So what happens next week when Bush uses his veto powers again?

They should shut the fuck up and stop dividing the Country.

Yes, Congress is what's dividing the country.

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're joking. You're not actually that stupid, are you?

Actually, the President is doing a wonderful job uniting the country against himself and Team Elephant.

Here's what's going to happen. The military will eat the account deficit by cutting funding on everything that isn't directly related to the wars. That means no training, cancelled programs, and even more reduced readiness in the out years.

You see, the military can not just say, "Oops, we're out of money. Let's go home."

Thanks, Congress!

Bush is a president not a KING he can't make demands and say "this isnt what I want, give me what I want or I'll veto." This is a democracy, the American people elected the democrats because we want an end to this bullshit.

Bush won't listen to the American people, didn't listen to the 911 commission, the Iraq study group, Army Generals, Congress, some of his own party, other world leaders, citizens of the world. He is going to do exactly what HE wants to do. THAT BY DEFINITION IS A DICTATORSHIP! Dont get me started on how he completely ignores what's written in the constitution that he swore to uphold and defend!



Why do I hate him so much? Let's see....

* Stealing the 2000 election
* Starting an unjust war with Iraq
* Falsely linking 911 to Iraq
* Hiring croonies for every possible powerful position
* Acting like a dictator by not caring what the American people, 911 commission, Iraq study group, congress, Army Generals, his own party and the rest of the world say
* Dividing Americans and uniting our enemies
* His close ties to corporations especially Enron
* His ties to the oil industry
* Not giving a shit about the environment
* Destroying the Bill Of Rights
* Getting rid of Habeas Corpus (you know that "thing" protecting you if you go to prison to ask "why am I in prison?)
* Torture
* Calling anyone that disagrees with him unpatriotic, a traitor, or says they are "emboldening our enemies" (if you fall for this you are an idiot and surely get your news from FOX!)

Right now he could call me an "enemy combatant" throw me in Guantanamo Bay and torture me. But I guess if you support this piece of shit you don't consider water-boarding and "other" methods torture.

I'll defend the America that the founders created and I am more patriotic then anyone who supports this basterd because I am fighting for what we fought for over 200 years ago. Just because people say America is free doesn't mean it is! We need to protect our freedom. He says the terrorist hate us for our freedom, I guess his way to fight them is to take it away.

So if you support this piece of shit you are a traitor to the founders and democracy!





Wake up America!

So, how exactly are you fighting?

Whom? No one wants to fight Bush. Well I do, but more importantly I want him out of office for the good of the planet. Given its previous use, impeachment is the proper course of action for Congress.

How am I fighting?

Well Im spreading the truth about this piece of shit. And here's a video of me at a protest standing up for that truth!

Im the guy with the "Tyrants not welcomed" sign

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLkEzCPmI2I


Notice in the video the one causing the problems is a Bush supporter everyone else is really peaceful.....by the way I saw first hand how the media lies. She says the protesters peaked at about 200 people but there was around 1,000-2,000 people that you dont see in the video!

I think one usually leaves off the "d" in that usage.

What's going to happen is that Pres. Bush will veto the bill. Then then the spin will come out (at least to the military) that the Democratic Congress hates the troops and want us to fail in Iraq. They'll keep the pressure up, the Dems will go on the defensive and eventually give the President what he wants.

That's how I see it happening anyway.

He is acting like Alberto Gonzalez now -- better to look stupid than lawless. But the above posts are correct. You defy the will of the people you allegedly serve and there have to be consequences. His veto is a refutation of what the rest of the country wants. But as is now all too clear, Bush serves a higher power - the oil cartel.

That troops suffer from Bush's policies is a fact. Killing more of them to secure control of fossil fuel deposits isn't supporting the troops -- it's supporting this country's aristocracy with their blood.

Yes, the way out is complicated but virtually impossible with him in power, unless he and his cabal can open their eyes and see what seemingly everyone else, including military leaders, see all too plainly. Five years later and it's still an appalling and tragic failure, and the "new strategy" ISN'T new and nothing will change unless reason prevails or Bush is removed from office.

You can say "welcome" or "welcomed"

when you say to someone "I feel welcomed here" it is correct......how does "I feel welcome here" sound?

President Bush is not welcome here.
or
President Bush is not welcomed here.

welcomed sounds better to me

Retired General: Bush Should Sign Iraq Bill
By Kasie Hunt
The Associated Press

Saturday 28 April 2007

Washington - President Bush should sign legislation starting the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq on Oct. 1, retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom said Saturday.

"I hope the president seizes this moment for a basic change in course and signs the bill Congress has sent him," Odom said, delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address.

Odom, an outspoken critic of the war who served as the Army's top intelligence officer and headed the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration, delivered the address at the request of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. He said he has never been a Democrat or a Republican.

The general accused Bush of squandering U.S. lives and helping Iran and al-Qaida when he invaded Iraq.

"The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place," he said. "The president has let (the Iraq war) proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued. He lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies."

Odom said he doesn't favor congressional involvement in the execution of foreign and military policy, but argued that Bush had been derelict in his responsibilities. This week Congress passed an Iraq war spending bill that would require Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq on Oct. 1.

-------

Holding a sign does not equate to fighting. It qualifies as speaking out, demonstrating, or trying to hit on hippie chicks; but fighting it is not.

What the hell are you going on about.

If you can't beat someone through the democratic processes, then it's not worth it. Because your failure means that enough people in the country support that person.
And don't give me the "the people can be fooled" argument because no other country in the world knows so much about its government.

Revolutions on democratic states are made by greedy and arrogant groups that don't belong in the seat of power at all.

But, as a liberal who wants us out of Iraq...Frank is right. Congress can do whatever they'd like here, but the decision is not up to the military. Granted, by taking away funding for the military they make things harder on Bush. Unfortunately, the incentives at play in that strategy are imperfectly aligned. Yeah, you can turn the screws on the military to encourage Bush to give up, but he doesn't have to give up...he can just sell out the future of the armed forces to continue this debacle. Sadly, I don't think there is any legit means of pressuring Bush to do what "we" want him to do. Impeachment seems like a huge, huge stretch (and I think the trend of trying to impeach every president you don't like is a very ugly one), and there aren't really any other checks on the president in military situations. We're sorta up a creek here.

The thing is here, unlike with Clinton, there's a true case for just cause for impeachment. Impeachment is there for Congress to use when the person in the executive chair is doing something that could potentially wreck the nation, or cause it considerable harm. Bush fits that criteria like a glove.

Granted, there's a lot of debate on what constitutes grounds for impeachment, but I don't think we can establish that Bush has committed bribery or a high crime or misdemeanor. That leaves treason as the only available avenue for impeachment, and as much as I loathe Bush's policies, I don't think he's committing treason.

Fair enough. I admit I do not understand the bill.

Like I said above.........

* Falsely linking 911 to Iraq
* Hiring croonies for every possible powerful position
* Acting like a dictator by not caring what the American people, 911 commission, Iraq study group, congress, Army Generals, his own party and the rest of the world say
* Dividing Americans and uniting our enemies
* His close ties to corporations especially Enron
* His ties to the oil industry
* Not giving a shit about the environment
* Destroying the Bill Of Rights
* Getting rid of Habeas Corpus (you know that "thing" protecting you if you go to prison to ask "why am I in prison?)
* Torture
* Calling anyone that disagrees with him unpatriotic, a traitor, or says they are "emboldening our enemies" (if you fall for this you are an idiot and surely get your news from FOX!)

Right now he could call me an "enemy combatant" throw me in Guantanamo Bay and torture me. But I guess if you support this piece of shit you don't consider water-boarding and "other" methods torture.


That's treason to me!!!

THe thing is Ludwig you are a Canadian civilian on the outside looking in. Your perspective is going to be far different than an American troop. Most U.S. troops aren't going to see that this bill gives more funding. All they see are timelines and pork projects. Which as I mentioned before the Bush administration will spin into their favor (at least to the troops). Hell just read this and you'll see how most of the troops think.

Those soldiers' responses were so cute. I can understand how they might not have the time to you know, read and stuff, so I can understand their frustrations.

Congress passed the bill. It's the president who's threatening to veto the bill. Why are you blaming Congress for passing a bill that will provide the military with the funding it needs?

Sidious was talking like he was manning the barricades. Protesting is not fighting. That's all there is to that.

That's exactly the line Congress planned to take when it passed a bill it knew the President wouldn't sign.

It would not.

That's just it. This is pure political brinksmanship, with the Congressional majority looking to score points at the expense of military readiness.

The veto is built into the system to make it hard for Congress to tell the President what to do. The real test will come when the Majority leadership tries to round up enough votes to override the veto.

But, Frank, Congress is right when they say it's what the people want. If they thought the war was going well, this wouldn't be happening right now (Congress would be GOP majority).

Personally, I think the Dems are going to lose this fight. The dates are going to come out, and they have to know that on some level. However, when it comes to the Iraqi benchmarks, they need to fight for those harder than the troop withdrawal dates, because if Bush really sticks to his guns on those, then it will appear that he's very much status quo. He will lose the popular opinion on that one, and it'll haunt the elections because it will make the Republicans look like they don't want any sort of change in the Iraq conflict.

Is Congress to tiptoe around Bush's insanity?

Frank, I think I understand your point. Regardless of politics, the military has a job to do, and it doesn't have the ability to take itself out of the firefight, nor can it generate money on its own. It doesn't matter whose fault it is, an impoverished budget will only hurt the soldiers.

I agree with that, and don't think Congress or the President has any right to put the troops in more danger than is necessary. However, I do honestly believe that if Congress was to only give Bush funding until September AND was able to get this unapologetic thief under the hot seat, to the point that he risks the Republican party's future by sticking to his corporate interests, net lives will be saved. It doesn't matter how well they're funded, if he keeps the soldiers over there until the end of his administration more will certainly die than if they were to immediately cut funding and force a troop withdrawal.

The benchmarks are exactly what General Petraeus was talking about - a POLITICAL solution as opposed to a military one. If we force the Iraqis politically, forcing them to meet the goals that the US sets out, I think it's better for the troops. I don't think the Dems will win on set dates. But - they can win if we set dates for the Iraqi government to keep.

To say they passed a bill they passed? The swine!

That doesn't explain why you hold Congress responsible for decisions George Bush made. He's the one who decided not to fund the spending bill, no one else.

Well, there's Cheney. Anyway . . .

Do you want a congress that serves only to codify the president's wishes? Congress' role, as I understand it, is not to rewrite the president's wishes as law then slap them on his desk for him to sign. Keeping the president happy is not their job. If George Bush is so small and petty that he's willing to withhold funding for your military if doing otherwise means not getting his way, then the lack of funding is his fault.

Really, it's like when supporters of this war face off against those who want the US military out of Iraq and accuse them, the people who want US soldiers out of a war zone, of not supporting the troops and such. Turns out it's the people who want them stationed in hostile territory among a hostile population and amid increasing violence who support the troops. Sometimes pro-war America am Bizarro America.

This is one of those times. Congress passed the bill, Bush vetoed it. If it isn't made into law, it's not the fault of the body that passed the bill. If you wanted the bill to pass, you should be pointing the finger at Bush, who refused to pass it. If you didn't, it makes no sense to curse the Congress for the bill's failure. You should be dancing in the proverbial street.

The Democrats' strategy, as I understand it, is to make the President look as bad as possible in the runup to the next election. They're hoping the badness will rub off on the eventual Republican nominee.

It's good politics, but in practice it means that they'll pass legislation like this. Since they know Bush won't sign it and they know they don't have the votes to override the veto, it serves one purpose only: domestic political consumption. That consumption comes at the price of overall military readiness at a time when, thanks to the Administration's bungled execution of Iraq thus far, readiness is already lower than it should be.

Frank........... can you reply to this below

How can you still support this guy? I am trying very hard to understand.



Like I said above.........

* Falsely linking 911 to Iraq
* Hiring croonies for every possible powerful position
* Acting like a dictator by not caring what the American people, 911 commission, Iraq study group, congress, Army Generals, his own party and the rest of the world say
* Dividing Americans and uniting our enemies
* His close ties to corporations especially Enron
* His ties to the oil industry
* Not giving a shit about the environment
* Destroying the Bill Of Rights
* Getting rid of Habeas Corpus (you know that "thing" protecting you if you go to prison to ask "why am I in prison?)
* Torture
* Calling anyone that disagrees with him unpatriotic, a traitor, or says they are "emboldening our enemies" (if you fall for this you are an idiot and surely get your news from FOX!)

Right now he could call me an "enemy combatant" throw me in Guantanamo Bay and torture me. But I guess if you support this piece of shit you don't consider water-boarding and "other" methods torture.


That's treason to me!!!




By the way I really feel sorry for whoever takes over for Bush in 08 because they are going to be blamed for the collapse of America and Bush will get away untouched. Everyone knows it will be a democrat. If you believe the voting system is rigged then here's a perfect reason. Get into power do whatever you want and hand over the shit to people who are stuck in a horrible situation then re-run saying you can fix it. HA

The President has a 30% approval rating. Politically, there is simply nothing more to be said about him. Democrats don't need an election strategy for him. It is to the their advantage every time he speaks. This is not about making the President look bad because he almost literally cannot look worse.

Frank, do you attribute any moral responsibility to the President regarding a veto? If he actually signed the bill this week (after, say, a major concussion), to whom would you attribute the credit for a fully funded military?

Not all of them.

Is this a "yes, I think the role of Congress should be to codify the president's wishes,"?

None of this is a problem for Bush, otherwise he'd have signed the bill. How again is Bush's stubborness, poor planning, and contempt the fault of Congress? Seems to me this bill would both provide funds so you're ready to attack the next defenseless country on false pretenses AND withdraw soldiers from Iraq so there's someone around to spend the money. You should be very upset with Bush for vetoing it.

Yeah, this is a political battle and its a bit of a letdown that the Dems are using the power of funds to isolate the President. To me, it seems like the best way would be to set strict benchmarks with a threat to repeal the AUMF, but I'm no war lawyer.

But there's only one person who's putting the military in a the middle of a civil war for what he hopes to be forever, and that's Bush.

Ludwig, I'm with you part of the way.

I don't support Bush. I voted for Kerry in '04, and I wish the guy had won.

I don't think this situation is putting even more stress on the situation in Iraq, however. The people in Iraq (and Afghanistan. Let's not forget Afghanistan.) will get the money they need to do their jobs, no matter what. This situation is putting stress on people in the Pentagon. It's those people who are seeing their long-term programs vanish; who are seeing strategic planning dollars drying up; who are seeing us mortgage our future in order to fill the gaps of the present.

Now, a number of folks have advanced the, "Hey, it's Bush's fault if he doesn't sign this bill. It does reflect the will of the people" argument. This strikes me as either sophistry or a lack of understanding of the American form of government. It's sophistry if they're advancing the argument because it's attempting to put the blame on the President if he does not abandon his principles. It's the same tactic the Republicans used in the '96 budget showdown and it was as disingenous then as it is now. It reflects a lack of understanding of the American form of government when it ignores the fact that, within limits, the President is not beholden to the will of the people once he takes office. In fact, he's expected to ignore popular opinion if that opinion runs counter to what he considers to be best for the country. Further, the President gets to run foreign policy unless he has so alienated the people that Congress can muster enough votes to (a) pass a bill dictating a given course of action and (b) override the inevitable veto.

What would my perfect bill look like? It would look like two bills. Bill #1 would provide the funding DoD needs. Bill #2 would lay out the foreign policy &/or military-strategic dictats the Majority has in mind. Bill #2 would serve much the same political purpose as the current bill, but for one thing: it wouldn't give the Democrats the ability to say, "Hey, it's Bush's fault for failing to fund the military." If that's the deal breaker, ask yourself why.

[QUOTE=FrankCobretti]Ludwig, I'm with you part of the way.

You haven't shown it to be sophistry, you've just declared it to be so. Personally I think you're just labeling it as such so you can dismiss it; you've done it before. You patted me on the head once and told me you 'understood I was a Canadian nationalist' rather than actually address anything I had said regarding the electoral college and representational government.

Basically, you're accusing me, since I put forth the above argument, of lying. No. It really makes no sense to blame Congress for passing a bill the president vetos unless you didn't want the bill to pass in the first place.

Nonsense. No one here is arguing that Bush should be forced to sign the bill, just that if he doesn't sign a bill into law, he's responsible for the fact the bill wasn't signed into law.

And that's what he's doing. If you disagree with him, then your disagreement is with him.

And that's what he's doing. Apparently military funding isn't as much of a priority as refusing to admit he's wrong.

You still haven't answered my question: is it the role of congress to codify the president's wishes into law and put them on his desk to sign?

You've got to be kidding me. The Democrats are unquestionably pulling a political maneuver here, but you seem to be suggesting that it's wrong to punish the president for "sticking to his principles" even if those principles are disastrously misguided.

And hey, you know what's disingenuous? Swallowing Bush's line about how if Congress can't stop him, it means it's the will of the people that he can do whatever he wants. Elections are just a tad complicated, Frank, and the fact that not enough dems got in to override the veto does not mean that America has given Bush another free ride.

Yeah, I don't necessarily agree with the Dems exact plan, but its completely incorrect to say there is no substance, just politics, to the strings attached to the funding.

There is a false assumption here that the president is sticking to his principles while the Democrats are pandering, as if there's no gray area.

If the president was serious about winning Iraq (whatever the fuck that means,) he simply would not be following the course of action he has been for the past 6 years. What kind of principles is it to occupy a country and chaperone a civil war, thereby preventing a political solution from taking place?

Also, the president believes in a reality of his own construction. How does a man who ignores reality have any principles worth defending? Much less be fit to lead? Condi Rice has flatly stated that the WH is opposed to any strings attached to the funding. In other words, they are steadfastly opposed to progress. This is the outrage far outweighing any qualms I have with Democrats.

I'm paraphrasing here, but what I said on the day after W's re-election (when I behaved as though I were off my meds) was that "these guys are full-of-shit, corrupt, and just fucking BAD for America, and fuck them and every/any one who voted for them."

I've softened a bit on some of the people who voted for them, but fuck this administration, their bullshit, and the horse they fucking rode in on. Unfortunately, we in America rightly believe Winston Churchill's sentiment that democracy is the worst form of government, aside from every other one, and hope that less assfucktardery will occur under the NEXT admin.

Wow, I don't know where that came from. It was like giving birth.

This is bad. Bush would sign #1 and veto #2 if it ever got that far, and you're effectively back to Congress-as-rubber-stamp.

I wonder: if the Democrats weren't playing silly buggers, and rejecting your idea because of the flaws I pointed out, what would a sincere, non-political attempt to convince Bush to end the occupation of Iraq look like? How can you tell this is just politics? It looks the real thing to me.