If Bush vetoes...

[Damien435]

If Bush vetoes the emergency spending bill passed by the Senate yesterday, who will be blamed for shortchanging the troops?

My own personal view: This was supposed to be an emergency spending bill for the troops in Iraq, the Democrats and even some Republicans then added their own little pieces to the bill, spinach, peanuts and teaching subsidies. The frosting on the cake for the Democrats was the troop pullout plan, if this bill passes Congress will have put a non-binding withdrawal date of March 31, 2008, only 368 short days from today. Bush will Veto this bill based on the subsidies and pullout plan. So who will be blamed? Congress or the President? My money is on Congress, I don't know what Bush has been taking lately, but over the last couple months he seems to have turned quite a few things around in the White House, his troop surge appears to be having a positive effect, and it appears as if Iraq is winnable after all. Really bad timing on the part of the Democrats.

 

[Chief Bones]

Congress & President are playing political tag ...

"My personal opinion/belief is that both the President and Congress should be chastised with playing political tag with the lives of our troops".

We definitely don't need nor desire another Vietnam ... something that Mr Reid's little piece of doggerel (legislation), would bring about.

A public announcement of a 'sure' date for withdrawal can bring nothing but disaster - if a date is set, it should be classified and NOT disclosed to the public. Public disclosure would incite terrorists to step up their plans for attacking the United States directly, instead of through attacks against troops serving in Iraq. It would bring terrorists/terrorism attacks directly to our shores in a very short time. The message that would be sent, is that the United States no longer has the will to carry through on commitments when the going gets tough ... it sends the message to terrorists that by continuing attacks, America will back down instead of drafting plans to cancel out the effects of terrorist attacks by actively seeking out and destroying terrorists and their apparatus.

 

[Marinerhodes]

I don't believe the President is the one who should be blamed or even will be blamed. Afterall he is not the one trying to set a pullout date and all this other crap into a bill that is supposedly to give money for the Military. Congress did and I believe they did this in the hopes that it will get vetoed and the President gets the blame.

 

[WNxRogue]

With the approval ratings the way they are, and the amount of people questioning the war in Iraq, I would be willing to bet that the President will get blaimed, rightly or wrongly. Couple that with what im sure will be a media field-day on the President after the veto, and you could see many people not very happy with him at all.

 

[Team Infidel]

I would blame Pelosi and the rest of the dems..... stop playing with our lives.

 

[mmarsh]

I would blame Pelosi and the rest of the dems..... stop playing with our lives.

Well, If you want to blame some for risking your lives you had better blame the Republicans, and specifically the Bush Administration. They are the one that got us into this mess in the first place. Secondly from A to Z they dropped the ball. I am sure Bush is going to try and 'pass the buck' to the Dems, but the American public isn't stupid, we all remember perfectly well who sold us this war. I agree with Chief Bones that both the Dems and the White House are playing politics, but ultimately the overwhelming villain in this catastrophe is Bush. Even the Republicans know it.

I also agree with what WnxRogue said, with Bush popularity in the toilet, ultimately HE (and not the Dems) will take the blame. Its much easier to assign blame to single individual such as the president than a group of people like Congress.

And finally, I agree with marinerRhodes. (Its odd I find people agreeable here today, must be the sun). The whole reason that Dems are pushing this bill is that they know Bush will VETO it (and that they dont have enough votes for an override). This the goal is to further isolate Bush and it will work too, because most people are sick of this war.

 

[DTop]

IMO. it wasn't the Republicans who got us into the "mess" as you call it. No, it was the terrorists who attacked us that brought our response. Bush isn't a villain, he is the President of the United States who was so cheered when he stood on the rubble left by the wanton attack against innocent American citizens on 9/11 and told the world that we would take this war to the terrorists wherever they are.
This nonsensical misconception of an "Iraqi War" has been foisted upon us by the media. The war in Iraq is just a part of the Global War on Terror that was initiated as a response to the violent declaration of war on America by the terrorists.
As I recall most of the Democrats not only supported the effort to rid Iraq of Sadaam because of the weapons of mass destruction and his refusal to allow UN inspectors to do their jobs but also for the rest of the 23 points that the President presented.
I have become quite tired of listening to the impossible statement of " I support the troops but I'm against the war ". I wonder if anyone has taken the time to listen to the troops who have had their boots on the ground there? I have and they all say things like this: In Iraq, we always knew that whenever a news channel like CNN would air an anti war or anti administration piece, we would be hit by the enemy along the roads within a short period of time.
What the Dems and others are doing these days worries me very much and I think it should worry any clear thinking American because I'm sure it gives the enemy great hope. They ought to be as ashamed of themselves as I am for them.
</soapbox>

 

[Gator]

The US Constitution is set up to where the President is not allowed to declare War, but the US Congress is, and the President is not allowed to fund a War, but the US Congress is.

As for the authorization to use military force against Iraq, well Iraq is no longer a National Threat, Iraq has no WMD, the regime has been changed in Iraq, as a matter of fact Saddam is already in the ground.

Mission Accomplished.


As for the US Congress, well if most of the American Voting Public is upset with the Democrats in Congress for ending the Iraq War, if it ends on a funding issue, then the Democrats will lose the US Congress in 2008.... if not, the Democrats may even pick up a lot more seats in the US Congress.

Democrats took over the US Congress in large part because the US Public is not happy with Iraq, and in a democracy that is just the way it goes, the Congress works for the people of the Nation after all.

As for Iraq itself, Iraq is viewed in some circles as purely a Republican War, and a purely Republican War already lost, so I see blame going along Party Lines, with Independents placing blame for Iraq and its aftermath on both Republicans and Democrats.

As for the Tax Dollars involved, well I'd personally rather see US Tax Dollars wasted in the United States of America, on Americans, than US Tax Dollars wasted in Iraq, on Iraqis.

 

[DTop]

Congress is not allowed to commit or withdraw troops either. You can think whatever you want but personally, I don't give a tiny rat's behind about who loses Congressional seats. I am very concerned with what happens to our troops in harm's way and and find it unconscionable that anyone would consider cutting funds to the heroes who risk their lives every day by fighting the very terrorists face to face who have sworn to follow Americans back to America and to kill every single American. Ya, I think those idiots in Iraq who feel no remorse or have any compunction about killing innocent people including children are a threat to Americans. Spending money to save American lives is not a waste. That's just the way it goes in my opinion.

 

[Gator]

Top, so as not to upset you as I did in our last exchange, let me state what I believe, you will notice I did not quote your Post to me.

I believe all indigenous peoples of Iraq should be killed by the United States Military, and better peoples of the World allowed to move in.
If I had my way high level mass bombings of all Iraqi population centers would be carried out around the clock, and ground forces sent in to clean up any survivors.

In the absence of killing them all, I believe Iraqis should not get any US Tax Dollars.
I believe, and have Posted here that the US Military is not paid enough.
I would, if I had the power, pay Privates in the US Military $50,000.00 a year in cash, and then give benefits on top of that, and move the pay scale up according to rank from there.

I believe not paying US Tax is Treasonous, and all US Tax Cheats should be charged with Treason, the ones owing a predetermined high end amount set by the US Congress should be put to death for their crimes, because Taxes pay for the US Military, so Tax Cheats are cheating the US Military out of one thing or another.
I believe asking for Tax Breaks in time of War is not supporting US Combat Troops on the Ground, and gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

 

[mmarsh]

DTOP

Good to see you my friend.

You've made one mistaken assumption. Iraq ISN'T part of the Global war on Terror. It's a sideshow, a total detour. The real GWOT is going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan, (the other war the administration seems to have forgotten about).

There has been absolutely ZERO evidence to support even the slightest rumor that Iraq was even remotely involved on 9-11. On the contrary there has evidence to support the fact that Saddam hated Osama and in fact had plotted to assassinate him. I don't blame you from for confusing the GWOT and Iraq, the Presidents weasels in the U.S media did a very good job of spinning the truth.

Saddam was a terrible dictator. No arguement there, but he kept a lid on radical Islamic groups like al-Qaeda and Hezbollah from ever setting up shop in Iraq. This is why Bush '41 never toppled Saddam, because he realized that by removing an evil he would be releasing an even greater one.

It turns out that the war in Iraqi has vindicated Bush '41. He was in fact correct to spare Saddam. Its a pity the son share's none of his Dad wisdom.

Furthermore, if you read any Neocon literature. You'll see that the Neocons had been wanting the scratch the Iraqi itch for a very long time, much longer than 9-11. In 1997 a group of them under Wolfowitz and Perle (they were working for the Heritage Foundation, before they became WH henchmen) wrote a proposal to then-President Clinton urging him to invade Iraq. The Bush crowd have merely hijacked 9-11 as a very convient excuse in order to justify this war of choice.

The blame lies with the President. He bought in the NEOCON bull about spreading democracy in the Middle East and he used the tragedy of 9-11 in order to railroad the American public (and a few gullible nations) in order to justify it.

I have also certain amount of scorn also for the Congresspeople who idlly stood by knowing it was a sham and did nothing.

(Like a certain female senator from my hometown state).

 

[DTop]

I have made no mistake. I believe it is a major misconception foisted by the media to assume that the terrorists is Iraq have no connection to other terrorists. In fact you'd have to really have to possess tunnel vision not to see the connection. My friends in the 10th Mountain Division might just disagree with the concept that Afghanistan has been forgotten.
By supporting terrorists and providing training grounds, Iraq was indeed supporting terrorism.
Sadaam never did anything that didn't serve hos own paranoid needs and never for any other reason. He wasn't just a dictator, he was a clear threat.
It was a different time and different place. GHWB didn't have to deal with an attack on NYC so any comparison is senseless.
Apparently you're reading too much Neolib literature over there in France. I like to keep an open mind and listen to those who I feel have actual knowledge about what's going on over there and I discount things like the CNN reporter who said just yesterday that Americans can't even walk down a street in Baghdad without being harmed.
Well I think the blame lies squarely in the Neolibs backyard. If they take the action they should shoulder the responsibility for shortchanging the troops.
Don't get me started on that impostor :evil:

 

[Donkey]

I find that people who like to use words like NEOCON tend to listen to too much mainstream news...

 

[mmarsh]

DTOP

In fairness, you cannot blame the radical left for shortchanging the troops. They Dems have only been in Power for 3 Months, If the troops are being shortchanged its due the incompetence of the previous Congress whom was in charge of things for the past 14 years. Furthermore those on the Far Left calling for the cutting of funds are a small minority. They are loud, but not all that powerful, and most Dems think they are kooks, which is why nobody listens to them. Like the Neocons they are extremists, the only difference is unlike the GOP, the Democratic leadership wont give them any power. Thats precisely why all the Dems supported Steny Hoyer over John Murtha as Majority House Whip.

You might recall tha we attacked Iraq due to its phantom WMD program not its terrorism links. Secondly if the Bush team was really interested in attacking Terrorist countries (besides Afghanistan) then they should have started with Iran.

Iran compared to Saddam's Iraq.

1. Iran is run as a Fundimentalist Islamic country. Saddam was a secularist.
2. Iran exported terrorists all over the world. Iraq only dealt with region conflicts (aka the Palstineans or in Algeria).
3. Iran's terrorists pushed Islamic extremism, Iraq terrorist were after political goals.
4. Iran's WMD program has very advanced, Iraq's was non-existent.
5. Iran's army was one of the best military forces in the Middle East (aside from Israel and perhaps Egypt). Iraq's Army was small badly trained conscripts, and totally obsolete.

So if Bush were really intersted in protecting us from a 'clear danger' he choose the wrong one. And of course there is still the question of why we haven't killed Osama, if we hadnt pulled resources out of Afghanistan to play the Texas Lone Ranger perhaps Osama would have never escaped from Tora Bora.

 

[Gator]

The United States Military has been fully funded by the United States Congress for this operating year.
What President Bush has asked for is extra money, when he should have just put it in his FY 2007 request, it's not like he thought the War was going to end, and even if the War did end overnight the Military could have used the extra money (peace dividend) for new equipment and such.

The President can always veto the Bill, and cut back on needless DoD expenditures, or those systems not needed on the Battlefield of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as cut back on the use of highly overpaid Civilian Contractors.

If the US Military comes up one bullet short on the Battlefield that will be the fault of the President, not the Congress, as the President was already given well over 400 billion dollars for FY 2007.

The Political fallout from the Bill will be found out at the ballot box come November 2008.

 

[Missileer]

DTOP

You might recall tha we attacked Iraq due to its phantom WMD program not its terrorism links. Secondly if the Bush team was really interested in attacking Terrorist countries (besides Afghanistan) then they should have started with Iran.

Apparently, President Bush wasn't the only "true believers" when it came to WMDs in Iraq. http://www.friendsofmicronesia.com/archives/001136.html

"President Clinton: "Earlier Today I Ordered America's Armed Forces To Strike Military And Security Targets In Iraq... Their Mission Is To Attack Iraq's Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons Programs And Its Military Capacity To Threaten Its Neighbors ..." ("Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq Attack," Agence France Presse, 12/17/90

"Gore: "You Know, In 1991, I Was One Of Those Who Put Partisanship Completely Aside And Supported President Bush At That Time In Launching The Gulf War. And In That War, We Saw How Saddam Had Threatened His Neighbors And Was Trying To Get Nuclear Weapons, Chemical Weapons, And Biological Weapons. And We're Not Going To Allow Him To Succeed." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/90

"Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY):

Sen. Clinton: "I Voted For The Iraqi Resolution. I Consider The Prospect Of A Nuclear-Armed Saddam Hussein Who Can Threaten Not Only His Neighbors, But The Stability Of The Region And The World, A Very Serious Threat To The United States." (Senator Hillary Clinton [D-NY], Press Conference, January 22, 2003)

"Sen. Kerry: "The Crisis Is Even More Threatening By Virtue Of The Fact That Iraq Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability, And Is Pursuing A Nuclear Weapons Development Program." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14332)

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):

"Pelosi: "Others Have Talked About This Threat That Is Posed By Saddam Hussein. Yes, He Has Chemical Weapons, He Has Biological Weapons, He Is Trying To Get Nuclear Weapons." (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. H7777)

Anyhow, that's how it went, on and on, ad nauseum.

So if Bush were really intersted in protecting us from a 'clear danger' he choose the wrong one. And of course there is still the question of why we haven't killed Osama, if we hadnt pulled resources out of Afghanistan to play the Texas Lone Ranger perhaps Osama would have never escaped from Tora Bora.

So you want omnisence to be a qualifier when choosing a President. Well, it ain't gonna happen. No one on Earth can know for sure which third worlder holds the number one spot on the hit parade of emminent danger. Trying to arrange heathens in a nice, orderly, numerical list of targets is like counting raindrops.

 

[DTop]

It's clear that the democrats are interested only in withdrawal, surrender, and defeat. It won't say that there hasn't been waste, there always is. That is water under the bridge and not the topic being discussed here. The issue here is the money need to fund the troops now and into the future. I don't believe the dems will be able to hide from the fact it is they who are doing all in their power to make the President look bad, without regard to the needs of the troops. The democrats should admit what they are trying to do and just take the consequences. They won't because they know it's wrong and they know the American people will not put up with it. I just dislike dealing with dishonesty. I wonder how stupid they think we are.
A little OT here but I just heard that Pelosi is going to Syria. I can't even conceive of the impression this SF liberal woman is going to make in Syria. I can just hear the dems saying "It'll be alright, Nancy's going to Syria to straighten everything out." :sarc:
Oh, nice post Missileer :smile:

 

[MontyB]

Apparently, President Bush wasn't the only "true believers" when it came to WMDs in Iraq. http://www.friendsofmicronesia.com/archives/001136.html

Umm is it a mis-print or are some of those quotes Pre-GW1 when everyone knew he had WMD's using those now is a little like saying you invaded Iraq to prevent the Sumerians attacking the Isrealites.

As far as the 2002-2003 quotes go would it not be a fair assumption that their opinions were formed from the less than accurate information being passed around by the intelligence agencies at the time?

Basically you can hardly expect people who are feed bad data to make good decisions.

 

[philam15]

who do we blame everything on?? the president

 

[mmarsh]

Missileer

Almost all of your quotes are from 15-17 years ago thats very dated IMHO. And yes I admit at the time, those Democrats were all wrong. But all of this was BEFORE the UN inspectors were allowed in. It was the UN inspectors that verified that there were no weapons in Iraq, not the Democratic Party.

I am not going to say the Dems haven't made mistakes or haven't been wrong. The difference is that they didn't involve us in a very costly war just to push an agenda. Bush did. The fact is Bush wanted this war no matter what. If it wasn't WMD it would have been some other Fish story. He didn't wait (or care) what the intelligence said, on the contrary he seems to have made the evidence fit his policy, (rather than the other way around) and we all paid a terrible price for his recklessness.

And its his fault, not the Dems, not the military, his. Its like shopping at the Pottery Barn, "You break it, You own it".

As for Tora Bora, its not omnisence, its common sense. Here the scenario:

You have Osama trapped on a high Mountain top. His situation is so desperate that US forces capture broadcasts of him apologizing to his fighter for leading them into a trap.
In short his goose is cooked, all you need to do is finish him off.

Do You?

A) Let your elite troops like the 10th Mountain Division complete the seal and choke off Osama. Then pound the area with every gun, bomb, or shell at your disposal.

or

B) Replace the 10th Mountain with Afghan tribesmen who change loyalities more than most men change underwear and who were almost certain to betray us just as they betrayed the Taliban 3 months earlier. If Bush cronies had actually studied the Afghan people they'd have known the tribes were sellouts, and Osama would be dead by now.

Thats why Osama is still alive.

DTOP

You forget that Syria and Bush '41 had a fairly good relationship. Syria hasnt always been an enemy, and frankly we dont need any more with Iraq and Iran our enemies qouta is full. The reason diplomatic relations have soured with Syria is because Bush decided to 100% support Israel (something his Dad didn't do either). Another bad move. The Israelis are of no help in Iraq, the Syrians (being Shiites) could be very useful in Iraq.

The sad truth is the war is now unwinnable. There is simply no reason to throw good (like our troops) into bad. You could carry on the status quo in Iraq for another 5 years and nothing will change except that instead of 3000 dead US Troops it would be close to 10,000. If there was ANY way to salvage Iraq I would argue to stay on. But their isnt, and the President is completely untrustworthy. So what other choice do we have? The Dems are trying to stop the war. Why shouldn't they? its been mishandled from day 1. Lets face it, the Bush method of dealing Iraq has been going on 4 years and shown few results. In baseball, if your starter goes 5 innings and just routinely get blasted every inning, its time to change the pitcher.

Frankly the troops would be of better use in Afghanistan to deal with the REAL threat. At least, thats what I would do.