So what happens next week when Bush uses his veto powers again? - Page 2

If the Democrats really loved America, they'd invent a time machine and keep us from getting involved in the whole debacle in the first palce.

(my bad on spelling, my pregnant wife just ran into the room all nekkid)

From Princeton's WordNet 3.0: Sophism: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.

Let's say you really want a ZagNut Bar and I won't give you one. You steal one of my chickens and threaten to choke it unless I give you said ZagNut Bar. I refuse. You choke my chicken. When it dies, you say, "Hey, it's your fault. You didn't give me the ZagNut Bar!"

You wouldn't accept that kind of reasoning from a petulant child, and you shouldn't accept it from world-class politicians. (Note: the American public did not accept it from the Republicans in the '90s.) The Democrats created the crisis - to say its Bush's fault is disingenuous at best, and more accurately sophist.

Incorrect. I'm accusing you of being wrong, but I'm confident that you're acting (speaking? typing?) in good faith.

See the comic parable above.

As a matter of principle, I'm under no compulsion to answer your question, but here goes: It is not the role of Congress to codify the President's wishes. It is the role of Congress to pass bills to govern the country. Sometimes, those bills will be "show bills," like this one, and those are generally good politics. In this particular case, however, the Congress is doing real damage to important institutions as a side effect of this particular "show bill." Consequently, it's a bad bill.

It isn't wrong to punish the President. It's wrong to punish DoD.

America hasn't given Bush another free ride. In fact, it's reigned him in considerably. Nevertheless, he's still the President and our system is designed to give him significant power, regardless of his standing with Congress or in the polls.

Pop, I agree that there are always gray areas. If we allowed for them in detail, however, we'd all be writing doctoral dissertations. As a group of folks sitting around and BSing about politics, I think we can accept a little simplification.

I think the President is serious about winning the war in Iraq. I also think he doesn't have the faintest idea of how to do it. Witness the recent quest for a powerless "War Czar" who is supposed to get the various Departments on board for the Big Win. Could you imagine FDR appointing a War Czar? He'd have asked Churchill to club him with an empty gin bottle first.

It would look like a bill directing the President to withdraw all forces from Iraq by YYMMDD.

I don't care who ya are, this is funny (well, maybe not if your last name happens to be "Limbaugh" or "Coulter")

I think Bush has a lot of pressure on him to wage war as long as he possibly can. I sincerely doubt he bears any good will to most Americans, let alone Iraqis, and that he would much rather fill the pockets of big business than save a few hundred American lives and a few thousand Iraqi ones.

However, I do believe that Bush truly thinks what is good for the richest .1% of America is good for the average American. He sees a prolonged war effort as a boon to the economy, both in terms of acquiring oil reserves and in terms of creating jobs within the military-industrial complex.

I think Bush has been bred to become a borderline sociopath who doesn't consider the impact his actions have on non-Americans and non-Christians. That's morally rehebrihensible if you're running a baseball team, but it's catastrophic if you're in charge of the world.

Right. That's the first definition Google turned up for me as well. Hence my identifying you as accusing me of lying. Next, look up poisoning the well.

What's a ZagNut bar?

The problem with your analogy is that it's not your chicken. It's my chicken, and you want it. You can only have the chicken if you give me this ZagNut thing. You didn't pony up the candy (I assume. Could be part of a Lada's suspension for all I know), so no chicken for you. I offered it, but you didn't accept. If you're chicken-free, it's your fault.

Here's a better analogy. Mom says you can go out. Dad says you can't. Dad's is the last word. You're blaming Mom for not letting you go out. You're wrong to do so. It's not Mom's fault Dad's being a jerk.

It's really no more complicated than that.


Well,thanks. I am. But make up your mind. Are you accusing me of offering a deliberately invalid argument or not?

Glad to hear it. So why are you upset with Congress for not doing so?

I reject the notion of this being a show bill. It's a bill with something to actually motivate George Bush to sign it. Your suggestion has no such thing. Bush would never, ever sign a bill such as you suggest. He would sign the funding bill and reject the withdrawl bill, and you have for all practical purposes the same sycophantic congress you had last time. As I said, that's bad.

And it's Bush who's responsible for whatever damage not passing this bill into law will do; he's the one refusing to sign it.

If you want an analogy for two bills as you suggest, it's this: If Congress throws Bush the idol, Bush will throw Congress the whip. Fat chance.

If damage to the Department of Defense is your concern, then you should be either jumping up and down for Bush to sign it or cursing him for not. Passing the bill into law would fund the withdrawl and result in a situation in which you're not pouring blood and treasure down the drain trying to make a silk purse of of the sow's ear that is the occupation of Iraq. The DoD will suffer more now that this law is not in place. By rights, if the DoD's condition is your prime concern, you should favour this bill.

I can't wrap my head around your point of view. Bush is the last Go/NoGo point. If the bill didn't make it past his desk, it's his fault. I suppose one can argue that Congress ought to cater to him, but you said you didn't believe that's their job. Yet your are still upset with Congress for not doing exactly that. It makes no sense to me.

...wait, I thought it was Frank's chicken...?

Please, won't somebody think of the chickens!

Anyway, Frank, as Seabass implied, your ideas of "political" and "principled" bills seem to be reversed. Assuming for the sake of argument that Congress wants a withdrawal on principle, how could they approach it any differently? Isn't this the only leverage they have? Wouldn't a standalone withdrawal bill be even more of a "show bill" because Bush has no incentive to sign one?

"Well, we tried. Vote for us in 2008, the party technically on record for supporting withdrawal!"

I don't buy it. I think the war czar help wanted ad was a domestic political move to place a target away from the WH. Also, there have been plenty of smart people who have put in their 2 cents on where to proceed in Iraq and Bush has ignored all of them. From the let's send half a million troops guy to the let's partition the country guy. Even the spin coming from them in the wake of his veto is strictly political.

And if by their actions the Democrats end the war or stimulate a political change on the ground in Iraq, doesn't that count for something?

I've sat on the sidelines here watching this unfold.

As an immigrant I feel ill-qualified to weigh in here. I should also - in the interests of full disclosure - reveal GWB and his administration has been one of the worst things to hit the USA that I remember.

But I have to agree with Frank. This is the ultimate pork bill. You can have your money but only if you accede to our demands; which we will put in knowing fully that you will veto them.

Many people here argue that GWB bears the responsibility for this if the funding goes away. I think you're letting your - correct - position on the war influence your view of the process. Let's suppose that a rider had been added that specified, for example, that GWB had to fire Cheney (I'm struggling to think of a ridiculous rider here and failing).
GWB vetos, because it isn't Congress' role to mandate the VP - is he still responsible for the failure of the bill?

It strikes me that the Constitution is a clever document in how it mandates a 2/3 majority for veto override - checks and balances only work when you have people checking and balancing. Sometimes that works for you, sometimes against.

This bill may have sincerely held beliefs about exiting Iraq - but anyone that thinks that the Dems didn't craft it and send it the way that they did to get as much political grandstanding as possible is naive.

How should they have done it? I don't know that there is a perfect mechanism to do it. Wait until sufficient people have voted their way that they can have a veto over-ride - that way they can truly say that they speak for the Amercican people. Because at the momentg, they're reaching with that claim.

Okay, I'll ask you as well. If it wasn't grandstanding, what would it look like?

There isn't enough Lagavulin in the world to get me drunk enough to choke Frank's chicken.

Bribes of sawdust-colored chocolate bars won't do it. Maybe a season ticket for Nicole Kidman's pants (backstage pass included), but nothing else.

The President vetoed our troops and the American people. His stubborn commitment to a failed strategy in Iraq is incomprehensible. He committed our great military to a failed strategy in violation of basic principles of war. His failure to mobilize the nation to defeat world wide Islamic extremism is tragic. We deserve more from our commander-in-chief and his administration.
--Maj. Gen. John Batiste, USA, Ret.

This administration and the previously Republican controlled legislature have been the most caustic agents against America's Armed Forces in memory. Less than a year ago, the Republicans imposed great hardship on the Army and Marine Corps by their failure to pass a necessary funding language. This time, the President of the United States is holding our Soldiers hostage to his ego. More than ever apparent, only the Army and the Marine Corps are at war - alone, without their President's support.
--Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, USA, Ret.
From here.

More from Eaton here:

Dear Mr. President,

Today, in your veto message regarding the bipartisan legislation just passed on Operation Iraqi Freedom, you asserted that you so decided because you listen to your commanders on the ground.

Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear -- most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril.

[...]

As someone who served this nation for decades, I have the utmost respect for the office you hold. However, as a man of conscience, I could not sit idly by as you told the American people today that your veto was based on the recommendations of military men. Your administration ignored the advice of our military's finest minds before, and I see no evidence that you are listening to them now.

I urge you to reconsider your position, and work with Congress to pass a bill that achieves the goals laid out above.

Respectfully,

Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired

Who's punishing the DoD? Congress is willing to fund them if Bush adheres to certain conditions. Just like, y'know, every responsible funding bill in the history of the US. You're saying that if Congress doesn't write Bush a blank check, and he takes it out on the military, that it's Congresses' fault. Even though he's HAD a blank check for five years or more and has completely and utterly blown it. Now, they're starting to put some very minor conditions--"checks" and "balances", as it were--on what Bush does, and he's digging in his heels and saying "NO!" And you're defending that behaviour.

He had his shot, Frank. More than most leaders ever get. He screwed up, and screwed up, and screwed up some more. He doesn't get to keep screwing up. That's what democracy is about. If he vetoes this bill, and the military suffers, it's absolutely his fault, no one else's.

Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable.

Oh, COME ON, Dems. You've got the Senate. You've got the house. Hold this fucking guy responsible for once. ONCE.

What a bunch of fucking pussies.

From Daily Kos:

The article says that the Democrats have apparently offered to remove the timetable, not that a final agreement had been reached already. The headline was misleading in that respect. It should have read: Democrats Offer to Back Down on Iraq Timetable.

The Democrats don't have enough votes to override the veto and not enough members willing to cut off funding for troops in harm's way. The funding bill will likely be resubmitted without a timetable. Right now, it's probably just a matter of seeing if the Dems can get any concessions out of Bush in exchange for dropping the timetable.

Now, we're in the horse-trading phase. The Democrats made their point and made their hay, and now it's time to get down to business.

That, of course, is business as usual and it's how the system works. Problem is, other pieces of DoD have already been sacrificed to free up money, and it'll take years to undo the damage caused by this particular horse trade.

Some pieces of the organization are too important to be used as bargaining chips. If only they'd play with Lagavullin-dipped ZagNut bars, instead.

President Commander Guy doesn't seem to think so. He's willing to starve it of funds if it means he gets to have his way.

This is starting to feel like one of these "world view" conversations. I can't make my argument any more clear, and you've stated yours with equal clarity. We just plain don't buy one another's arguments, which tells me that our world views make it impossible to assimilate our adversaries' positions.

Now, if only I get could you to change your world view.

Okay.

As for what's next, revoke the AUMF, as it no longer applies. The UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq that were relevant at the time the AUMF was granted aren't relevant today. I'd also argue that since Iraq posed no threat, the AUMF is invalid in that respect as well.

(1) doesn't exist, any threat that Iraq posed when the AUMF is long gone. Since all George Bush is doing now is aggravating the problem, the best way to defend yourself from enemies created since the AUMF was signed is to stop digging.

As far as (2) goes, Bush did that. Rather poorly, but did it nonetheless. The war's over. You won. Congratulations. Rip up the AUMF and, if Bush refuses to comply, charge him with a crime. I imagine somewhere in the US legal books there's mention of unauthorized use of military force and the penalty it carries. Either that, or laws against defying Congress in general.

Unless it never occured to the legal minds of the past 230 years or so that the US electorate would elect as big a cad as George W. Bush.

Twice.

Imagine that.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17174821.htm

I thought Seabass asked you some very valid questions:

Congress can pass a bill, but it doesn't become law until the President signs it. If the President vetoes it, it can become law only if Congress overrides the veto, which requires a 2/3 majority vote. So unless Congress can muster a 2/3 vote, the President is well within his rights to tell it to blow off.

Ok.

#1: Whether I favor the intent of the bill or not is beside the point. The point is that DoD should not be used as a bargaining chip.

#2: This is the line that made me realize we were in a world view standoff. Seabass can't wrap his head around the fact that I don't blame the President for the funding loss, and I can't wrap my head around the fact that he doesn't blame Congress. We've each made our arguments, and neither of us is buying the other's. We could go on, but we'd wind up repeating the same arguments ad infitum, to no one's enlightenment or amusement.

I understand that, but does it apply to the AUMF? The president needs permission from congress to wage war, which was why the AUMF exists in the first place; all that War Powers Act stuff plays into it at some point, I'm sure. How can the president veto Congress's decision to revoke that authorization? That renders the whole idea of needing Congress' blessing in the first place null and void.

Anyway, what I had in mind was Bush defying Congress' abolishment of the AUMF, presuming that occurs; what if Bush just decides he's still The Decider?

You could accuse me of hating freedom or loving Saddam or something. That always gets a laugh, and sadly it's still in vogue if you know where to look.

You know what? I haven't been called on to say this, but I'm going to say it. I have met Cobretti. He's a smart guy, and he does not run his mouth needlessly. You have the right to disagree if you'd like. However, as part of this board, you have the duty to do it with a modicum of intelligence. So, as someone who has a dramatically different political viewpoint than Cobretti, let me say this: You lack the education to speak about war crimes and treason. Everything you typed proves you to be ignorant. George W. Bush a fascist? Get a fucking grip. He's incompetent, and clearly so at that. But, to call him fascist is to demean the term (a monstrous injustice in itself) and to make yourself look like a fool. Furthering the "you're a fool" conclusion is your asinine dismissal of one of the more thoughtful, worthwhile posters on the board. Please either stop wasting our time with your ridiculous bragadoccio or reform and learn what it means to make substantive points that contribute to substantial debate.

Cobretti might be a bit of a philistine for even considering dipping chocolate in fine scotch whisky, but he's not a fool. He just holds the military in particularly high regard in this matter.

Thank you, gentlemen. I'm honored.

Seabass, here's my understanding: the AUMF became a law when the President signed it. Congress can only revoke the AUMF through passing a new bill to supercede it, which the President would then have to sign in order for *it* to become law. In other words, the system is designed such that, unless Congress can muster a 2/3 majority, the President can basically tell it to kiss his ass.

I invite anyone with a solid memory of (a) high school civics or (b) constitutional law to correct me.

That's how thing usually work, but I wonder if it applies to this situation. I'm not a lawyer, and I imagine one could write books about separation of powers so I doubt we'll come to any grand conclusions here, but a look at the War Powers Act reveals:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50...4----000-.html

There's no formal declaration of war, and the AUMF involves a non threat posed by a government that no longer exists, so I'd say this applies. So what does 'Congress so directs by concurrent resolution' mean? I read it as meaning the President answers to Congress in this and that's that. If Congress passes the resolution rendering the AUMF null and void, the jig is up. Bush has to present another bill to Congress seeking authorization to keep the military in Iraq.

Wikipedia's entry on the War Powers Act mentions that Cheney feels this Act is an "infringement on the authority of the president," even though the Act explicitly states that it does not supersede Constitutional authority. That tells me that Cheney agrees with me, if only grudgingly. I could be wrong.

Anyway, regardless of whether a 2/3rds majority is required or not, that's what I think should happen next: repeal the AUMF. I see that Congress is considering doing just that.

They might as well. It's the only thing that would work at this point. I'm not entirely sure why they didn't just do that in the first place.

I'd guess because they didn't want lead out with the strategy that is most easily identifiable as "Cut and Run". Now they can at least claim that they were forced into such drastic action by Bush's refusal to do accept any of their other proposals. And they'll be right, for whatever good that will actually do them in the media/public eye.

You're right, but I have never been a fan of all this ridiculous political pandering. Plus, I just want them to get some shit done for once, and quickly.

Politicians pursue their aims by engaging in politics. 'It's a political maneuver' is about the stupidest fucking argument on the planet. They are ALL political maneuvers. Would you prefer a military maneuver of some sort? A revolutionary maneuver? Considering the extent that the Bush administration has politicized all three branches of government, even where it is grossly inappropriate, calling out the Dems for a political move in Congress is shit.

The problem with Iraq stems directly from refusing to set benchmarks and timetables. How exactly will we know when Iraq is 'secure'? How will the military determine when their mission is accomplished and it's time to leave? Who is going to make that determination: the Iraqi government? The military? George Bush? My money is squarely on the latter, because anyone in the military who has voiced an opinion contrary to the administration line has been replaced. That's not listening to your commanders. That's not good strategy. That's why Iraq is a clusterfuck.

Resubmit the bill, with a few changes: create hard benchmarks (not timetables) that must be accomplished before withdrawal. Deal with when they need to be finished by later. And tie all funding for the war in Iraq to repealing oil subsidies and capital gains tax cuts. Grow a fuckin pair.

Was this directed at me? I was just explaining why I don't like politics, and how I wished politicians didn't do things they way they do. Ok, so it's a stupid thing to say, but it doesn't mean it's not something I want.

Not necessarily directed at anybody, but the fundamental argument I'm addressing there is awfully weak. It's just something I hear all the time . . . 'they're playing politics with this issue!' When talking about an inherently political issue, this claim enrages me. It's one thing to politicize a non-political issue (like, say, marriage, or science), but when you're talking about national policy . . . what else, exactly, are politicians supposed to do?

Ok, this will be fun.

Fascism is placing the needs of the state over the needs of individuals or other social groups. Believing that he is above the law would make him the opposite of a fascist. In your defense (not that you would be able to mount one) he is somewhat nationalistic and has eroded some personal liberties, which is typical of fascism, but he falls far short of anything that would typically be identified as a fascist system.

"The removal of and sanctioning of tourture is a WAR CRIME" is barely a sentence. Assuming you meant that the removal of restrictions against torture and sanctioning torture amounts to a war crime, you're being conclusory. He may be guilty of a war crime, but he is still innocent until proven guilty. Incidentally, if you want to sound like you have a clue in the future, the most serious war crime of all is starting a war of aggression. Not that the Iraq war necessarily was, but you might as well come out with the heavy ammunition if you're going to be reciting bumper stickers rather than engaging in debate.

You say he's a war profiteer like that is objectively bad (or some kind of crime). You're wrong (again). Millions of people in this country have profited from the war in a limited sense. If Bush has failed to divest himself of any interest he may have had in Halliburton or Carlyle, then there is an ethical question worth considering, since he would have an incentive to favor his interests. The real question is what the remedy for something like this is, since the president's ethical obligations are poorly mapped out, so far as I know. I think the real issue might be the fact that there's no real remedy possible for any ethical violations like this in office, particularly in light of the lack of evidence available.

Bush trying to systematically dismantle the constitution is asinine. I think that what's been done to habeas corpus is one of the worst things to happen to our constitutional jurisprudence in the history of the country. But, Bush relies on the Constitution as much as he harms it. The foundation for all of his authority IS the Constitution. You're just bitching because he's attacking the parts of the Constitution that you like, and bolstering the parts you don't. That's just how the game is played anymore, and the pendulum will swing the other way in time.

He represents the people too. But, as any 8th grader knows, the point of the government is not purely to serve the will of the people. The fundamental problem here is that BOTH sides of the debate think they're doing what's best. I certainly don't think he's doing what's best for the country, but I also don't think he's sitting around twirling his mustache and cackling.

I couldn't agree more.

So basically this piece of political theater wasn't too good for the DoD. Let's just add it to the list of things to fix.

And even though the anti-war left was the a large reason why this bill was pushed, it doesn't really aid the cause of the right these days. At least Obama's talking about repairing the military (however he may mean it) after he becomes president in addition to withdrawing from Iraq.

So uh...TV Dinner...what do you think of Loose Change?

Did you really just call him "boy?" That's pretty funny.

It seems clear that your grasp of argument, the Constitution, and irony is up there with your grasp of English.

No, it's that all your points are really SO bad that they're not worth refuting. Seriously. In fact, they're not really points, they're baseless allegations. But, keep going.

Best part: Your inability to recognize a double negative.