Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawal?

[scottyz]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

Well, gee.
1) When we're done in Iraq, we'll leave
2) We had the Support of NATO because NATO wanted it done and could not do it w/o us.
3) Please explain how the war in Iraq caused a $700B deficit.

Note too that if the war in Iraq was "illegal" then so too was the war in Kosovo.

What do we have to do to be "done" in Iraq? We've got Saddam, we killed his sons, many of his main associates and we've confirmed there are no wmds or active wmd programs. I know Bush keeps on changing the reasons why we invaded, but those were the stated goals at the beginning of this war and they've been completed.

The Iraq war has already cost over a $100 billion and it's estimated it will exceed $700 billion, but gee that couldn't be effecting our deficit :roll:

Kosovo was technically illegal and the claims of genocide were likely exagerrated there too.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

What do we have to do to be "done" in Iraq? We've got Saddam, we killed his sons, many of his main associates and we've confirmed there are no wmds or active wmd programs. I know Bush keeps on changing the reasons why we invaded, but those were the stated goals at the beginning of this war and they've been completed.

Implicit in "getting rid of Saddam" is setting up a government to replace his. Once that is done (and its well on its way) and once that government can privude its own security (again, in its way), we'll leave.

The Iraq war has already cost over a $100 billion and it's estimated it will exceed $700 billion, but gee that couldn't be effecting our deficit :roll:

We've spent ~$400B on the War on Terror in total, not just the war in Iraq, over the last 4 years.
Thats about 1/12th what we've sepnt on federal welfare over the same time.
The war is causing the deficits?

Kosovo was technically illegal and the claims of genocide were likely exagerrated there too.

Want to guess why the left didnt howl about that?

 

[Navy Pride]

[QUOTEWhat do we have to do to be "done" in Iraq? ][/QUOTE]

That is and easy one........As the President has said over and over again....We are done in Iraq when the Iraqi Security forces can defend the country or at the time when the elected government asks us to leave........

Unlike in Nam this President will not cut and run and allow those 2,000 military and millions of innocent civilians die for nothing..........

 

[scottyz]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

Implicit in "getting rid of Saddam" is setting up a government to replace his. Once that is done (and its well on its way) and once that government can privude its own security (again, in its way), we'll leave.

That's when? In 10 years?? We tried setting up a Government in Nam and had elections there too. You can't help people that wont help themselves or reject your idealogy. Our mission was not to babysit the Iraqi people. Even Bush Sr. knew that trying to occupy Iraq was a mistake.

We've spent ~$400B on the War on Terror in total, not just the war in Iraq, over the last 4 years.
Thats about 1/12th what we've sepnt on federal welfare over the same time.
The war is causing the deficits?

So basically you're saying that welfare has increased under Bush, thus increasing our deficit? Under Clinton we had a surplus and therefore we must not have had much federal welfare.... The billion dollar war and all of Bush's tax cuts have nothing to do with it

At least federal welfare goes to back into the country and whether or not your statement is even true I assume it's including Katrina and Rita victims. I'd rather our money stay in our country than go to Iraq where a good portion of it disappears like magic.

Want to guess why the left didnt howl about that?

As I recall the fact that these claims were dubious was howled quite a bit. In the same vain why isn't the Right howling about the dubious claims made about Iraq?

 

[Iriemon]

That is and easy one........As the President has said over and over again....We are done in Iraq when the Iraqi Security forces can defend the country or at the time when the elected government asks us to leave........

Unlike in Nam this President will not cut and run and allow those 2,000 military and millions of innocent civilians die for nothing..........

You are exactly right NP, that is exactly why this president will not withdraw from Iraq.

Because if he does, the Iraqi democracy will fall, the nation will devolve into a civil war bloodbath, and it will be demonstrated that those 2000 military and millions of innocent civilians died for nothing. Or worse, a mistake. Or worse yet, a lie.

 

[Iriemon]

Hmm. A few more poll options would be nice.

And this poll is a little biased, cause you worded it in such a way that one would be inclined towards the first one to avoid saying that we should do what we did in vietnam.

LOL here's how I would put the poll questions:

Are the Dems putting the Bush administration at risk by asking for a date for withdrawal?

o Yes, because if the troops are withdrawn, the US supported government in Iraq will fall, and this mistake will be exposed as the greatest foreign policy disaster since the Bay of Pigs, if not ever.

o No, because by doing this it gives the Republicans a chance to blame the Democrats when the troops are withdrawn and Iraq erupts into a civil war that has already started.

 

[Iriemon]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

"Declaring war" is passe. It's soooo WWII.

And it is sooooooo constitutional.

Hey, wait a minute, I'm sounding like a conservative. :shock:

 

[Iriemon]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

The Iraq war has already cost over a $100 billion and it's estimated it will exceed $700 billion, but gee that couldn't be effecting our deficit :roll:

The Iraq war has been a factor in the deficits. The cost of the war has been about $250 billion to date, accounting for about 10% of the $2.5 trillion the Bush Govt has borrowed since 2000.

The tax cuts (cheifly) and other spending increases have been the major causes of the deficits.

 

[Navy Pride]

You are exactly right NP, that is exactly why this president will not withdraw from Iraq.

Because if he does, the Iraqi democracy will fall, the nation will devolve into a civil war bloodbath, and it will be demonstrated that those 2000 military and millions of innocent civilians died for nothing. Or worse, a mistake. Or worse yet, a lie.

I am glad you can tell the future or maybe its wishful thinking on your part....Maybe you want us to fail in Iraq so it makes the president look bad and a low life like Kerry can get elected president in 2008........

That is the sad thing is some on the left put their politics above everything......

 

[jamesrage]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

Are the democrats in the Senate giving aid and comfort to the enemy for asking for a deadline fro withdrawal from Iraq?

I wonder which moron came up with the idea that they should tell the enemey how long they would have to lay low so that Iraq will become easy pickings.

 

[The Mark]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

I wonder which moron came up with the idea that they should tell the enemey how long they would have to lay low so that Iraq will become easy pickings.

Some politician thinking only of his career and how to get re-elected would be my first guess.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

By Law, the War Powers Act, we should have had a deadline set in March 2003. If we'd like to have an open ended conflict, we should declare war.

First off Simon you are confusing the War Powers Act of 1917 with the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Secondly, you probably should actually read the law before you comment on it. :mrgreen: The War Powers Resolution declares that the president can deploy troops for up to 60 days without the Congress declaring war or OR by granting the president the authority for the use of force.

So sir you are wrong, Congress granted authority to the president to use force as per the specified conditions of the War Powers Resolution.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Here are the relevant portions in their entirety as well as a link to the full resolution pay special attention to Section 2-C subsection 2:


War Powers Resolution of 1973

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution

Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 10. This joint resolution shall take effect on the date of its enactment.

CARL ALBERT
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

JAMES O. EASTLAND
President of the Senate pro tempore.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,
November 7, 1973.


The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the resolution (H. J. Res 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections, to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, it was Resolved, That the said resolution pass, two-thirds of the House of Representatives agreeing to pass the same.

Attest:
W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.

I certify that this Joint Resolution originated in the House of Representatives.
W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 7, 1973

The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the joint resolution (H. J.
Res. 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress
and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his
objections to the House of Representatives, in which it originate, it was
Resolved, That the said joint resolution pass, two-thirds of the
Senators present having voted in the affirmative.

Attest:
FRANCIS R. VALEO
Secretary.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml


By the law you have no case. The defense rests. :2wave:

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

"Declaring war" is passe. It's soooo WWII.

Besides, how do you declare war on a civilization? ...
How do you "declare war" on something that many Americans can't even or refuse to see? What's extremely sad, is that many can't or refuse to see this, because it does not allow them to be "politically correct."

You don't worry about the entire "civilization" that is Islam (lack of civilization is more like it). Afghanistan's Minister of War directed and sponsored an attack on the United States. Afghanistan refused to hand his rotten ass over to us. Congress declares war on Afghanistan and we do what needs doing.

Iraq has been violating UN sanctions forever, we don't really like Saddam Hussein that much anymore, and he's sitting on the most strategically important real estate in the world (not the oil, the map). So we declare war on Iraq.

According to the Constitution, it's what we're supposed to do. Certainly there's historical precedent for ignoring the Constitution, the Barbary pirates comes to mind, but that doesn't mean its the correct thing to do.

In the wake of September 11th, Bush could have gotten a legitimate Declaration of War against Afghanistan out of Congress. Instead the Congress wrote him a blank check, and, as usual, are now complaining when they see the price.

And of course the surrender monkeys in the Senate are stabbing the US in the back with this idiocy about timetables for withdrawal. The Democrats are totally desperate to re-create Vietnam, it's their only chance of taking the power structure back. They don't care about this country, they care about their own status.

Any fool can see that a timeline is a damn stupid idea. What's needed is a checklist. Simply a list of goals and objectives that must be met before we think it's reasonable for the US to reduce it's presence somewhat. No times. When the Iraqi forces are capable of maintaining law and order on their own, we leave. Not before.

One thing the Surrender Monkeys and their admirers should try to not run away from:

The US occupied Japan and Germany for fifteen years after we reduced them to the stoneage. Japan and Germany had a history of democracy and a unified national identity before they started messing with their betters. Iraq doesn't start with that advantage. Why would anyone expect to spend less than two decades there cleaning it up and getting it in motion?

(And that last was one of the many reasons I wasn't happy with Bush's push to the Iraq War)

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

The Iraq war has been a factor in the deficits. The cost of the war has been about $250 billion to date, accounting for about 10% of the $2.5 trillion the Bush Govt has borrowed since 2000.

The tax cuts (cheifly) and other spending increases have been the major causes of the deficits.

In other words, you're saying that 90% of the deficit is related to non-military spending...

...I think I know how to fix the budget...

 

[TurtleDude]

quick answer to the poll

YES

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

Here are the relevant portions in their entirety as well as a link to the full resolution ...

REPORTING

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
​

I guess you thought that the reporting part where it discusses the end date for the conflict was somehow not relevant.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

That's when? In 10 years??

However long it takes.
War is not an instant gratification event,

We tried setting up a Government in Nam and had elections there too. You can't help people that wont help themselves or reject your idealogy. Our mission was not to babysit the Iraqi people. Even Bush Sr. knew that trying to occupy Iraq was a mistake.

-Iraq is not Vietnam
-Iraqis are not Vietnamese
-What you call 'babysitting', responsible people call 'protecting them whil they get their contry together.

I'm not sure why you think we can leave before the Iraqis are able to support themselves -- what, exactly, is it you have against the Iraqi people?

So basically you're saying that welfare has increased under Bush, thus increasing our deficit?

Nope.
I'm saying that for every dollar we spent on the war, we spent >$12 on welfare. YOU are arguing that said $1 has caused the deficits -- what about the $12?

At least federal welfare goes to back into the country and whether or not your statement is even true I assume it's including Katrina and Rita victims.

Its still 12x war spending, and it doesnt include any of the spending for hurricane recovery.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

The Iraq war has been a factor in the deficits. The cost of the war has been about $250 billion to date, accounting for about 10% of the $2.5 trillion the Bush Govt has borrowed since 2000.
The tax cuts (cheifly) and other spending increases have been the major causes of the deficits.

This is amazing.
Isnt it incredble how the small expenditures on the war have caused these huge deicts, whereas the HUGE spending on entitlement programs have not?

Since September 2001 we have spent ~$450B on the war.
Since september 2001 we have spent ~$5275B on entitlements.
In EACH of the last 4 years, we spent more on SocSec than the TOTAL spending on the war.

PLEASE tell me how the WAR is causing the deficts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

The US occupied Japan and Germany for fifteen years after we reduced them to the stoneage. Japan and Germany had a history of democracy and a unified national identity before they started messing with their betters. Iraq doesn't start with that advantage. Why would anyone expect to spend less than two decades there cleaning it up and getting it in motion?

OK, THIS is wrong.
Japan had absolutely no "history' of democracy, and Germany's experiment with it failerd miserably. Both countries started is the same, if not worse, position as Iraq.

If anything, Iraq is better off because ot wasnt utterly shattered by the war.

And, given the Germany/Japan model, Iraq is doing VERY well.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

REPORTING

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
​

I guess you thought that the reporting part where it discusses the end date for the conflict was somehow not relevant.

that is referring to increasing troop levels after the alotted 60 days if you recall the president went to congress for a resolution before troops were deployed to Iraq. The 60 day rule has no bearing in this case because the president didn't deploy troops without permission from congress. Furthermore; I didn't put the whole resolution in because it wouldn't fit that's why I put the link there.

 

[scottyz]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

However long it takes.
War is not an instant gratification event,


-Iraq is not Vietnam
-Iraqis are not Vietnamese
-What you call 'babysitting', responsible people call 'protecting them whil they get their contry together.

I'm not sure why you think we can leave before the Iraqis are able to support themselves -- what, exactly, is it you have against the Iraqi people?

Geographically and culturally this isn't the Viet Nam war. The situtation is becoming similar though.

We're protecting them from who?? themselves. Are we going to round up all the Sunni's and execute them? What's the long term plan for dealing with Iraq? "Stay the course" doesn't cut it.

If the war wasn't going to be an instant gratification event than it shouldn't have been planned or sold as such. Bush should have listened to all the people that told him to send more troops and more equipment. The borders should have been secured at the very beginning so no foreign group's entered Iraq. At some point you've made so many mistakes that finishing something as planned is no longer possible. We can't go back and fix those mistakes, this is up to the Iraqis now. We did what we set out to do. Bush said he wasn't interested in nation building as I recall.

Nope.
I'm saying that for every dollar we spent on the war, we spent >$12 on welfare. YOU are arguing that said $1 has caused the deficits -- what about the $12?


Its still 12x war spending, and it doesnt include any of the spending for hurricane recovery.

Then I'd like see the source for this. Either way it still goes back into America. The way Bush runs the economy we do not have the resources to financially support another country.

 

[scottyz]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

OK, THIS is wrong.
Japan had absolutely no "history' of democracy, and Germany's experiment with it failerd miserably. Both countries started is the same, if not worse, position as Iraq.

If anything, Iraq is better off because ot wasnt utterly shattered by the war.

And, given the Germany/Japan model, Iraq is doing VERY well.

Hitler was Democratically elected, was he not?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Simon here's a good link to the Resolutions for the use of Military force in Iraq and against Al-Qaeda in relation to the War Powers Resolution:

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C33.txt

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

OK, THIS is wrong.
Japan had absolutely no "history' of democracy, and Germany's experiment with it failerd miserably. Both countries started is the same, if not worse, position as Iraq.

If anything, Iraq is better off because ot wasnt utterly shattered by the war.

And, given the Germany/Japan model, Iraq is doing VERY well.

I didn't say they had a strong history, I said they had a "history".

Japan was developing a democracy in the 1920's. Naturally it wasn't strong enough to overcome the socialist/totalitarian wave the pushed it into global conquest. The important thing was that Japan was moving towards representative government on it's own.

And Germany had every opportunity with real democracy, which was the problem, of course, since too much democracy is ruinous for any nation.

Iraq? Saddam's was in power for 35 years, the nation has nothing but a history of bloody coups, including one incident where one of the former rulers was dragged to death behind a car until only a stump of a leg was left.

And I won't even mention that the barbaric primitivism of Islam will greatly increase the difficulty of developing a real government sensitive to the rights of it's citizens. That part is obvious.