Bushs' Folly

medicineman

New Member
What Happens After Bush Vetoes the Iraq Spending Bill?
By Erik Leaver, AlterNet. Posted April 26, 2007.


The American public backs a phased withdrawal, like the Democrats are proposing, but Bush isn't buying it.
The showdown over Iraq that's been brewing since the November elections will finally come to a head this week as Congress sends a war-spending bill to President Bush. Though the bill authorizes $100 billion for the war, Bush has rejected its October deadline for beginning the withdrawal of combat troops, with the goal of bringing combat troops home by April 2008, and has promised to use his veto -- his second-ever use of this power -- to kill it.
On Jan. 13, during his weekly radio address, Bush challenged those who disagreed with him to offer their own plan for Iraq. Led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Congress met Bush's challenge to come up with an alternative policy.
But instead of seeking the dialogue he asked for in his own radio address, Bush and the Republicans went on the attack, calling the bill "defeatist" and "a cut and run" strategy. The truth is that the measure offers a change of course, not a 180-degree reversal. If Bush and Republicans can't agree to a plan as moderate as the one passed this week, then they really do want a war with no end.
The legislation sets a date to start rolling back Bush's escalation of 30,000 troops and calls for bringing home the rest of the combat troops. Instead of leaving the void that many of the war's bitter-enders predict, the bill would reposition roughly 20,000 to 60,000 troops for counterterrorism missions, protecting diplomats and training Iraqi troops. Finally, the measure sets benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet in order to continue receiving U.S. financial assistance.
These proposals mirror much of what was contained in the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report released last November. They are also endorsed by prominent members of the military. Writing in support of the bill this week along with five other flag officers, Maj. Gen. Mel Montano, USANG, Ret. noted, "Supporting the Iraq Supplemental Bill not only reflects the thinking of the Iraq Study Group but puts teeth to the phrase 'supporting the troops.'"
The American public also backs the proposal. A mid-April CBS poll found that 57 percent of the public thinks that the "United States should set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008."
But if Bush follows through with his threatened veto, the next steps for Congress are unclear. At this time, the leadership doesn't have the votes to override the veto; they would come up 17 votes short in the Senate and would fail by more than 70 votes in the House. Yet, congressional Democrats are reluctant to sign another blank check for the war.
One alternative floated by Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., would be to fund the war for just two or three months. Another option would be to pass similar withdrawal language with other "must pass" bills, including the defense authorization, defense appropriations and the other Iraq spending bill for the 2008 fiscal year. But unless the dynamics change between Bush and Congress, we'll just see a repeat of this same game over and over again.
Grassroots groups and coalitions, such as CodePink, United for Peace and Justice, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq and MoveOn.org, are using all of these votes to put the pressure on members in Washington and at home. In Murtha's scenario, each vote gives them the chance to organize against those opposed to bringing the troops home.
The downside of that process is that it exacerbates one of the major hurdles to changing the course -- the fact that the focus on politics has caused the effects of the policy to be overlooked and led many Republicans to circle the wagons.
The reality is that the ongoing escalation causes massive bloodshed every day in Iraq. The construction of a walled city in Baghdad is meeting with considerable resistance among locals. Daily attacks are rising -- on Monday, nine U.S. soldiers and at least 60 Iraqis lost their lives. Bush's policies in Iraq have led to the kind of human tragedy that the nation saw in the shootings at Virginia Tech, except multiplied by three every single day.
Yet, Bush still is seeking a military "victory." He has actively been seeking a "war czar" to coordinate the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Washington Post reported that at least three four-star generals have turned down the job. In the same article, Carlos Pascual, former State Department coordinator of Iraq reconstruction, noted that, by looking for a czar, the president was once again headed in the wrong direction. "An individual can't fix a failed policy," he said.
After Bush's veto, progressives in Congress need to remind their colleagues of the failed policies and push for stronger legislation. If the president is unwilling to take the moderate compromise on the table now, it is clear that more drastic measures will be needed. As each vote on the war happens, those opposed to the occupation of Iraq need to push for a full withdrawal of troops, closing the permanent bases, setting aside funds for reconstruction, and a commitment to real regional diplomacy.
That's a strategy that can keep Democrats united by moving them slowly towards the correct policy of a full and total withdrawal from Iraq, while driving a wedge between the White House and congressional Republicans, who by mid-summer won't be able to deny that the White House's latest policy tweak has failed.

 

ViRedd

New Member
"But if Bush follows through with his threatened veto, the next steps for Congress are unclear."

Its not "unclear" at all. WHEN, not IF, Bush vetos the bill, the democrat held congress will have to remove all the pork the original bill was ladened with and remove the time-dates for troop withdrawl. After that, Bush will approve the bill. Pretty simple, no?

Vi
 

7xstall

Well-Known Member
trying to get a washington dem to cut to the chase and be productive is about like taking a lead balloon to a birthday party.




.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Yes, ...

The ploy of the democrat party is pretty clear: Submit a bill that, if approved, will set a time date for defeat, while at the same time, load it down with tons of pork. Then, when the President vetos it, the democrat party can say: "Well, you see, we voted to fund the troops, but the President refused the money."

The democrat party is nothing more than a power hungry mass of traitors, communists, ultra-left liberals, nincompoops, drunks, unethical trial lawyers, gigolos and blinking idiots. Is it any wonder they kicked Joe Lieberman out of the party? Is it any wonder he's happy to be out of it?


Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
Yes, ...

The ploy of the democrat party is pretty clear: Submit a bill that, if approved, will set a time date for defeat, while at the same time, load it down with tons of pork. Then, when the President vetos it, the democrat party can say: "Well, you see, we voted to fund the troops, but the President refused the money."

The democrat party is nothing more than a power hungry mass of traitors, communists, ultra-left liberals, nincompoops, drunks, unethical trial lawyers, gigolos and blinking idiots. Is it any wonder they kicked Joe Lieberman out of the party? Is it any wonder he's happy to be out of it?


Vi
See item #9. Dissent=traitors well on the way towards dictatorship! Even a blind mouse can see a little. Name calling is a last resort, isn't that what you used to scold me on?
 

ViRedd

New Member
OK, forgeting the traitor part, can I assume then that you are agreeing with the rest: communists, ultra-left liberals, nincompoops, drunks, unethical trial lawyers, gigolos and blinking idiots.

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
OK, forgeting the traitor part, can I assume then that you are agreeing with the rest: communists, ultra-left liberals, nincompoops, drunks, unethical trial lawyers, gigolos and blinking idiots.

Vi
What I'm agreeing with is that you must revert to name calling because you are a retard!
 

ViRedd

New Member
So there you go again with the "retard" word. Now you know that its not politically correct to disparage those with limited mental capacity. What kind of leftist are ya anyway? For shame!

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
So there you go again with the "retard" word. Now you know that its not politically correct to disparage those with limited mental capacity. What kind of leftist are ya anyway? For shame!

Vi
Glad to see you finally accepting your disability, I'll try and be kinder to you as you have such limited intellect.
 

ViRedd

New Member
I thought you were leaving the site for good, Med. What happened that caused you to return? You must be into self abuse. *lol*

Now then, instead of avoiding the issue, I'd like to see your response to this: The ploy of the democrat party is pretty clear: Submit a bill that, if approved, will set a time date for defeat, while at the same time, load it down with tons of pork. Then, when the President vetos it, the democrat party can say: "Well, you see, we voted to fund the troops, but the President refused the money."



Vi
 

ViRedd

New Member
Good question. I'd say that we have already won the "war." Saddam is dead and no longer in power defying international sanctions. Saddam's sons are dead, no longer torturing and raping young Iraqi girls and women. Afganis and Iraqis now have the right to vote. The only thing left is for the tribes to forget who killed who's cousin in the year 1450 and let bygones be bygones. Oh, and closing the border between Iran and Iraq has to be done too so the endless fomenting of violence will stop.

The war against the old guard in Iraq is won. On a world-wide bases, al Queda is another story.

Vi
 

Garden Knowm

The Love Doctor
Does there become a point when you defend BUSH so vehemtley that it is impossible to face yourself in the mirror... Is there a point whne you can't turn back...

NO. there is no such point....

I am trying to imagine what it is like to have an identity that is 99% based on DEFENDING GW.... its like living the ultimate lie.. its like walking around with a giant DUMP in your pants .. but you wont clean it out... CAUSE YOU "didn't do it"... LOL.. um.. that's called denial..


the shit in your pants.. um yeah.. that's your mess... go ahead.. I'll turn my back.. while you clean up...

Let me help you, help yourself VI... drop the bush thing... bow to mecca and beg for forgiveness... you will feel so good once you clean the shit outta your mind.... that you have been defending for so many years.. you will feel so liberated....... it will be like an intelectual enema..

the good news is, you are so close to your breaking point..

the choice will come when you will have to embrace all humanity and go to the LIGHT and LOVE...

or if you are unable to HUMBLE yourself, then your personality will fragment and things will become very very ugly.. and painful...

iloveyou
 

Garden Knowm

The Love Doctor
Good question. I'd say that we have already won the "war."

The war against the old guard in Iraq is won. On a world-wide bases, al Queda is another story.

Vi
WAR cant be won.... we never won world war 2... we never won vietnam. and we still haven't learned...

there is no wininng when millions of children die....

there is extreme pain and suffering.... beyond that which is found even in Las Vegas...
 

ViRedd

New Member
Geeze, GK ... thanks for the kind words. You really ARE full of compassion and understanding, aren't you?

By the way ... I've said it before and I'll say it again ... I AM NOT A SUPPORTER OF GEORGE BUSH. I DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM EITHER TIME. IF HE COULD RUN FOR A THIRD TERM, I WOUDN'T VOTE FOR HIM THEN EITHER.

Now with that said, I'll go on record as saying that I want every terrorist, and would-be terrorist DEAD. In spite of our party affiliations and politic, some of us haven't forgotten 9-11.

Vi
 

Garden Knowm

The Love Doctor
Mr. Redd.. I apologize if I mis understood your political affiliatipns or if I have built a box for you that does not fit.. Please allow me to dismantle it by forgiving my ignorance..

iloveyou

Killing terrorists? do you think that spending 1+ TRILLION dollars killing women, children and young men .... is a good way to remember the trade center... $1,000,000,000,000...

shit.. I would rather they use that money to FIND a clean source of energy that gets us free from dependence of other countries... we can call the project remembering 911.. or whatever puts a band aid on YOUR paion until you can go inside YOURSELF and face the real issue..

iloveyou
 
Top