US Senate's Reid backs plan to end funds for Iraq

[Navy Pride]

This is unbelieveable.........This guy shows he does not care about our troops in harms way.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N02424029.htm

WASHINGTON, April 2 (Reuters) - Racheting up pressure on the White House to end the Iraq war, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid joined one of the chamber's biggest anti-war Democrats on Monday in proposing to terminate funding for the conflict within a year............

 

[Hatuey]

This is unbelieveable.........This guy shows he does not care about our troops in harms way.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N02424029.htm

WASHINGTON, April 2 (Reuters) - Racheting up pressure on the White House to end the Iraq war, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid joined one of the chamber's biggest anti-war Democrats on Monday in proposing to terminate funding for the conflict within a year............

I kinda agree with the idea that this is playing politics with our troops. It's a sleazy move but what exatcly is the presidents plan? Keep our troops there until radical Islam decides it doesn't want to be bad anymore?

 

[danarhea]

This is unbelieveable.........This guy shows he does not care about our troops in harms way.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N02424029.htm

WASHINGTON, April 2 (Reuters) - Racheting up pressure on the White House to end the Iraq war, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid joined one of the chamber's biggest anti-war Democrats on Monday in proposing to terminate funding for the conflict within a year............

Actually, the funds ARE there. All Bush has to do is capitulate to the American people and pull the troops out next year. He does not own the USA, in case you didn't know. The only way the troops won't be funded is by Bush's own hand.

 

[WI Crippler]

Well what bothers me more than all the pork, or whatever, in the bill is the timing of the withdrawal. Kind of convienent for democrats in an election year isn't it??

 

[Stinger]

This is unbelieveable.........This guy shows he does not care about our troops in harms way.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N02424029.htm

WASHINGTON, April 2 (Reuters) - Racheting up pressure on the White House to end the Iraq war, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid joined one of the chamber's biggest anti-war Democrats on Monday in proposing to terminate funding for the conflict within a year............

After he lied and said he would never do this.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Actually, the funds ARE there. All Bush has to do is capitulate to the American people and pull the troops out next year. He does not own the USA, in case you didn't know. The only way the troops won't be funded is by Bush's own hand.

We have a Representative form of governemnt, the President was elected in '04 by the American people to fullfill a roll as CinC, the Congress does not have that roll and thank god we don't fight wars based on public opinion polls. No ones going to buy this bullshit that the President not the Congress are responsible for the cut in funding. Even the Congress wouldn't have voted for this bill had it not been for the political bribery payed for with our tax dollars as Charles Rangel freely admits.

 

[Iriemon]

We have a Representative form of governemnt, the President was elected in '04 by the American people to fullfill a roll as CinC, the Congress does not have that roll and thank god we don't fight wars based on public opinion polls. No ones going to buy this bullshit that the President not the Congress are responsible for the cut in funding. Even the Congress wouldn't have voted for this bill had it not been for the political bribery payed for with our tax dollars as Charles Rangel freely admits.

I'm buying it. If Bush supports the troops he'll fess up to his mistake and get them the hell out of there. If he wants to keep them in Iraq without funding just to serve his arrogant pride, that is his responsibility. He's already got the blood of scores of thousands of thousands on his hands.

 

[jamesrage]

This is unbelieveable.........This guy shows he does not care about our troops in harms way.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N02424029.htm

WASHINGTON, April 2 (Reuters) - Racheting up pressure on the White House to end the Iraq war, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid joined one of the chamber's biggest anti-war Democrats on Monday in proposing to terminate funding for the conflict within a year............

The surrender date bill did not work so now the anti-war ******s in office want to out in the open cut off funding since attaching a surrender date to a troop funding bill did not work for them.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I'm buying it. If Bush supports the troops he'll fess up to his mistake and get them the hell out of there. If he wants to keep them in Iraq without funding just to serve his arrogant pride, that is his responsibility. He's already got the blood of scores of thousands of thousands on his hands.

What a load of sh!t the Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to micro-manage the war, that would be in direct violation of the Constitution, they knowingly passed a bill that had 0 chance of getting signed into law which is why they had to buy votes with taxpayer dollars, if the funding for the troops is cut it is the fault of the Democrats not the President any assertion to the contrary is complete and utter bullshit your party sent our troops into harms way and now when their lives our on the line they want to cut their funding, you must be so proud to be a Democrat.

 

[Gibberish]

Nothing is going to change until 08. Political bitching will continue but the troops will stay.

Bush has made it perfectly clear he will do everything in his power to pass Iraq onto the next president. He doesn't know how to finish what he started so he just wants to ride out the next year and half.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Nothing is going to change until 08. Political bitching will continue but the troops will stay.

The DOD said they need the funds by April 15th or they will have start making cuts and the Dems are going on vacation till April 16th, the Democrats are putting our troops in unnecessary danger.

 

[oldreliable67]

As Jeff Goldstein, blogging at Protein Wisdom, puts it:

Now it is just like Vietnam: “Senate Majority Leader Co-sponsors Feingold Bill to Redeploy Troops from Iraq”

And just for the record, here’s Harry Reid in 2005, speaking at the National Press Club:

“As far as setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that’s not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don’t want us there, and it doesn’t work well to do that.”

Until, of course, it does.

So, who will play Pol Pot this time around, do you think? And do you suppose Nancy Pelosi’s upcoming meeting with Assad has as part of its mission to negotiate a path to the sea through Syria for those Iraqis who supported the US? Because you can’t really have boat people without water…

 

[BubbaBob]

Now it is just like Vietnam:...

Exactly.

The US lost in Viet Nam NOT because our military couldn't win, but because the politicans forgot what the different players jobs were.

Politicans decide IF we go to war, and our politicans, democrat and republican, decided to go to Iraq.

The military fights wars, and should be the one that decides how to do it.

Democrats are now proving that they don't learn the lessons of history, and they are meddling in something they don't have a clue how to deal with again, just as politicans did in Nam.

Do the same thing, get the same result.

BubbaBob

 

[Stinger]

Nothing is going to change until 08. Political bitching will continue but the troops will stay.

Bush has made it perfectly clear he will do everything in his power to pass Iraq onto the next president. He doesn't know how to finish what he started so he just wants to ride out the next year and half.

It your position so weak you have to make things up like this?

 

[Gibberish]

It your position so weak you have to make things up like this?

What position do you assume I have?

I truly believe Bush is doing everything he can to keep things the same until he leaves office. It's in his best interest to do so.

 

[Iriemon]

What a load of sh!t the Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to micro-manage the war, that would be in direct violation of the Constitution, they knowingly passed a bill that had 0 chance of getting signed into law which is why they had to buy votes with taxpayer dollars, if the funding for the troops is cut it is the fault of the Democrats not the President any assertion to the contrary is complete and utter bullshit your party sent our troops into harms way and now when their lives our on the line they want to cut their funding, you must be so proud to be a Democrat.

What a load of sh!t Funding is not micro-managing. The constitution made the president the CiC, but it gave Congress broad powers in foreign policy makding, and it gave Congress the power of the purse.

Congress is completely legitimate in using its constitutional powers.

If the president keeps the troops in Iraq without funding, and put their lives on the line lacking what they need, he made that decision and he's the one not supporting them.

 

[Iriemon]

Nothing is going to change until 08. Political bitching will continue but the troops will stay.

Bush has made it perfectly clear he will do everything in his power to pass Iraq onto the next president. He doesn't know how to finish what he started so he just wants to ride out the next year and half.

Spot one. 100% right.

This pass the buck president will pass both Iraq and his gigantic debt to the next president rather than face up to his own failures.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

What a load of sh!t Funding is not micro-managing.

And setting a withdrawal date while limiting troop deployments sure as hell is.

The constitution made the president the CiC,

Right which is why he not the Congress decides when to withdrawal troops from a warzone.

but it gave Congress broad powers in foreign policy makding, and it gave Congress the power of the purse.

Umm what powers does the Constitution give the Congress in foreign policy making? It is the executive not the legislative branch that sets foreign policy.

Congress is completely legitimate in using its constitutional powers.

What part of the Constitution allows the Congress to usurp powers of the Executive?

If the president keeps the troops in Iraq without funding, and put their lives on the line lacking what they need, he made that decision and he's the one not supporting them.

They can cut funding, that's all they can do but they don't have the balls to do that, and why they were trying to pass a bill that granted them the powers of the executive, that they can not do and that is the reason why that if the funds are cut by this bill being vetoed it will be the fault of the Democrats in Congress not the President's. If the Democrats want to cut funding then let them do it, what they are trying to do is create a slow bleed and that is uncsonsiounable.

 

[jfuh]

I kinda agree with the idea that this is playing politics with our troops. It's a sleazy move but what exatcly is the presidents plan? Keep our troops there until radical Islam decides it doesn't want to be bad anymore?

I agree, this funding bill seems to have generated the strongest response from Bush ever. King W finally understands now that congress has as much power as he does but in a different manner.
You can't run a war? don't listen to the advice of every bureaucratic committee you assembled? Congress will then be exercising its power of the check book.

 

[Stinger]

What position do you assume I have?

I don't assume it you are trying to state it.

I truly believe Bush is doing everything he can to keep things the same until he leaves office. It's in his best interest to do so.

Again why do you have to make things up to support your position?

 

[jfuh]

Umm what powers does the Constitution give the Congress in foreign policy making? It is the executive not the legislative branch that sets foreign policy.

Ummm, I'm going to take a shot in the dark here but how about - source

Congress can make foreign policy through:

1) -- resolutions and policy statements
2) -- legislative directives
3) -- legislative pressure
4) -- legislative restrictions/funding denials
5) -- informal advice
6) -- congressional oversight.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I agree, this funding bill seems to have generated the strongest response from Bush ever. King W finally understands now that congress has as much power as he does but in a different manner.
You can't run a war? don't listen to the advice of every bureaucratic committee you assembled? Congress will then be exercising its power of the check book.

Unfortunately that's not what they did, they wrote a bill to implement John Murtha's slow bleed strategy, if the Dems want to cut the funding then do it that is their right but this bullshit they're trying to pull can not stand.

 

[jfuh]

Unfortunately that's not what they did, they wrote a bill to implement John Murtha's slow bleed strategy, if the Democrats want to cut the funding then do it that is their right but this bullshit they're trying to pull can not stand.

You are sadly mistaken, what the democratic congress has done now is exactly that, they're going to give the white house a check with the memo portion written in as to exactly what it's for.
Bush couldn't run the war, so now Congress is saying point blank, enough.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Ummm, I'm going to take a shot in the dark here but how about - source

Gotcha but notice what's under the executives roll:

1) -- responses to foreign events
2) -- proposals for legislation
3) -- negotiation of international agreements
4) -- policy statements
5) -- policy implementation
6) -- independent action.

Congress is trying to make policy statements, implement policy,, and negotiate international agreements.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You are sadly mistaken, what the democratic congress has done now is exactly that, they're going to give the white house a check with the memo portion written in as to exactly what it's for.
Bush couldn't run the war, so now Congress is saying point blank, enough.

The Congress has no roll what so ever as to how a war is fought, that is the roll of the executive it is the President not the Congress who is commander in chief, setting timetables and limiting troop deployments are not powers of the Congress. If the Democrats want to cut funding let them do it, what they are doing now is implementing their slow bleed strategy and attempting to usurp the powers of the executive. They passed a bill that they knew had no chance of being signed into law, so much so that they had to buy the votes with taxpayer dollars.