Flash: Full Text: Kennedy Introduces Bill To Block Escalation In Iraq (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

Kennedy has just introduced a bill to cut off funding for any escalation of troops in Iraq. Personally, I don't think it will pass. If it does, and also clears the House (which I don't think will happen, given Pelosi's stance), I don't think they will have enough votes to override the veto that I am sure will happen. So why was the bill introduced, if we know that it will be vetoed and and the veto not overridden. Politics, of course.

Article is here.

 

[aps]

Kennedy has just introduced a bill to cut off funding for any escalation of troops in Iraq. Personally, I don't think it will pass. If it does, and also clears the House (which I don't think will happen, given Pelosi's stance), I don't think they will have enough votes to override the veto that I am sure will happen. So why was the bill introduced, if we know that it will be vetoed and and the veto not overridden. Politics, of course.

Article is here.

I disagree that this is about politics. To me, it's about Kennedy truly believing that the people should have a say in whether we put more troops in Iraq. The voters made a strong statement in November's election, and Kennedy believes that they should be able to participate in this decision. I fully support this bill and would love to see it passed.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

I disagree that this is about politics. To me, it's about Kennedy truly believing that the people should have a say in whether we put more troops in Iraq. The voters made a strong statement in November's election, and Kennedy believes that they should be able to participate in this decision. I fully support this bill and would love to see it passed.

Beautiful speech, but neither you or Senator Kennedy get to play Commander-in-Chief.

 

[ngdawg]

How ironic that the brother of the man who got us into Vietnam by increasing troops to enhance the 'police action' there, without congress officially declaring war, would write this....
I don't agree with the prospect of sending more to Iraq, but Kennedy brings this forth? Is he expecting some pat on the back from the great beyond from big brother or something? "I phooked up, lil bro, fix it for me.":roll:

 

[danarhea]

Beautiful speech, but neither you or Senator Kennedy get to play Commander-in-Chief.

True. Bush "plays" at being one quite well. Hopefully, the next president will take the job more seriously.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

True. Bush "plays" at being one quite well. Hopefully, the next president will take the job more seriously.

opinions are interesting things.

 

[aps]

How ironic that the brother of the man who got us into Vietnam by increasing troops to enhance the 'police action' there, without congress officially declaring war, would write this....
I don't agree with the prospect of sending more to Iraq, but Kennedy brings this forth? Is he expecting some pat on the back from the great beyond from big brother or something? "I phooked up, lil bro, fix it for me.":roll:

I guess I never understand why people hold someone's very FAR past against them and why they wouldn't see that maybe the current behavior is based upon having had a learning experience from the past.

 

[Goobieman]

Beautiful speech, but neither you or Senator Kennedy get to play Commander-in-Chief.

That's right.
Coingress has the power to declare war and to fund the military.
Congress can decide to not fund the military, but it cannot legislatively do anythig regarding the deployment of troops.

 

[Goobieman]

I guess I never understand why people hold someone's very FAR past against them and why they wouldn't see that maybe the current behavior is based upon having had a learning experience from the past.

You mean like GWB's National Guard service and supposed cocaine use?
Oh -- that's different.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

I love the part in a recent Kennedy speech, where Kennedy screamed with outrage: "The President is obsessed with victory." As if victory is some bizzare and kinky thing.

Yes, Ted, the President wants to actually win. :rofl

 

[aps]

You mean like GWB's National Guard service and supposed cocaine use?
Oh -- that's different.

I don't care about his cocaine use or about his pathetic National Guard service.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

I don't care about his cocaine use or about his pathetic National Guard service.

Except when he was running for election.

 

[Goobieman]

I don't care about his cocaine use or about his pathetic National Guard service.

Well, even if that is true, I expect to see you respond to any such allegations with your "I guess I never understand why people hold someone's very FAR past against them and why they wouldn't see that maybe the current behavior is based upon having had a learning experience from the past."

Don't worry - I wont hold my breath.

 

[aps]

Except when he was running for election.

Are you saying this based on fact? Do you KNOW for a fact that I cared about those two things? :roll:

 

[aps]

Well, even if that is true, I expect to see you respond to any such allegations with your "I guess I never understand why people hold someone's very FAR past against them and why they wouldn't see that maybe the current behavior is based upon having had a learning experience from the past."

Don't worry - I wont hold my breath.

I don't see the relevance to the here-and-now. That's my complaint. I went to a function at the White House several years ago where Bush talked about how it's wrong to do drugs. Does the fact that he did drugs way back when somehow NOT entitle him to make such a statement in the present? I don't think so. That was my point. Sorry if you didn't understand it.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Are you saying this based on fact? Do you KNOW for a fact that I cared about those two things? :roll:

As a matter of fact, yes. But I'm sorry that I cannot say how it is I know it.

 

[Navy Pride]

Bottotm line is "Fats" Kennedy is the biggest partisan in the Senate.........Anything that anyt Republican did he would try and block it.......

 

[Goobieman]

I don't see the relevance to the here-and-now. That's my complaint. I went to a function at the White House several years ago where Bush talked about how it's wrong to do drugs. Does the fact that he did drugs way back when somehow NOT entitle him to make such a statement in the present? I don't think so. That was my point. Sorry if you didn't understand it.

I understand it.
Like I said -- I'll be sure to watch for your "I don't see the relevance to the here-and-now" poist when someone brings those things up.

 

[faithful_servant]

Well, this will confuse the liberals here...

I don't support escalation in Iraq. It's time to start redeploying our troops and leaving all but the worst areas to the IA and IP with minimal advisors there to help them get self-sufficient. Right now, we're enabling the IA and IP to not rise to the occasion and take charge by over-managing thier operations in too many areas. While we've seen the IA and IP take charge in a lot of Iraq, we need to get them completely independent faster than what we currently are doing. Sometimes this means tossing them in the water and telling them to swim. We need to evaluate and aggressively back off on areas that are not under high level of attacks by the terrorists. Focus our efforts on the problem areas and let the Iraqis deal with the rest of Iraq. We also need to find ways to integrate the militias into the Iraqi forces. Offer their leaders high paying jobs that take them away from thier militias and then offer the militias positions and support in the IA and IP. Start utilizing the abilities of the militias to fight the terrorists, start offering bounties for terrorists to motivate the militias to fight them instead of supporting them. If there are militias that are actively supporting the terrorists, place bounties on them as well and turn some of our best out to remove them.
Basically, instead of escalating or reducing troop levels, refocus them and hit the problem areas HARD, while leaving the rest of Iraq to the Iraqis.

 

[Cremaster77]

Although Congress has the power to fund the military, the effects of funding are not immediate. Cutting funding does not mean that troops get brought home immediately. Over time it does, but not in the short term. What Kennedy is trying to do here is legislate short term military decisions. I don't know about you, but I personally think it's a bad idea to have short term military decisions being made by Congressional debate.

 

[Goobieman]

Although Congress has the power to fund the military, the effects of funding are not immediate. Cutting funding does not mean that troops get brought home immediately. Over time it does, but not in the short term. What Kennedy is trying to do here is legislate short term military decisions. I don't know about you, but I personally think it's a bad idea to have short term military decisions being made by Congressional debate.

In this instance, we'le looking at legislation to prohibit the delpoyment of troops to an active war.

It wont pass.
If it does, it will be vetoed
The veto won't be overriden
If it is, it will go to the SCotUS
The SCotUS will overturn the law.

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

How ironic that the brother of the man who got us into Vietnam by increasing troops to enhance the 'police action' there, without congress officially declaring war, would write this....
I don't agree with the prospect of sending more to Iraq, but Kennedy brings this forth? Is he expecting some pat on the back from the great beyond from big brother or something? "I phooked up, lil bro, fix it for me.":roll:

He's been watching the polls.:mrgreen:

 

[danarhea]

In this instance, we'le looking at legislation to prohibit the delpoyment of troops to an active war.

It wont pass.
If it does, it will be vetoed
The veto won't be overriden
If it is, it will go to the SCotUS
The SCotUS will overturn the law.

SCOTUS won't overturn the law, since Congressional funding is part of the Constitution. However, it will be vetoed and not overridden. Congress knows that, which is why I believe that any attempt to cut off funds is only for political purposes, a symbolic gesture, so to speak.

 

[Goobieman]

SCOTUS won't overturn the law, since Congressional funding is part of the Constitution. However, it will be vetoed and not overridden. Congress knows that, which is why I believe that any attempt to cut off funds is only for political purposes, a symbolic gesture, so to speak.

I dont mean the law that cuts funding, I mean the law that says he can't send more troops. THAT will be overturned.

 

[aps]

Okay, here's what I learned that Congress can do constitutionally. They could pass an appropriations bill for funding in Iraq but provide a condition that such $$$ cannot go towards funding additional troops. That is their legal right to do that. The President would certainly veto such bill, but he would be in a bind because he would then be vetoing a bill that would give him the additional money he seeks for the war in Iraq based upon the current level of troops in Iraq. He cannot sign such an appropriations bill and then provide a signing statement that he will use the $$$ for additional troops, as that would be constitutionally illegal. The Constitution unmistakably gives Congress the power of the purse, and they can decide how the $$$ is going to be spent.