Veto

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

MSNBC: President Bush used his veto pen for only the second time Tuesday after Congress sent him a war spending bill that would impose timelines to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18412464/

I posted the CNN Bulletin in another thread, but this has an article link - just to be objective.

 

[forestal]

Wow! Bush is keeping the troops from getting the money they need to fight terrorism.

mission accomplished day

3300 troops have died in Iraq, 3200 since Mission Accomplished day...

<img src="http://www.bartcop.com/miss-acc-i-lied-2007.jpg"/>

People arrested since the launch of Baghdad security plan in mid-February: 3000

People detained in Iraqi and U.S. prisons, many without charge or trial: 37,000

Among the 2 million Iraqis who have fled the country: 12,000 doctors

Percentage of Iraqis who live on less than a U.S. dollar a day: 54%

Unemployment rate: 69%

Mission Misery Accomplished.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Wow! Bush is keeping the troops from getting the money they need to fight terrorism.

mission accomplished day

3300 troops have died in Iraq, 3200 since Mission Accomplished day...

<img src="http://www.bartcop.com/miss-acc-i-lied-2007.jpg"/>

People arrested since the launch of Baghdad security plan in mid-February: 3000

People detained in Iraqi and U.S. prisons, many without charge or trial: 37,000

Among the 2 million Iraqis who have fled the country: 12,000 doctors

Percentage of Iraqis who live on less than a U.S. dollar a day: 54%

Unemployment rate: 69%

Mission Misery Accomplished.

Sorry you're wrong. the Democrats think the military is something they can use as leverage. They are responsible for it. The Democrats hate the military, Bush wants to see the military get what it needs.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Wow! Bush is keeping the troops from getting the money they need to fight terrorism.

mission accomplished day

3300 troops have died in Iraq, 3200 since Mission Accomplished day...

<img src="http://www.bartcop.com/miss-acc-i-lied-2007.jpg"/>

People arrested since the launch of Baghdad security plan in mid-February: 3000

People detained in Iraqi and U.S. prisons, many without charge or trial: 37,000

Among the 2 million Iraqis who have fled the country: 12,000 doctors

Percentage of Iraqis who live on less than a U.S. dollar a day: 54%

Unemployment rate: 69%

Mission Misery Accomplished.

Who says we have to charge them?

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Wow! Bush is keeping the troops from getting the money they need to fight terrorism.

mission accomplished day

3300 troops have died in Iraq, 3200 since Mission Accomplished day...

People arrested since the launch of Baghdad security plan in mid-February: 3000

People detained in Iraqi and U.S. prisons, many without charge or trial: 37,000

Among the 2 million Iraqis who have fled the country: 12,000 doctors

Percentage of Iraqis who live on less than a U.S. dollar a day: 54%

Unemployment rate: 69%

Mission Misery Accomplished.

Did you come up with those numbers and that picture all by yourself?

I'm impressed.

 

[PsyOps]

Wow! Bush is keeping the troops from getting the money they need to fight terrorism.

Actually you could look at this way (but I know you wont). The democrats put a bill before Bush they knew he would veto. So you could say it's the democrats, through this political statement, that are denying troops the money they need.

In all actuality the democrats want to pull out now, which means they don't really want to fund it.

 

[aps45819]

In all actuality the democrats want to pull out now, which means they don't really want to fund it.

I think they're ONLY interested in appeasing the vocal elements of their support base. They have no plans or agenda other than getting re-elected and stealing as much money as they can while in office.

 

[Coventry17]

This problem could have been solved with the line item veto that Clinton proposed in '96 and was killed by the Republicans in '98. I disagree with the Dems putting their pork barrel spending agendas in this bill, because I think Bush would have vetoed the bill regardless. The whole point of sending the timeline to the White House was purely political; it was intended to tie the Republicans, and this administration, to the failed effort in Iraq. However, by placing a lot of extraneous junk in the bill, the President has been given a built in excuse to veto. I have no problem with a timeline for getting our troops out. Bush has had plenty of time for success, but has dropped the ball on every critical decision. I don't blame him per se; he has given too much credence to people who were in WAY over their heads from the start (i.e. Rumsfeld, Tenet).

 

[PsyOps]

This problem could have been solved with the line item veto that Clinton proposed in '96 and was killed by the Republicans in '98. I disagree with the Dems putting their pork barrel spending agendas in this bill, because I think Bush would have vetoed the bill regardless. The whole point of sending the timeline to the White House was purely political; it was intended to tie the Republicans, and this administration, to the failed effort in Iraq. However, by placing a lot of extraneous junk in the bill, the President has been given a built in excuse to veto. I have no problem with a timeline for getting our troops out. Bush has had plenty of time for success, but has dropped the ball on every critical decision. I don't blame him per se; he has given too much credence to people who were in WAY over their heads from the start (i.e. Rumsfeld, Tenet).

In other words, let’s announce to the enemy when they can take over the country.

Define "plenty of time for success"? Is this in terms of fighting a battle on the battlefield or more in terms of a Cold War scenario? I mean we were in a cold war with the USSR for decades and still remain in that region. Is your take simply defined by the premise of the violence on the ground or actual success or failure? If it’s success or failure then we should have backed out of Germany back in 1950. If it’s violence then you have succumbed to the same mentality as the left: We can’t win wars that are violent and kill people. Sounds pretty ridiculous don’t you think?

 

[Mikeinsmd]

I have no problem with a timeline for getting our troops out. Bush has had plenty of time for success, but has dropped the ball on every critical decision. I don't blame him per se; he has given too much credence to people who were in WAY over their heads from the start (i.e. Rumsfeld, Tenet).

Look, we agree on something!!

The timeline should be kept secret though. Behind the scenes discussions with Iraqi leadership forcing them to take control of their country.

 

[aps45819]

The timeline should be kept secret though. Behind the scenes discussions with Iraqi leadership forcing them to take control of their country.

So you're assuming there currently is no timeline.

 

[Pushrod]

Look, we agree on something!!

The timeline should be kept secret though. Behind the scenes discussions with Iraqi leadership forcing them to take control of their country.

Exactly Mike! I agree with you 100% on this. Let the Iraqi leadership know that they have one year (or some such time line) to get their military in shape to begin taking over the operations that we currently conduct.

We'll supply them with armament they need (for a fee of course) and begin reducing our force levels as they increase theirs. If they are not prepared as agreed by the deadline, tough, we still start reducing forces. But this would all have to be kept secret from the public (press) for it to work without giving hope to the enemy and having them press harder than ever.

I think that a slow reduction in US forces and a handover to Iraqi forces cannot be seen as losing this war, but as a win as we turn it over to the nationals who should have the appropriate force levels and training by the time proposed.

I know there is probably all kinds of problems with this idea, but it is better than an absolute deadline with a complete pullout that gives our enemies the idea that they 'beat' us and the confidence to go against us anywhere, maybe even on our home turf.

 

[2ndAmendment]

The Democrats in Congress are trying their hardest to give the U.S. another Vietnam. The reputation of the United States is at stake. Foreign diplomacy is all about perception; are you strong or weak; do you have the will power to carry through or will you buckle.

Korea should have been won. If it had been, Vietnam may not have happened. Vietnam could have and should have been won. If it had been won, the invasion of Kuwait may not have happened. If the first Gulf War had been fought to a conclusion, they second Gulf War would not have been necessary.

Each failure of our resolve brings on the next test of our resolve. The enemies, current and future, of the U.S. are watching. What they see with the Democrats in charge is a paper tiger with nothing to fear; if they stay the course, we will capitulate. Historically with a Democratically controlled Congress, it is what the U.S. does. Why shouldn't they keep going and wait for the U.S. to essentially surrender?

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

I agree with...

Mike. I think the surge is having a good impact, but we can't win this war if the Iraqis won't step up. We're doing more than our part with the assumption that they're going to do they're part. Instead, they're taking a two month vacation and refusin to do anything. They know, that as long as Mr. Bush is president, we're going to stay until the job is finished, so they have no problem taking their time - waiting a few more months. There's no timeline for them to do anything so they're just taking advantage.

Mr. Bush has the wrong idea when he says no timetable for withdrawl. He should tell the Iraqis that they need to meet these committments or at least prove they're making a serious and effective attempt to by these dates (and make them reasonable).

Both sides are pushing too hard on their beliefs. Bush is pushing "stay the course" way too hard, and the Democrats are way too committed to cut and run.

The Iraqis aren't doing their part, and Mr. Bush hasn't pressured them to do so. If we hold elections now, as divided as Iraq is now, al-Sadr will take control - and Democracy is gone. More and more, the political aspect looks like a lose-lose for U.S.

We're doing what we can, but the Iraqis aren't. Bottom line.

 

[PsyOps]

The timeline should be kept secret though. Behind the scenes discussions with Iraqi leadership forcing them to take control of their country.

Now that you mention it, there is a timeline, and Bush even said it a while back. When we win. You ask how do we define victory here? Well, let's see...

Did we win the Cold War?

Yes!

Are we still in Europe?

Yes!

Why?

 

[Makavide]

This problem could have been solved with the line item veto that Clinton proposed in '96 and was killed by the Republicans in '98.

If I remember correctly, it was a republican controlled congress that gave a democrat (Bill Clinton) the line item veto. I know he used it a number of times till some body sued over it's constitutionality. The Supreme Court ended up ruling it un-constitutional in 98

 

[ylexot]

If I remember correctly, it was a republican controlled congress that gave a democrat (Bill Clinton) the line item veto. I know he used it a number of times till some body sued over it's constitutionality. The Supreme Court ended up ruling it un-constitutional in 98

You are correct and Coventry is wrong (yet again).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_item_veto

The President of the United States was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control "pork barrel spending" that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget[2] [3] by President Bill Clinton.

However, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998, that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998, by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.

A constitutional amendment to give the President line item veto power has been considered periodically since the Court ruled the 1996 Act unconstitutional.

 

[forestal]

Usually Bush is lying, so when he says he's going to do something, it's a good bet that he won't. So, good strategy to make him look like he wants to keep the troops dodging IED's forever. Come the Fall the Republicans will jump the SS Bush and come over to the side of enlightenment of the Democrats, because unlike Bush, they are running for re-election (and have a brain).

Actually you could look at this way (but I know you wont). The democrats put a bill before Bush they knew he would veto. So you could say it's the democrats, through this political statement, that are denying troops the money they need.

In all actuality the democrats want to pull out now, which means they don't really want to fund it.

 

[forestal]

Or Bush could have issued another one of his many signing statements, which are tantamount to a line item veto (but illegal), and ignored the time limit set by Democrats. He fell in to their trap, and looks like a bloodthirsty baboon who wants to keep our troops dying for nothing.

This problem could have been solved with the line item veto that Clinton proposed in '96 and was killed by the Republicans in '98. I disagree with the Dems putting their pork barrel spending agendas in this bill, because I think Bush would have vetoed the bill regardless. The whole point of sending the timeline to the White House was purely political; it was intended to tie the Republicans, and this administration, to the failed effort in Iraq. However, by placing a lot of extraneous junk in the bill, the President has been given a built in excuse to veto. I have no problem with a timeline for getting our troops out. Bush has had plenty of time for success, but has dropped the ball on every critical decision. I don't blame him per se; he has given too much credence to people who were in WAY over their heads from the start (i.e. Rumsfeld, Tenet).

 

[forestal]

Come on, they KNOW we aren't going to be there forever. They also have the conviction of a religious zealot defending his country and religion against the satan spawn. So who do you think has the stronger resolve to impose their will on the other?

I'll give you a clue, it ain't us.

In other words, let’s announce to the enemy when they can take over the country.

Define "plenty of time for success"? Is this in terms of fighting a battle on the battlefield or more in terms of a Cold War scenario? I mean we were in a cold war with the USSR for decades and still remain in that region. Is your take simply defined by the premise of the violence on the ground or actual success or failure? If it’s success or failure then we should have backed out of Germany back in 1950. If it’s violence then you have succumbed to the same mentality as the left: We can’t win wars that are violent and kill people. Sounds pretty ridiculous don’t you think?