Senate approves Iraq bill calling for March 2008 pullout

[danarhea]

The bill just passed the Senate. The bill now goes to a reconcilitation committee, as the House version calls for a September 2008 pullout.

The showdown with the White House will then begin.

Article is here.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Let's hope the bill stays in the Oval Office for about 30 seconds. Hopefully the VETO stamp is loaded with bright red ink.

 

[Navy Pride]

What is really bad is the Senate is going on one of their many vacations next week and it is likely the funding will not be there for the troops inm Iraq for the May timeframe........

 

[danarhea]

What is really bad is the Senate is going on one of their many vacations next week and it is likely the funding will not be there for the troops inm Iraq for the May timeframe........

The funding for the troops is in the bill, so please don't lie and say it isn't. The only stipulation is that Bush capitulate to the will of the American people. And for Bush to claim that Congress does not support the troops, with the Walter Reed scandal hanging around his neck like an albatross, is laughable.

 

[jfuh]

Let's hope the bill stays in the Oval Office for about 30 seconds. Hopefully the VETO stamp is loaded with bright red ink.

That's right, and it will be the president that cut funding for the troops.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

That's right, and it will be the president that cut funding for the troops.

Nice spin, but it will be clear why it was vetoed. When the Congress decides to act responsibly and present the funding without the political election cycle caveat, he'll sign it. I know how your heart bleeds for the spinach farmers. :roll:

 

[Captain America]

When the prez does veto the bill, I call dubs on getting to be the first one who starts the first thread titled, "President Cuts Funding to Troops." :mrgreen:

The money will be laying on his desk. He's the only who can cut it now. Him. The Prez. Can't :spin: this one....no wait. Karl Rove can. Just make a call to Bill and Rush. :doh

They can find a few people to believe them I'm sure.

 

[danarhea]

When the prez does veto the bill, I call dubs on getting to be the first one who starts the first thread titled, "President Cuts Funding to Troops." :mrgreen:

The money will be laying on his desk. He's the only who can cut it now. Him. The Prez. Can't :spin: this one....no wait. Karl Rove can. Just make a call to Bill and Rush. :doh

They can find a few people to believe them I'm sure.

Yea, they will claim that Congress put a gun to Bush's head and forced him to stop supporting the troops. :rofl

 

[jamesrage]

I think a more accurate title of the thread should be "senate approves of surrender date".

This more of a cowardly way for the traitorcats in office to cut off funding to our troops.They know the president is not going to sign a bill with a surrender date in it,what.You have to be a moron to not see this is nothing more than a chicken **** attempt to cut funding from our troops.The only people who will blame the president for cutting off troop funding are the traitorcats in office and the anti-american scum in the media.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

I think a more accurate title of the thread should be "senate approves of surrender date".

This more of a cowardly way for the traitorcats in office to cut off funding to our troops.They know the president is not going to sign a bill with a surrender date in it,what.You have to be a moron to not see this is nothing more than a chicken **** attempt to cut funding from our troops.The only people who will blame the president for cutting off troop funding are the traitorcats in office and the anti-american scum in the media.

Wow, I didn't realize that disagreeing with the President and other neo-conservatives means that you are anti-American.

 

[jamesrage]

Wow, I didn't realize that disagreeing with the President and other neo-conservatives means that you are anti-American.

What they are doing is not simple disagreement,what they are doing is undermining our troops for partisan bull ****.

 

[danarhea]

Wow, I didn't realize that disagreeing with the President and other neo-conservatives means that you are anti-American.

According to Jamesrage, the vast majority of the American people are traitors. Just goes to show you how out of touch with reality the Bushneviks really are.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

What they are doing is not simple disagreement,what they are doing is undermining our troops for partisan bull ****.

And the Republicans haven't played the partisan card numerous times as well? I could definitely see your point if the majority of Americans didn't also feel the same way. Bush was elected by the people, for the people...not for his own agenda.

 

[Captain America]

Wow, I didn't realize that disagreeing with the President and other neo-conservatives means that you are anti-American.

Well, actually.... politics aside...

Technically.........

As a matter of fact based on sheers numbers and common logic...

70 plus percent of Americans disagree with the president.

People that do side with him, against the will of the American people, are minimum at best but they do exist.

These people, being against the will of America, can be said to be "un-American" by their own admission. They are either for us or against us. Bush is against us. A few posters here are against us. It is safe to say, by definition, they are "Un-American" just by numbers alone. politics aside.

 

[jamesrage]

Well, actually.... politics aside...

Technically.........

As a matter of fact based on sheers numbers and common logic...

70 plus percent of Americans disagree with the president.

People that do side with him, against the will of the American people, are minimum at best but they do exist.

These people, being against the will of America, can be said to be "un-American" by their own admission. They are either for us or against us. Bush is against us. A few posters here are against us. It is safe to say, by definition, they are "Un-American" just by numbers alone. politics aside.

Do you have any numbers to support that Americans want senate and congress to approve of a surrender date?

 

[Captain America]

You mean pull-out date. Nice try though.

How can we surrender a war we have already won? Our objectives to make sure Iraq has no WMD's has been met. The world has one less tyrannical dictator. Saddam is dead.

The Sunni and Shia have a long overdue civil war waging as we speak. That is not why we went there.

I will look into how many Americans want a pull-out date. That should be interesting. I'll get back to with that number.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The funding for the troops is in the bill, so please don't lie and say it isn't. The only stipulation is that Bush capitulate to the will of the American people. And for Bush to claim that Congress does not support the troops, with the Walter Reed scandal hanging around his neck like an albatross, is laughable.

This bill is a ****ing joke, it has billions of dollars of pork in it because that was the only way that the Dems could get the votes they needed in order to violate the separation of powers so as to micro-manage the war. The Dems knew that this bill has no chance of being approved by GWB, that's their whole strategy they want to cut off funding without cutting off funding by having GWB do it for them by not signing the bill, they don't have the balls to actually pull the funding they would rather have a slow bleed in Iraq, what's really disgusting is that it seems that the surge is working and the Dems can't have that because they're invested in defeat.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yea, they will claim that Congress put a gun to Bush's head and forced him to stop supporting the troops. :rofl

Umm, it's a pork riddled bill that allows congress to violate the separation of powers and micro-manage the war in Iraq, the Dems knew it had no chance to be signed into law, that's why they passed it IE they don't have the guts to cut the funding themselves.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

Umm, it's a pork riddled bill that allows congress to violate the separation of powers and micro-manage the war in Iraq, the Democrats knew it had no chance to be signed into law, that's why they passed it IE they don't have the guts to cut the funding themselves.

They passed it as a symbolic gesture representing what the majority of Americans also want. By vetoing the bill, Bush would not only be cutting the funding to the troops, but completely disregarding how the majority of Americans feel about the issue. This isn't a dictatorship.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

They passed it as a symbolic gesture representing what the majority of Americans also want. By vetoing the bill, Bush would not only be cutting the funding to the troops, but completely disregarding how the majority of Americans feel about the issue. This isn't a dictatorship.

The American people want to violate the separation of powers and allow congress to micro-manage the war? And you're right it's a Constitutional Republic with three co-equal branches of government and under our Constitution it is the President who is the CinC not the Congress, it is the Congress who now wants to violate the Constitution and it seems that the left is very happy to let them do it. Just remember the Dems are invested in defeat and will do everything in their power to insure that defeat.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

The American people want to violate the separation of powers and allow congress to micro-manage the war? And you're right it's a Constitutional Republic with three co-equal branches of government and under our Constitution it is the President who is the CinC not the Congress, it is the Congress who now wants to violate the Constitution and it seems that the left is very happy to let them do it. Just remember the Democrats are invested in defeat and will do everything in their power to insure that defeat.

The majority of American people want our troops out of Iraq. It has nothing to do with defeat or wanting defeat. How could one want defeat when they don't even know what victory would be?

 

[danarhea]

The American people want to violate the separation of powers and allow congress to micro-manage the war? And you're right it's a Constitutional Republic with three co-equal branches of government and under our Constitution it is the President who is the CinC not the Congress, it is the Congress who now wants to violate the Constitution and it seems that the left is very happy to let them do it. Just remember the Democrats are invested in defeat and will do everything in their power to insure that defeat.

1) Congress' responsibility IS in the funding of wars, and they have every right to stipulate conditions for that funding. That they have done. The money is there. All Bush has to do is agree with the vast majority of the American people, sign it, and abide by the rules. That does not violate separation of powers.

2) When you say that the American people want to violate separation of powers, you sound like a dictator. Fact is, the American people are the ULTIMATE decider, not Bush, not Congress, not anyone else. WE OWN THE DAMN COUNTRY, BUSH DOESN'T.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

1) Congress' responsibility IS in the funding of wars, and they have every right to stipulate conditions for that funding. That they have done. The money is there. All Bush has to do is agree with the vast majority of the American people, sign it, and abide by the rules. That does not violate separation of powers.

This bill is a blatant violation of the Constitution, the Congress has absolutely 0 roll in dictating the particulars of how a war is to be fought, they can cut funding and that's it but they don't have the stomach for that so they pass a bill that they knew had no chance of being signed into law, they have absolutely no right to put such stipulations in a bill which is why it will be vetoed and the only reason it was passed by Congress in the first place is because of the Billions in pork ad-ons used to buy the necessary votes.

2) When you say that the American people want to violate separation of powers, you sound like a dictator. Fact is, the American people are the ULTIMATE decider, not Bush, not Congress, not anyone else. WE OWN THE DAMN COUNTRY, BUSH DOESN'T.

We are a Represantive Republic not a direct Democracy, imagine what would have happened if we fought WW2 according to public opinion. And I didn't say that the American people wanted to violate the separation of powers it was a rhetorical question I guess you missed the question mark on the end of that sentence.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The majority of American people want our troops out of Iraq.

It's a good thing that we don't fight wars based on opinion polls.

It has nothing to do with defeat or wanting defeat.

It has everything to do with wanting defeat, the Dems are invested in defeat as they freely admit.

How could one want defeat when they don't even know what victory would be?

Victory will be achieved when Iraq is stable and secure.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

It's a good thing that we don't fight wars based on opinion polls.

So essentially you are completely dismissing how the majority of Americans feel on the issue?

It has everything to do with wanting defeat, the Democrats are invested in defeat as they freely admit.

No, it has everything to do with defeat based on your narrow partisan view. You know as well as I do that everyone wants us to succeed in whatever we do. However, the victory that you want may not be attainable in this war without an even greater cost.

Victory will be achieved when Iraq is stable and secure.

It's funny because I thought that victory was taking Saddam out of power and finding WMD's. Why does the definition of "victory" keep changing. Also, if that is truly what victory would be how long are we supposed to stay there with many of our soldiers coming back in body bags?