Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NorthSideSox72

House passes Iraq Withdrawal bill

Recommended Posts

So the House says all combatant troops to leave by September of 2008. Passed by a slim, non-veto-proof majority. Senate is working up a similar bill. Bush has already said it ain't gonna happen.

 

Does anyone think that a required withdrawal is a good thing in this fashion? And if the Prez does indeed veto, does anyone thing both houses could muster a veto override?

 

Seems to me our current path is worthless, so a pullout is better than what we've got. Though eveyone seems to be ignoring the alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 12:38 PM)
So the House says all combatant troops to leave by September of 2008. Passed by a slim, non-veto-proof majority. Senate is working up a similar bill. Bush has already said it ain't gonna happen.

 

Does anyone think that a required withdrawal is a good thing in this fashion? And if the Prez does indeed veto, does anyone thing both houses could muster a veto override?

 

Seems to me our current path is worthless, so a pullout is better than what we've got. Though eveyone seems to be ignoring the alternatives.

So, the more relevant detail, IMO, is that this is the funding supplemental bill. IN other words, based on the logic of the campaign, Mr. Bush is now against the Iraq war because he is going to veto funding for it. Furthermore, it's also worht noting that if Mr. Bush signed the bill...there's no enforcement mechanism in the bill...the "Blue dog Dems" had that taken out as a condition for joining in. So if Mr. Bush wanted to ignore it, he could.

 

What are these "other alternatives" you're speaking of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 02:44 PM)
So, the more relevant detail, IMO, is that this is the funding supplemental bill. IN other words, based on the logic of the campaign, Mr. Bush is now against the Iraq war because he is going to veto funding for it. Furthermore, it's also worht noting that if Mr. Bush signed the bill...there's no enforcement mechanism in the bill...the "Blue dog Dems" had that taken out as a condition for joining in. So if Mr. Bush wanted to ignore it, he could.

 

What are these "other alternatives" you're speaking of?

Yeah the fact that its attached to the funding bill was an interesting move. Its related to be sure, so I'm good with that, sort of.

 

Alternatives being anything other than "stay the course" or a complete and immediate pullout of troops. Some have at least suggested that the training be stepped up massively, which is something. But I still favor a breakup of the country, in two or three parts. Different objectives for each. Its the only worthwhile alternative I see at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Bush was complaining that there was a bunch of "pork" tagged onto the bill. if what he is saying is true, that would be hilarious.

 

they can't even end a war without tacking on a bunch of extra stuff for special interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, Nancy had to buy her votes - so she and her Democratic collegues added a bunch of pork spending so people would vote for it. Nice and "ethical", Nancy! You go! Change Congress forever! wOOt!

 

Hypocritical. Very hypocritical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen the bill, and haven't seen if what Bush says about pork is actually true. Maybe he is referring to the pullout as the pork.

 

 

ETA: Wow. Something in that sentence sounds really bad if you read it out loud.

Edited by NorthSideSox72

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Senate attempted to pass a similar measure a few weeks ago which essentially brings most of the soldiers out by '08 and it only received 48 votes. 60 votes would be needed to invoke cloture, which is a super-long shot in terms of troop withdrawl. 67 votes are needed to override a veto. Even if the bill is successfully modified out of conference to win over the likes of Coleman, Hagel, Snowe, etc. there is no chance it gets 67 votes.

Edited by Chet Lemon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 03:16 PM)
I haven't seen the bill, and haven't seen if what Bush says about pork is actually true. Maybe he is referring to the pullout as the pork.

ETA: Wow. Something in that sentence sounds really bad if you read it out loud.

The thing is loaded to the brim. It's the only way Pelosi could pass the bill, not that that's an excuse.

 

There's about $20 billion in hurricane relief (covering mainly "livestock" I believe). $35 mil for NASA, about $4 billion in farm subsidies covering everything from spinach to citrus and milk (actually, both milk and OJ prices have shot up 25% around here lately, some subsidies might be nice :P ) about $3 billion for Hurricane Recover ($1.9 billion for levee reconstruction), and so on. Link 1. Link 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 05:56 PM)
The thing is loaded to the brim. It's the only way Pelosi could pass the bill, not that that's an excuse.

 

There's about $20 billion in hurricane relief (covering mainly "livestock" I believe). $35 mil for NASA, about $4 billion in farm subsidies covering everything from spinach to citrus and milk (actually, both milk and OJ prices have shot up 25% around here lately, some subsidies might be nice :P ) about $3 billion for Hurricane Recover ($1.9 billion for levee reconstruction), and so on. Link 1. Link 2.

 

:lolhitting

 

21 billion in unrelated spending tacked on.

Edited by mr_genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 05:56 PM)
The thing is loaded to the brim. It's the only way Pelosi could pass the bill, not that that's an excuse.

 

There's about $20 billion in hurricane relief (covering mainly "livestock" I believe). $35 mil for NASA, about $4 billion in farm subsidies covering everything from spinach to citrus and milk (actually, both milk and OJ prices have shot up 25% around here lately, some subsidies might be nice :P ) about $3 billion for Hurricane Recover ($1.9 billion for levee reconstruction), and so on. Link 1. Link 2.

Holy crap!!! $21 Billion in unrelated funding????

 

Argh. This Dem Congress started out strong, and did a lot of the big things they said they would. That was a pleasant couple weeks. Seems like they've been going downhill since.

 

Morons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the inevitable reaction from Cheney, followed by the inevitable counter from Pelosi.

 

I'm pretty pissed at the pork thing, but I am sort of glad that Congress is at least attempting to force the issue (even though they can be fairly sure it won't get the result they want). It appears that the only way for Bush to see he's hopelessly off the tracks on this war is to take away the bank account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, NSS. I mean really, if you're anyone in the Mideast, they now realize that all they have to do is wait us out and we'll let them take control. That is EXACTLY what message this sends to everyone in the world: if things get tough, the US will run away. Congress knows what's going on... but they do have to grandstand for the cameras. I'm glad everyone who voted for these morons are really happy with what's going on.

 

I think DICK (ahem) is callous, but he's right at the heart of it all.

 

I think what really pisses me off about this is how HAPPY Nancy, et. al. was about "pulling off the vote". Oh, f***ing joyous times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Mar 25, 2007 -> 03:28 PM)
The War is over. We have lost.

 

Any other thought is delusion. "Well, we could win if we'd just wait."

And it's people like you, sir, who are the problem. (and I don't mean that personally... but it's absolutely the truth).

 

Any war is "winnable", if the screwball politicians weren't involved. Furthermore, it doesn't have to he by a lot of deaths, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the surface I don't like the bill. The pork doesn't bother me as much, hell it's how Bush was elected. Kerry voted against pork in a bill and after that was portrayed as against vests for the military. I'm upset it continues to be a tool to get stuff passed and would love to see a law that prevents non-topic spending in a bill. I'm guessing it wouldn't change much, because the pork that is in this bill would probably pass anyways, and for the same "you help my district, I'll help yours" mentality. But at least they can't hide.

 

On the plus side.

 

No WMD remain so if that was the reason we invaded and committed US lives, Mission Accomplished!

No Saddam. so if that was the reason we invaded and committed billions of dollars, Mission Accomplished!

I can't remember why else we invaded, but what do we have left to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this is significant because I don't see any way in hell there are enough votes to override the veto. However it does send a message, if nothing else. Of course, it's a message to deaf ears.

 

As for this war.....it's already lost, but by the politicians and not the troops. The President, Army Generals, Congress, everybody is at fault.....the prez for starting a stupid war, and then it trickles on down since we still could have won this war even though it should have never happened.

Edited by whitesoxfan101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 25, 2007 -> 03:42 PM)
And it's people like you, sir, who are the problem. (and I don't mean that personally... but it's absolutely the truth).

 

Any war is "winnable", if the screwball politicians weren't involved. Furthermore, it doesn't have to he by a lot of deaths, either.

This war is not winnable for America. Its just not. Not every war is. I suppose maybe if we went about it from the beginning without having the leaderships' collective heads up their asses, maybe it would have been different. Maybe. But the only way its winnable at this point is if the U.S. was willing to be a violent, unrelenting dictator over Iraq, and I think we all agree that is unacceptable. Therefore, its not winnable.

 

So best we get the heck out, or at least try some very different path. Nothing we do to try to make Iraq a single, unified, safe and free country is going to fail. So what purpose does our presence serve?

 

You're right that the insurgents know they can just wait it out, and they are right. So are you trying to argue we should stay, lose thousands more lives (ours and Iraqis) and spend trillions more dollars, just to be stubborn? That would be very Dubya. Stay the path, even in the face of all logic and practicality, and even if they end goal is not even attainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you play hardball with the government, and you let them know that the people who are harming other innocent people will get blown into their next life. It kills me that you all are so ready to run out of there to let the power vaccuum to begin.

 

"ohhhhh there's just NOTHING we can do but get out". It sickens me that you all give up so easy. Maybe we should have said the same thing in World War II. There's alternatives, there's ALWAYS alternatives, except to those who want to say "America has lost." OK, whatever. Let's just bury our heads up our collective asses, run away, and let the people who want to do us harm bomb the s*** out of us in our own towns. It will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 25, 2007 -> 07:51 PM)
No, you play hardball with the government, and you let them know that the people who are harming other innocent people will get blown into their next life. It kills me that you all are so ready to run out of there to let the power vaccuum to begin.

 

"ohhhhh there's just NOTHING we can do but get out". It sickens me that you all give up so easy. Maybe we should have said the same thing in World War II. There's alternatives, there's ALWAYS alternatives, except to those who want to say "America has lost." OK, whatever. Let's just bury our heads up our collective asses, run away, and let the people who want to do us harm bomb the s*** out of us in our own towns. It will happen.

WWII? Run away and hide? Iraq is going to bomb us? A little over the top, no?

 

If you are so convinced there are "alternatives", then I'd like to hear one. I mentioned one earlier - Kurdistan. But I really see no others, and even that one has major risks. What would you suggest? Are you saying we should just stick it out as-is, despite the fact that there is no sign of it getting better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 25, 2007 -> 07:51 PM)
Let's just bury our heads up our collective asses, run away, and let the people who want to do us harm bomb the s*** out of us in our own towns. It will happen.

 

Kap, not all the terrorists are in Iraq. While we are stretched this thin, we can not respond with full "Shock and Awe" anywhere else in the world. Perhaps terrorists would be even less likely to bomb us if they knew the entire US military had nothing to do but retaliate. As it is now, we can barely keep up with the demands in Iraq. Both in terms of soldiers and money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 12:52 PM)
WWII? Run away and hide? Iraq is going to bomb us? A little over the top, no?

 

If you are so convinced there are "alternatives", then I'd like to hear one. I mentioned one earlier - Kurdistan. But I really see no others, and even that one has major risks. What would you suggest? Are you saying we should just stick it out as-is, despite the fact that there is no sign of it getting better?

Supposedly, where they have reshuffled the deck, it is getting better.

 

More later from me on my ideas, hopefully. Don't have time right now.

 

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 12:56 PM)
Kap, not all the terrorists are in Iraq. While we are stretched this thin, we can not respond with full "Shock and Awe" anywhere else in the world. Perhaps terrorists would be even less likely to bomb us if they knew the entire US military had nothing to do but retaliate. As it is now, we can barely keep up with the demands in Iraq. Both in terms of soldiers and money.

This is more about psychology then anything, Tex. We can win any war we want, both psychologically and "shock and awe" (pure war power, if you will.) The truth is, America can't handle the reality of what "war" means. It's probably the video game mentality, which is really, really unfortunate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 09:17 AM)
Supposedly, where they have reshuffled the deck, it is getting better.

 

More later from me on my ideas, hopefully. Don't have time right now.

 

 

This is more about psychology then anything, Tex. We can win any war we want, both psychologically and "shock and awe" (pure war power, if you will.) The truth is, America can't handle the reality of what "war" means. It's probably the video game mentality, which is really, really unfortunate.

 

Thinking about psychology and the possibility that our withdrawal could make us more vulnerable, to make your theory valid, wouldn't the thinking of an enemy state be along these lines?

 

Yeah, they will retaliate and bomb the crap out of us, killing tens of thousands of our citizens, and remove us from power, perhaps we'll be hanged, but they will leave in three or four years . . . Are you thinking what we did in Iraq wasn't enough of a deterrent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this war is it is more of a war of psychology then ever before. And, let's face it, Americans are wusses in the wars of psychology. We don't have the guts to stand up for our values anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 10:17 AM)
The problem with this war is it is more of a war of psychology then ever before. And, let's face it, Americans are wusses in the wars of psychology. We don't have the guts to stand up for our values anymore.

Please clarify your opinion. Which values are we not standing up for with regards to the war in Iraq?

Edited by BigSqwert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×