Democrats finally quit screwing around so soliders like my cousin can keep fighting

[Tear Down This Wall]

It's about time. Idiots. Give my cousin and every other soldier and Marine out there the money for equipment and supplies to fight the ragheads.

Bash Bush all you want, but don't do it at the expense of soldiers and Marines in the field. Dirty, liberal scumbags.

[mdklatt]

It's about time. Idiots. Give my cousin and every other soldier and Marine out there the money for equipment and supplies to fight the ragheads.


You do know this all just a ****ing contest, right? That even if there wasn't a "funding" bill that the Pentagon could divert funds from other sources, right? Right?

And if "funding" the troops is so important, why did Bush continue to stonewall for so long? It couldn't be that he's more interested in winning a political battle than doing what needs to be done, could it? Nah. That never happens.

[Vaevictis]

It takes two to tango. Bush didn't have to threaten to veto, you know.

And nevermind the fact that funding was never actually cut off. That's clearly of no import, right?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

And the congressional majority didn't have to try to strongarm a deadline, either.

Two to tango.

[Vaevictis]

And the congressional majority didn't have to try to strongarm a deadline, either.

Two to tango.

Clearly, you're from the Department of Redundancy Department.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Why do you ask about the question which asks the question about which you ask?

[Frozen Sooner]

Interesting. So the Democrats put the needs of the troops ahead of a political victory, while the Republicans refused to back down.

[mdklatt]

And the congressional majority didn't have to try to strongarm a deadline, either.

The "deadlines" were essentially meangingless. There were no real consequences for missing them.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

The "deadlines" were essentially meangingless. There were no real consequences for missing them.

So that makes them okay?

That's the same logic that's hanging around illegal immigration right now. There's no consequences for breaking the law. So c'mon. Have a seat. Pick this lettuce for us because the labor force of the United States are either illegal or pressin' their nuts in a recliner somewhere with a 150 dollar cable bill, a bag of food stamp purchased cheetos and a bad case of carpal tunnel so they're officially disabled.




*touches the match to the fuse and runs away*

[Hatfield]

Interesting. So the Democrats put the needs of the troops ahead of a political victory, while the Republicans refused to back down.

oh snap

[Frozen Sooner]

I'm just curious how members of Congress who were elected in large part due to their willingness to end the Iraq War then passed a spending bill that included deadlines for ending the war in accordance with the wishes of the electorate are somehow the ones strongarming the dude with the veto pen who disregarded the wishes of the electorate and denied funding to the troops in doing so.

[Vaevictis]

Interesting. So the Democrats put the needs of the troops ahead of a political victory, while the Republicans refused to back down.

... actually, I don't think the Democrats put the needs of the troops ahead of a political victory. They've basically forced the Republicans to double down and probably put them in a position of total ownership of Iraq at this point. By backing down, everything that happens in Iraq for the next couple of years can be blamed on the Republicans. Unless things markedly improve, this improves the Democrat's position in 2008. Which, honestly, I think may have been the point of the exercise from the Democratic Leadership's point of view.

[Vaevictis]

I'm just curious how members of Congress who were elected in large part due to their willingness to end the Iraq War then passed a spending bill that included deadlines for ending the war in accordance with the wishes of the electorate are somehow the ones strongarming the dude with the veto pen who disregarded the wishes of the electorate and denied funding to the troops in doing so.

Logic isn't part of the equation. It's just how they feel. Whaddyagonnado? ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

Oh, I know. Just showing that the spin machine can work both ways, and in this case the spin is much easier pro-Democrat.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I'm just curious how members of Congress who were elected in large part due to their willingness to end the Iraq War then passed a spending bill that included deadlines for ending the war in accordance with the wishes of the electorate are somehow the ones strongarming the dude with the veto pen who disregarded the wishes of the electorate and denied funding to the troops in doing so.

The way I see it, and I'm no lawyer, is simple separation of powers.

The legislature trying to dictate to the executive the process of his Article II, Sec. 2 duties through their established Article I, Sec. 8 duties to raise and support armies.

I'm no constitutional expert. And I'd be willing to hear the counterargument in a civil debate. But the constitution seems to be clear in this, as in declaring that the commander-in-chief duties reside firmly in the executive branch and the execution of war is his to dictate. The funding, support, and actual declaration of war of course being the legislative branch's bailiwick. Hence what to me seems strongarming. Trying to pass legislation to establish what the executive branch must do in the execution of its prescribed duties.

There something I'm missing? I'd be glad to see it if I am.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Oh wait, I'm busy barfing up logic-less spin.

My bad.

[Scott D]

I'm firmly in the Iacocca camp on this matter.

[Vaevictis]

There something I'm missing? I'd be glad to see it if I am.

You're missing the fact that it is common practice for Congress to tie funding of projects -- military included -- to certain contingencies, be they performance benchmarks, earmarks, etc.

It's pretty well established that the President may exercise his powers according to his prerogative, but if he actually wants money from Congress in the process, he better meet the statutory requirements that get passed with the funding bill.

It's one of those "checks and balances" type things that we've heard about ad nauseum in elementary school. The veto power being another ;)

Hence two to tango here. Both sides have to "check and balance" to get the funding-****ing-contest situation we're talking about.

Ultimately, if the Dems had gone over the brink and let the funding actually get cut, I think people would be justified in having a beef. But they backed down, and the troops will apparently be getting their funding. Both sides strong-armed, and the White House got what it wanted, and the troops got their funding with no strings.

[Jerk]

...and now democrats cross their fingers and hope that we lose the war.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

It's pretty well established that the President may exercise his powers according to his prerogative, but if he actually wants money from Congress in the process, he better do what they want to get it.

Where does it say that in the constitution again?

It's the Legislature's responsibility to fund and support. It's the Executive's responsibility to execute the actions thereof. If the Legislature tries to dictate to the Executive the ways and means as to how it should perform its duties and gets vetoed, is that really a shocker? Especially if those positions differ politically or strategically?

Thanks for helping me out with what I heard about ad nauseum in elementary school. i r not a smart men.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Where does it say that in the constitution again?

It's the Legislature's responsibility to fund and support. It's the Executive's responsibility to execute the actions thereof. If the Legislature tries to dictate to the Executive the ways and means as to how it should perform its duties and gets vetoed, is that really a shocker? Especially if those positions differ politically or strategically?

Thanks for helping me out with what I heard about ad nauseum in elementary school.This situation is simply not acceptable to the democrats.

[jk the sooner fan]

somebody refresh my memory........did the democrats vote for this war in the beginning?

[Frozen Sooner]

Can someone please get all the Conservatives on the same page here? It's either that Congress (including many Democrats) voted for the war in the first place, thereby admitting that Congress has the power and authority to declare war and implying that they have the power and authority to deauthorize it, or Congress doesn't have that power and who voted for what isn't relevant.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Okla-homey]

I'm just curious how members of Congress who were elected in large part due to their willingness to end the Iraq War then passed a spending bill that included deadlines for ending the war in accordance with the wishes of the electorate are somehow the ones strongarming the dude with the veto pen who disregarded the wishes of the electorate and denied funding to the troops in doing so.

Let's be clear on this. The donks have a razor thin majority in the Senate, a little broader in the House. The House majority was mostly due to the fact that the House is a population-based chamber and populous urban centers are more donk than elephant. Frankly, I'm amazed the elephants held on to the House as long as they did.

The things I abhor about the pull-out deadline are #1: It's unconstitutional. Period. If the donks want to pull the funds, nut-up and pull the dang funds but STFU already about trying to manage the war. That is the executive branch's job. See the lame-a$$ War Powers Act of 1973 which has never been enforced because it's a constitutional non-starter.

#2: More importantly, a timeline emboldens the bad guys and that means more of our brave kids fighting the good fight are liable to get hurt. How you say? Because the jihaadis increase their violence in order to stiffen the donks resolve to raise hell with the White House for us the get out at some arbitrary pre-determined date.

FWIW, at no time in American history, has any political party prospered by opposing even an "unpopular" war. Think about it, the donks got one, one-term president in the wake of their vociferous attack of the VN War. Then they hit the skids for twelve years until Slick Willie emerged from under a rock. And, I might add, the only way that Arkie bastage won the first time was because third-party candidate Ross Perot split the conservative vote. Even then, that election was dang close. I remember staying up all night watching the returns. And what did that sumbeyotch bring us? I'll tell you, a feckless presidency, an impeachment freak show and a power-mad wife who feels like she's earned the right to sit in Bill's chair since she put up with his philandering all those years with a smile on her pinched face.

I feel better now.;)

[jk the sooner fan]

no, they voted to support the war, not authorize it - they put their own stamp of approval on it from the beginning - they have funded billions of dollars in equipment and rebuilding efforts

dont put words in my mouth to support your own argument

[Frozen Sooner]

So now they're voting to not support it.

Again, can't have your cake and eat it too.

[jk the sooner fan]

So now they're voting to not support it.

Again, can't have your cake and eat it too.

c'mon mike, you're much smarter than that

if they simply wanted to pass a resolution voicing their disapproval of the war, they could have........and in fact, i think they already did

this is a MUCH different vote, and you know it

[Jerk]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/10/1106/

"The War on Iraq should now be described as a war that must be lost in order to save America. That is our moral obligation."

[Frozen Sooner]

Let's be clear on this. The donks have a razor thin majority in the Senate, a little broader in the House. The House majority was mostly due to the fact that the House is a population-based chamber and populous urban centers are more donk than elephant. Frankly, I'm amazed the elephants held on to the House as long as they did.

The things I abhor about the pull-out deadline are #1: It's unconstitutional. Period. If the donks want to pull the funds, nut-up and pull the dang funds but STFU already about trying to manage the war. That is the executive branch's job. See the lame-a$$ War Powers Act of 1973 which has never been enforced because it's a constitutional non-starter.

#2: More importantly, a timeline emboldens the bad guys and that means more of our brave kids fighting the good fight are liable to get hurt. How you say? Because the jihaadis increase their violence in order to stiffen the donks resolve to raise hell with the White House for us the get out at some arbitrary pre-determined date.

FWIW, at no time in American history, has any political party prospered by opposing even an "unpopular" war. Think about it, the donks got one, one-term president in the wake of their vociferous attack of the VN War. Then they hit the skids for twelve years until Slick Willie emerged from under a rock. And, I might add, the only way that Arkie bastage won the first time was because third-party candidate Ross Perot split the conservative vote. Even then, that election was dang close. I remember staying up all night watching the returns. And what did that sumbeyotch bring us? I'll tell you, a feckless presidency, an impeachment freak show and a power-mad wife who feels like she's earned the right to sit in Bill's chair since she put up with his philandering all those years with a smile on her pinched face.

I feel better now.;)

1. Agreed. Then again, W has attempted to govern as if he has a mandate and only barely won the popular vote ONCE.

2. OK. I happen to disagree with your assertion that Congress doesn't have the Constitutional authority to craft spending bills in such a manner.

3. Geez, they sure seem to be non-bold right now when there's no deadline. Do they grow to twice the size and start shooting fireballs if we set a deadline for Iraqi military control?

4. Nice rant there. I could say the same about W only winning because Nader split the liberal vote. Of course, your analysis (like that of most people) ignores the sizeable contingent of "anyone but Bush again" voters who were voting for Perot.

[royalfan5]

All I want is for us to actually pay for the war instead of borrowing it from the Chinese. Our deficit spending could hit a brick wall if China finally lets the yuan float. Is that too much to ask.

[mdklatt]

So that makes them okay?



The original congressional bill (it wasn't just the "libz" that voted for it) called for deadlines that weren't really deadlines, and a withdrawal that wasn't really a withdrawal. The "deadlines" were more more like benchmarks (hmmm...where have I heard that word before?), and the "withdrawal" only applied to non-essential troops...the determination of "non-essential" being up to the Pentagon, if I recall. In other words, the bill had no real consequences whatsoever. It also contained more "funding" than the administration was asking for.

So, Bush had a chance to sign a bill that gave him more money than he asked for without requiring any real compromises on his part...except for the most unconscionable compromise--the appearance of caving in to Congress. What's a president to do? Sign the bill because all he really cares about is supporting the troops? Or make a big stink in order to score political points? Hmmmm...tough choice.

I'm not holding Congress blameless in this whole stupid mess. If Bush had signed the original bill, Pelosi would have been crowing about her meaningless victory. That bill also contained an obscene amount of pork. Meh.

This is all just a bunch of nonsense anyway, because the troops in the field are going to continue to get whatever they need regardless of whatever Congress. Bush knows it. Congress knows it. If Bush really wants to support the troops and score political points he needs to call them on their bluff.

[Okla-homey]

Here's the problem for the donks. Nobody with more than two-brain cells to rub togther thinks this donk anti-war claptrap is anything other than trying to make political hay at the expense of the elephants. Those donks in Congress don't give two-shiites about the kids getting hurt killing those jihaadi jackholes. They're just pi$$ed it costs money that they don't get to spend on their BS.

[Scott D]

Here's the problem for the donks. Nobody with more than two-brain cells to rub togther thinks this donk anti-war claptrap is anything other than trying to make political hay at the expense of the elephants. Those donks in Congress don't give two-shiites about the kids getting hurt killing those jihaadi jackholes. They're just pi$$ed it costs money that they don't get to spend on their BS.

I'm just curious if you'd be willing to say that to John Murtha.

[soonerscuba]

Let's be clear on this. The donks have a razor thin majority in the Senate, a little broader in the House. The House majority was mostly due to the fact that the House is a population-based chamber and populous urban centers are more donk than elephant. Frankly, I'm amazed the elephants held on to the House as long as they did.

The things I abhor about the pull-out deadline are #1: It's unconstitutional. Period. If the donks want to pull the funds, nut-up and pull the dang funds but STFU already about trying to manage the war. That is the executive branch's job. See the lame-a$$ War Powers Act of 1973 which has never been enforced because it's a constitutional non-starter.

#2: More importantly, a timeline emboldens the bad guys and that means more of our brave kids fighting the good fight are liable to get hurt. How you say? Because the jihaadis increase their violence in order to stiffen the donks resolve to raise hell with the White House for us the get out at some arbitrary pre-determined date.

FWIW, at no time in American history, has any political party prospered by opposing even an "unpopular" war. Think about it, the donks got one, one-term president in the wake of their vociferous attack of the VN War. Then they hit the skids for twelve years until Slick Willie emerged from under a rock. And, I might add, the only way that Arkie bastage won the first time was because third-party candidate Ross Perot split the conservative vote. Even then, that election was dang close. I remember staying up all night watching the returns. And what did that sumbeyotch bring us? I'll tell you, a feckless presidency, an impeachment freak show and a power-mad wife who feels like she's earned the right to sit in Bill's chair since she put up with his philandering all those years with a smile on her pinched face.

I feel better now.;)

I respectfully disagree on a few points. One, the Senate tilts Republican because of geography in a way that severally limits the ability of Democrats to take it. For example, in 2004 when you combine the votes for the Senate into one pool, the Dems had about 4 million more votes, yet still didn't control. I'm not saying this needs to change, but it is what it is. As for the HoR, districting by the control party and an incumbency rate above 90% means that if you lose it, you're on the wrong horse.

Two, America doesn't have the political will to fight this war, and everybody knows it. Sure, the party opposing of war hasn't fared well, but we have never had a tax cut in the middle of one either. I'm sure that there are millions of people that would do what ever it took to win, but collectively, it just isn't there.

[jk the sooner fan]

i'd say it to Murtha, in fact i sent him a "nice" letter over a month ago

[Scott D]

At least Ronald Reagan thought enough of Murtha to listen to him without being extremely cavalier in his approach to 'enemies' of this country.

[mdklatt]

Those donks in Congress don't give two-shiites about the kids getting hurt killing those jihaadi jackholes. They're just pi$$ed it costs money that they don't get to spend on their BS.

There seem to be a whole lot of pubz in Anytown, USA whose support for the war seems contingent on not having their taxes go up....



All I want is for us to actually pay for the war instead of borrowing it from the Chinese. Our deficit spending could hit a brick wall if China finally lets the yuan float. Is that too much to ask.

Word. If this war is worth fighting, isn't it worth paying for?

[Jerk]

man...here we go with the tax cut again. It's been proven time and time and time again that tax cuts result in economic growth, which result in increased gov't revenue.

I know some of you hate rich people just because they're rich. But I have to remember that all of my employers are/have been rich. Seriously! I can't think of one time my paycheck was signed by a poor person.

[mdklatt]

man...here we go with the tax cut again. It's been proven time and time and time again that tax cuts result in economic growth, which result in increased gov't revenue.


We're running a deficit right now...why doesn't Bush just eliminate the income tax altogether? That should get that sucker paid off in a couple of years.

[royalfan5]

man...here we go with the tax cut again. It's been proven time and time and time again that tax cuts result in economic growth, which result in increased gov't revenue.

I know some of you hate rich people just because they're rich. But I have to remember that all of my employers are/have been rich. Seriously! I can't think of one time my paycheck was signed by a poor person.
It's also been proven that unrestrained deficit spending in a semi-war situation can result in stagflation, and serious negative effects on the currency of the country. As far as I can tell, the 70's sucked economically for pretty much everybody, and we are working real hard on recreating those conditions.

[Jerk]

It's also been proven that unrestrained deficit spending in a semi-war situation can result in stagflation, and serious negative effects on the currency of the country. As far as I can tell, the 70's sucked economically for pretty much everybody, and we are working real hard on recreating those conditions.

You're not going to get an argument out of me when you say we should cut spending.

[Jerk]

We're running a deficit right now...why doesn't Bush just eliminate the income tax altogether? That should get that sucker paid off in a couple of years.

Good idea! I propose the Fair Tax plan.


There is a happy medium to lots of things, including taxes. We already have too many taxes, we don't need more.

[mdklatt]

There is a happy medium to lots of things, including taxes. We already have too many taxes, we don't need more.

Nobody really knows where that happy medium is. And it changes a lot more frequently than tax rates do.

What makes you think taxes are too high? I don't like paying taxes any more than you do, but I don't know what "too high" is. Any tax rate higher than 0% is "too high" on an emotional level, but that's not a realistic expectation.

When I was a student, I had classmates that were always complaining that this class or that class was "too hard". And I always thought, "how do you know how hard it's supposed to be?"

[Vaevictis]

Where does it say that in the constitution again?

It doesn't have to say it in the Constitution for it to be true. The President can't pull funding out of his ***. He has to get it from Congress. If Congress doesn't like how the President is going to spend it, it can withhold the money.

In fact, while I understand that some people think that strings attached is unconstitutional, I would not be suprised if a funding bill could be crafted in such a way to self-terminate if the strings were found unenforcable.


If the Legislature tries to dictate to the Executive the ways and means as to how it should perform its duties and gets vetoed, is that really a shocker? Especially if those positions differ politically or strategically?

No, it's not really a shocker. I'm not suprised. I bet you that the Democratic leadership was counting on it, in fact. As I said, this possibly has the effect of solidifying the perceived Republican ownership of the war, and if things don't get better by 2008...

(In case you hadn't noticed, I really don't see the Democrats as being any more or any less than a bunch of politicians in this whole thing -- always angling for their own advantage.)

[SCOUT]

No, it's not really a shocker. I'm not suprised. I bet you that the Democratic leadership was counting on it, in fact. As I said, this possibly has the effect of solidifying the perceived Republican ownership of the war, and if things don't get better by 2008...

(In case you hadn't noticed, I really don't see the Democrats as being any more or any less than a bunch of politicians in this whole thing -- always angling for their own advantage.)

It has always seemed to me that your description of the Democratic strategy is exactly right. The idea was to keep the responsibility of and for the war squarely on the Republicans shoulders.

Doesn't that seem like they are banking on failure? If the war goes well, they have already conceded credit to the Republicans. If it doesn't go well, then they can say 'I told you so' and blame it on the Republicans.

This is why I am so skeptical of the actions of the Democratic party lately. I am having a hard time determining if their actions are to do the right thing or to get the outcome they want (a military loss and a black eye to the Republicans). If what I described is their strategy then it sure seems like they are trying to get the outcome they want.

[SoonerGirl06]

It has always seemed to me that your description of the Democratic strategy is exactly right. The idea was to keep the responsibility of and for the war squarely on the Republicans shoulders.

Doesn't that seem like they are banking on failure? If the war goes well, they have already conceded credit to the Republicans. If it doesn't go well, then they can say 'I told you so' and blame it on the Republicans.

This is why I am so skeptical of the actions of the Democratic party lately. I am having a hard time determining if their actions are to do the right thing or to get the outcome they want (a military loss and a black eye to the Republicans). If what I described is their strategy then it sure seems like they are trying to get the outcome they want.

They're trying to get the outcome that they want. In they're eyes, failure in Iraq is a sure bet to win in '08.

If the Democrats really cared about our military and were concerned with the retribution of setting a deadline, they wouldn't be pulling the stunts that they are with the funding.

[Vaevictis]

I doubt that the Democrats actively want us to lose, but I wouldn't be at all suprised if the can see which way the wind is blowing and would like to be positioned to take advantage of things if they end up that way.

Personally, I think this war was lost when the pictures of Abu Ghraib came out. Nothing will sap the American will to fight faster than something like that. We like to be the good guys, remember?

[SCOUT]

I doubt that the Democrats actively want us to lose, but I wouldn't be at all suprised if the can see which way the wind is blowing and would like to be positioned to take advantage of things if they end up that way.


I think that this is probably true, at least for most. Some of the actions make me wonder if they aren't seeing which way the wind blows, settting up a few fans and like to be positioned to take advantage.

[SoonerGirl06]

I doubt that the Democrats actively want us to lose, but I wouldn't be at all suprised if the can see which way the wind is blowing and would like to be positioned to take advantage of things if they end up that way.

Personally, I think this war was lost when the pictures of Abu Ghraib came out. Nothing will sap the American will to fight faster than something like that. We like to be the good guys, remember?

The Democrats actively want to make the Republicans look bad at any price so they can obtain the coveted prize of controlling both congress and the WH.

Personally I think their sacrificial lambs are the men and women fighting over in Iraq.

[Vaevictis]

I think that this is probably true, at least for most. Some of the actions make me wonder if they aren't seeing which way the wind blows, settting up a few fans and like to be positioned to take advantage.

Eh, it might be that there are a few looneys. There always are on either side of the aisle.

[Vaevictis]

The Democrats actively want to make the Republicans look bad at any price so they can obtain the coveted prize of controlling both congress and the WH.

Personally I think their sacrificial lambs are the men and women fighting over in Iraq.

shrug, the same has been said of the Republicans and why they got thrown into the fray over there in the first place. War Presidents almost always get re-elected, right?

As I said before, there are always a few looneys on either side of the aisle.

[Vaevictis]

I think that this is probably true, at least for most. Some of the actions make me wonder if they aren't seeing which way the wind blows, settting up a few fans and like to be positioned to take advantage.

Also, my understanding is that there are some Dems in Congress who are already convinced that we've lost this war. If someone were to truly believe that, IMO it's unconscionable to keep our guys over there for any longer than is necessary.

(As I mentioned, I believe that the war was lost with Abu Ghraib. I've said it about a thousand times: A country like ours has a window to win a war like this one, and things like Abu Ghraib have a tendency to slam that window shut. We had to wrap it up, and wrap it up fast after Abu Ghraib, and we didn't. Now, I'm not saying this is how it should be, but that's how it is. IMO, we ought to be worrying less about what's going on in Iraq right now and worrying more about what the **** we're going to do once we're out.)

[SoonerGirl06]

Also, my understanding is that there are some Dems in Congress who are already convinced that we've lost this war. If someone were to truly believe that, IMO it's unconscionable to keep our guys over there for any longer than is necessary.


That's the key phrase IMO. Everyone's opinion on what the necessary time frame should be is different. And it all depends on what their objective is... politically and/or militarily.

[Vaevictis]

If the war goes well, they have already conceded credit to the Republicans.

IMO, it's not just that they've conceded credit. It's that the previous Congress and this administration have boxed them out of credit. When the Republicans were in control, they did everything they could to exclude the Democrats from everything including having any kind of political stake in the success of the war, and they did a pretty good job of that. That the Democrats should be in a position to benefit from our failure should be no surprise and is not entirely the Democrats doing.

[Hatfield]

Here's the problem for the donks. Nobody with more than two-brain cells to rub togther thinks this donk anti-war claptrap is anything other than trying to make political hay at the expense of the elephants. Those donks in Congress don't give two-shiites about the kids getting hurt killing those jihaadi jackholes. They're just pi$$ed it costs money that they don't get to spend on their BS.


jesus christ that is dumb.

[picasso]

I'm just curious how members of Congress who were elected in large part due to their willingness to end the Iraq War then passed a spending bill that included deadlines for ending the war in accordance with the wishes of the electorate are somehow the ones strongarming the dude with the veto pen who disregarded the wishes of the electorate and denied funding to the troops in doing so.
I'm not totally buying that. many conservative types who planted their lazy asses inside the beltway forgot about the conservative part whilst working on the hill.
I still don't buy this mandate to end the war ****.

how about mandate to get the frickin thing right.

we should have done one or the other: clean house and kick the living **** out of all who oppose us or, kill Saddam and leave out the back door.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

As I said before, there are always a few looneys on either side of the aisle.You are much too stingy with the left side. Clearly, those folks DO want us to lose the war, and are doing everything they can think of to assure it.

[Okla-homey]

1. Agreed. Then again, W has attempted to govern as if he has a mandate and only barely won the popular vote ONCE. C'mon bro. Are you one of those tin foil hat guys who believe W didn't win Florida (albiet by a very slim majority) the first time out?

2. OK. I happen to disagree with your assertion that Congress doesn't have the Constitutional authority to craft spending bills in such a manner. Please cite any US precedent to support your interpretation. I just hope the electorate comes to understand they must choose wisely when they vote for the president. Whomever they give that job has the constitutional authority to deploy combat troops anywhere, anytime and keep them there unless or until Congress yanks the money.

3. Geez, they sure seem to be non-bold right now when there's no deadline. Do they grow to twice the size and start shooting fireballs if we set a deadline for Iraqi military control? They're bold now because they know the debate has captured the attention of the donks in Congress (who, BTW frankly haven't accomplished any their Big Six they promised in the afterglow of their re-control of Congress.) The jihaadis have the innerweb and they watch the news. They know what's going on and they are capitalizing on it. The mullahs, apparently, are using this to encourage their murderous parishoners to head to Iraq in order to seal the deal. Interestingly, I believe this also explains why recent Gallup polling indicates that disapporoval of Congress is now lower than disapproval of the President...an item that isn't getting much play by the traditional media.

4. Nice rant there. I could say the same about W only winning because Nader split the liberal vote. Of course, your analysis (like that of most people) ignores the sizeable contingent of "anyone but Bush again" voters who were voting for Perot. Perot seemed attractive to me initially. Over time, I figured out he is a crackpot. There was, and is, some kind of Bush-Perot blood feud that I've never understood, but I think it has something to do with the fact Bush the Elder and Ross locked horns (no pun intended) over something important to them both back in the day. Anyway, I'm hoping the same thing happens to the donks again re Hillary and Gore.

:texan:

[Okla-homey]

I'm just curious if you'd be willing to say that to John Murtha.

Yep. I would. I spent a lot more time in uniform than he did.

[usmc-sooner]

Since the war started the Democrats have changed their position more times than a Hong Kong whore. You can't win at tiddly winks like that.

If you think the war was over when Abu happened I'm thinking WTF? A set back occurs and it's like oh it's over now. Game over. There are setbacks everyday. I'd like to think that losing American lives is more of a set back than terrorists in a naked triangle picture. If that makes us the bad guys what do the videos of them lopping off our heads make them? Better?
Let's see my choices are go to an American Camp be forced into a naked triange or go to Terrorist Camp and have my head cut off. I'm going with the the American Camp for $1000 Alex. I can recover from humiliation, not from decapitation.

[jk the sooner fan]

good thing operation market garden didnt signal the end of WW2 for the allies....i agree with usmc on the whole "we lost this at abu graib"....

[C&CDean]

Saying "we lost at Abu Graib" is like saying "we lost to Nebraska when they were up 14-0 in 2000."

[leavingthezoo]

the yawn worthiness of this thread is epic.

[Hatfield]

Since the war started the Democrats have changed their position more times than a Hong Kong War. You can't win at tiddly winks like that.

If you think the war was over when Abu happened I'm thinking WTF? A set back occurs and it's like oh it's over now. Game over. There are setbacks everyday. I'd like to think that losing American lives is more of a set back than terrorists in a naked triangle picture. If that makes us the bad guys what do the videos of them lopping off our heads make them? Better?
Let's see my choices are go to an American Camp be forced into a naked triange or go to Terrorist Camp and have my head cut off. I'm going with the the American Camp for $1000 Alex. I can recover from humiliation, not from decapitation.

the repubs have also had several stances on this war. be fair.

and as far as: "If that makes us the bad guys what do the videos of them lopping off our heads make them?"

it also makes them the bad guys.

[Hatfield]

Saying "we lost at Abu Graib" is like saying "we lost to Nebraska when they were up 14-0 in 2000."


you can thank me for our triumphant victory. i was drunk in a bar on bourban street...when they went up 14-0 i yelled at the bar indicating my displeasure with their inability to root my team on and left to find a better bar....

the rest is history.

[JohnnyMack]

Saying "we lost at Abu Graib" is like saying "we lost to Nebraska when they were up 14-0 in 2000."

I was in Ballimore for that game. Stupid work. :mad:

[picasso]

I was in Ballimore for that game. Stupid work. :mad:
I was with Ponyboy, hiding out in that old church.

[JohnnyMack]

Have I mentioned that we'll never win another war evar again lately? Thanks to the ever watchful eye of the media it's all but impossible to "win" a war.

W is as responsible for not winning this war as the left is responsible for egging on its failure. Both sides make me wanna puke, but lately I'll be honest the antics of the Democrats have all but eliminated themselves as contenders for the White House in my mind. I wouldn't vote for a damned one of them.

[SoonerProphet]

For 110 years our Republic has been enamored by "aesthetic of war" and the elevation of the Commander in Chief as some sort of Roman Emperor. The war god who can order is armies to change the world without so much a nod from Congress, the people, or f*ckin' common sense. The skepticism of arms and armies has faded from the truths of our founders and frankly it makes me ill.

[picasso]

For 110 years our Republic has been enamored by "aesthetic of war" and the elevation of the Commander in Chief as some sort of Roman Emperor. The war god who can order is armies to change the world without so much a nod from Congress, the people, or f*ckin' common sense. The skepticism of arms and armies has faded from the truths of our founders and frankly it makes me ill.
oh really? I can see where you're coming from kinda, but I was in support of what's happening due to our being attacked and going after those who would attack us.
you know, the crazy smaller rogue type nations.

it seemed like a fairly good idea at the time.

again, I don't see how any of this is good for Bush. seems to me he believes in what he's doing because it's sent his party to the crapper, along with his rating points.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Two things...

(1) All single Soonerfans males not attempting to win 06's hand are fags. This is a gal who is (a) a Sooner fans, and (b) has a brain.

(2) Now that the Democrats have quit trying to pretend they control the outcome in Iraq, my cousin can have more bullets to kill the terrorist scum there...and he can eat as well.

http://www.neitherland.com/sale/videos/Space_Ghost_C_To_C.jpg
Pelosi. After lunch at Taco Bell, my intestines fill with gaseous Pelosi, which I then expel freely to the horror of all in the office. Pelosi.

[85Sooner]

Have I mentioned that we'll never win another war evar again lately? Thanks to the ever watchful eye of the media it's all but impossible to "win" a war.

W is as responsible for not winning this war as the left is responsible for egging on its failure. Both sides make me wanna puke, but lately I'll be honest the antics of the Democrats have all but eliminated themselves as contenders for the White House in my mind. I wouldn't vote for a damned one of them.

P.C war and wars run from washington instaead of the battlefield are sure losers. I wish we could replace to whole lot of them. I have written more letters to our leaders in the past week than I have collectively over the past year.
Our Military is not the losers in this. It is the politicians and the fricking A$$wipe media pieces of dung.

[leavingthezoo]

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c139/fourfret/yawn-bush.jpg

[leavingthezoo]

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c139/fourfret/yawn.jpg

[leavingthezoo]

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c139/fourfret/theyawn.jpg

[leavingthezoo]

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c139/fourfret/tiger-yawn-2-big.jpg

[RFH Shakes]

My definition of lost must be different. Things blowing up will always get more press than the other day to day stuff. Read some of the reconstruction reports to get an idea of what is getting done in Iraq. I think it is pretty amazing that a "losing" force is able to complete construction projects what with all the losing and stuff.:rolleyes:

Reconstruction Reports (http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=5&id=32&Itemid=47&Itemid=47)

[soonerscuba]

It amazes me that when every last thing we have been told about this war from the administration has been complete garbage, why should I support it?

If we found WMD, the insurgancy was in it's last throws, it did pay for itself, we were greeted with lollipops and flowers, violence did slow down, and if we did turn a corner; then yes, I could see it as a little justified. But, unlike most here, I will freely admit that I don't care about Iraqi people or government, they do not now, nor ever posed any threat to me since Bush 41 gutted them, and I think funding things they should have done themselves is an incredible waste of money and lives.