, they will be reminded of their stance in March 2007.

It is not up to Congress to decide when the military is done with its job. That is for the commanders in theater, and I've not heard one from Iraq or Afghanistan say they were done. The job of oversight does not always include control.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jakee 1,571]

Quote

It is not up to Congress to decide when the military is done with its job. That is for the commanders in theater, and I've not heard one from Iraq or Afghanistan say they were done.

It's up to congress to decide if the job is worth doing though, no?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Bush yesterday:

"The clock is ticking for our troops in the field. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible."

They finally passed it. If he vetoes the troop-funding bill, the American people will indeed know who to hold responsible.

Pathetic. He thinks the war should not have timelines. The Congress is playing dirty pool to try and force him to a timeline. If he vetos the bill it was due to the timelines Congress put in the bill. You and I both know he would fund the troops and you also know that Congress only passed the bill to try and make him look bad when he vetos it.

They are trying to set him up. I guess you would then agree that the Dems don't want a min wage increase since they will not allow concessions for small company's?

Can't have it both ways.

Quote

If Congress did push such a bill through, he'd sign it and attach a signing statement saying "The president interprets this such that he can keep troops in a country when he determines there is a clear and present danger to the security of the United States of America."

If they did that and he did as you said, THEN your rant would be true.

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Quote

Quote

I was floored by his remarks. I can't believe he let that come out of his mouth.

On CNN right now; The King Of Saudi-Arabia is calling our presence in Iraq unauthorized. He also canceled the meeting with GWB next month. I can speak from personal experience, Saudi-Arabia can make our lives a living hell.

I bet if they start being assholes GWB will suddenly remember how most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. We can turn in an instant on old friends. Just ask Saddam.

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[akarunway 1]

Quote

I was floored by his remarks. I can't believe he let that come out of his mouth.

On CNN right now; The King Of Saudi-Arabia is calling our presence in Iraq unauthorized. He also canceled the meeting with GWB next month. I can speak from personal experience, Saudi-Arabia can make our lives a living hell.

Nevermind if Irainian oil gets cut off!

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[jumprunner 0]

Quote

Bush yesterday:

"The clock is ticking for our troops in the field. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible."

They finally passed it. If he vetoes the troop-funding bill, the American people will indeed know who to hold responsible.

Yep, we definitely will. Congress has got him cornered this time. It appears that they strategized things, first by asking, now by telling. If he vetos the bill just before funding runs out, he has noone to blame but himself when they run out of money. Congress DID its job.

Bush still doesnt get it. The Democrats were put there by the public because the public is opposed to him, and still he whines about it like a little crybaby.

[jumprunner 0]

Quote

Why is Congress doing an indirect pullout anyway? Instead of withholding money, they should be demanding the pullout.

"

Because if they do, Bush will hold them liable and totally responsible for any misgoings that result from it. Congress is trying to cover its ass, so to speak.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

It is not up to Congress to decide when the military is done with its job. That is for the commanders in theater, and I've not heard one from Iraq or Afghanistan say they were done.

It's up to congress to decide if the job is worth doing though, no?

Well that would be the debate that we had in 2002, 2003. The debate about the US role in Iraq is over. Congress, if anything should be pushing for a bigger "surge" than the one in place to achieve a goal of getting everyone home sooner.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jumprunner 0]

Quote

Quote

They are trying to set him up. I guess you would then agree that the Dems don't want a min wage increase since they will not allow concessions for small company's.

Ha ha, yep, and I am loving every second of it. Anything that opposes Bush, Republicans, or anyone conservative is fine with me, Im all for it. Give him some shit Demos!!!!

Paybacks a bitch, isnt it? Its us against them, and we are finally winning the battle. Ive said it all along, out enemy is in the whitehouse, not in the middle east. Anything that defeats the enemy is a good thing.

• Quote

[billvon 3,089]

>If he vetos the bill . .

. . . then it will be very clear whether playing politics or supporting the troops is more important to him. If he chooses to take a political position rather than to get money to the troops - money that he claims they need desperately - well, that's his right. But, as he himself has said, the american people will know who to hold responsible.

>If they did that and he did as you said, THEN your rant would be true.

He's already done it over 100 times. But that's all irrelevant ancient history, I'm sure.

[billvon 3,089]

>Congress is trying to implement policy. That is not their job.

You are correct. Their job is to SET policy. They have; it is now up to Bush to implement it.

>It is not up to Congress to decide when the military is done with its job.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have 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 the 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 the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

It is not up to Congress to decide when the military is done with its job. That is for the commanders in theater, and I've not heard one from Iraq or Afghanistan say they were done. The job of oversight does not always include control.

The mission the military as a whole was tasked with was going into Iraq to overthrow the regime and prevent the imminent attack of the US with weapons of mass destruction. The regime is overthrown, tried, and hanged. The WMDs didn't even exist. How many times does the president need to land on an aircraft carrier and declare the end of military operations under the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner before we begin to understand that the military did its job - long ago. The military is not an organization that should be deployed for nation building. They are the ones suffering the abhorent decision making of the administration.

They did what they were sent to do long ago. Its time to bring them home. Immediately.