Bush gets it right

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

then it will be very clear whether playing politics or supporting the troops is more important to him. If he chooses to take a political position rather than to get money to the troops - money that he claims they need desperately - well, that's his right. But, as he himself has said, the american people will know who to hold responsible.

Maybe he thinks the best way to support AMERICA is to finish the job? Put a person in a box with only two options and either one you get to claim victory.

See you like he is in a trap since it supports your personal views. But you ignored the min wage issue. So you agree that Dems really didn't want the min wage bill to pass then right?

[jakee 1,562]

  Quote

Well that would be the debate that we had in 2002, 2003. The debate about the US role in Iraq is over.

The US role in Iraq has materially changed from what we went in for originally. Further more, the cost/ reward ratio has ballooned out of all proportion to what was estimated in even the worst case scenarios.

The situation we are in now is not what was discussed in 02/03.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

  Quote

What does spinach, peanuts and visitors to Congress have to do with funding the troops?

What is this? Did Congress append a pay raise in a troop funding bill again?

What are the stringers?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,562]

  Quote

What is this? Did Congress append a pay raise in a troop funding bill again?

Congress get paid in peanuts?

I guess they do resemble a bunch of monkeys.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[shropshire 0]

You missed the comma in your thread title

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Gawain 0]

  Quote

>Congress is trying to implement policy. That is not their job.

You are correct. Their job is to SET policy. They have; it is now up to Bush to implement it.

No, their job is to legislate. Which is supported by your argument below:

  Quote

>It is not up to Congress to decide when the military is done with its job.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

This supports my point, "Congress shall provide". It does not say that "Congress shall operate and have command and control over" ... etc.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,067]

>Maybe he thinks the best way to support AMERICA is to finish the job?

He can think that all he wants. He can think that we are the land of the free and the home of the brave. He can say he's tough on terrorism. He can be in favor of baseball and apple pie. But his choice RIGHT NOW is to fund the troops - or not. And americans are waiting to see whether funding the troops is more important to him than partisan politics.

The clock is ticking for our troops in the field. If Bush fails to sign the bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible.

[rehmwa 2]

  Quote

>And americans are waiting to see whether funding the troops is more important to him than partisan politics.

I have to infer from this and Royd's post that there's a lot of nonsense in the bill in addition to the funding ('what doesn't spinache, peanuts and visits" mean) - anyone have a link to the line items? Since you note Bush has to choose between partisan politics and funding the troops means that your congress has loaded a bunch of crap in with the important item.

If this is the case, then hasn't congress just demonstrated that partisan politics IS more important to them than funding the troops? Now we are waiting to see if Bush is just as bad?

So we have a pissy game of political chicken going on with no one really interested in the troops. Nice

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,067]

>You are correct. Their job is to SET policy. They have; it is now up to
>Bush to implement it.

>No, their job is to legislate.

I think perhaps a quick perusal of the dictionary is in order (if you think passing laws is not setting policy, that is!)

>This supports my point, "Congress shall provide".

Unfortunately it doesn't say that. What it does say is that the Congress SHALL HAVE POWER to declare war, to set the rules under which our troops are used, and to pass any laws they want to ensure the above happens.

[billvon 3,067]

>I have to infer there's a lot of nonsense in the bill . . .

As there is in all funding bills. Let's take just one, in Jun 2006. It was an emergency funding bill for the war, but also included the following "nonsense":

$15 million for local law enforcement here in the US
$500 million for new labs for the CDC
A purely political provision capping the annual appropriations bills that Congress passes each year
$14 billion in farm aid _outside_ disaster areas (like New Orleans)

Yet he signed that one, even though it was laden with non-war-related pork. But this pork is somehow different?

>If this is the case, then hasn't congress just demonstrated that partisan
>politics IS more important to them than funding the troops?

Congress has demonstrated that they pass the same sort of emergency funding bills they always do. Bush can either sign it, and fund the troops, or not sign it and deny them the money. His call.

BTW Bush could have funded this war in the budget, and then he wouldn't have needed to make emergency request after emergency request. Again, his choice. But he shouldn't whine when Congress gives him the money to make up for his failure to do his job and budget for his war. The claim that "the veto is Congress's fault, not Bush's!" is going to be an embarrassing one for the few people who still support him.

[rehmwa 2]

  Quote

>he claim that "the veto is Congress's fault, not Bush's!" .

why make that claim? it would be the fault of both for purposely making it hard when it could be simple

What's in THIS bill (the Jun 06 is interesting, but we have this one to discuss)

  Quote

Congress has demonstrated that they pass the same sort of emergency funding bills they always do

Rephrase, Congress has demonstrated that behave as always, shiftless, sneaky and with partisan agendas that are in conflict with the good of decent citizens. (again, doesn't matter which side is in control)

But in this case, both sides can badmouth the other side no matter how it turns out.



Wouldn't it be cool if Congress could issue a simple bill, the President could sign it, and they could both say that not only did they do the right thing, but the other side also did, too?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,067]

>What's in THIS bill (the Jun 06 is interesting, but we have this one to discuss)

The pork this time is mostly farm aid, assistance for the citrus and lettuce growers who lost their crops.

>Rephrase, Congress has demonstrated that behave as always, shiftless,
>sneaky and with partisan agendas that are in conflict with the good of
>decent citizens. (again, doesn't matter which side is in control)

Rephrase again - both Congress and the president have demonstrated they are behaving as always. The president, though, is about to make a change in his strategy, and refuse to fund a pork-laden spending bill of the sort he once approved. And that's fine, that's his call. But to blame congress for his change of heart isn't supportable. He has the same sort of pork-laden bill to sign that he's always had; this time he just doesn't like some of the political pork, and figures that defunding the military will result in a favorable political result.

>Wouldn't it be cool if Congress could issue a simple bill, the President
>could sign it, and they could both say that not only did they do the right
>thing, but the other side also did, too?

Neither side will do that. Congress will push their agenda, and Bush will push his, as always. The difference this time is that Bush may just end up denying funding to people that need it - and may, ironically, end up causing exactly what he is attempting to avoid, a panicked withdrawal. I hope he's not that dumb.

[rehmwa 2]

It would be very ironic that he finally has the nerve to veto a spending bill - if he does it on one like this. Bitter sweet and 6 years too late

Line Item Veto. No, that only shows how the pres REALLY feels. COngress has to be under that scrutiny too - congress votes on single lines only. Not only veto by line item, but congress has to vote that way too. Let us REALLY know what politicians vote for and against.

  Quote

Rephrase again - both Congress and the president have demonstrated they are behaving as always.

yes, as pond scum - but the process is defined that congress starts it and the pres has to react - why should the 'mob' branch have the ability to revel in their mass anonymity?

  Quote

Neither side will do that.

I just asked if it would be cool, not if it's remotely possible for these jerks.

  Quote

Congress will push their agenda, and Bush will push his,

This time both sides said their agenda was to fund the troops. They agree and they still play the game. That's the sad part

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gawain 0]

  Quote

>You are correct. Their job is to SET policy. They have; it is now up to
>Bush to implement it.

>No, their job is to legislate.

I think perhaps a quick perusal of the dictionary is in order (if you think passing laws is not setting policy, that is!)

>This supports my point, "Congress shall provide".

Unfortunately it doesn't say that. What it does say is that the Congress SHALL HAVE POWER to declare war, to set the rules under which our troops are used, and to pass any laws they want to ensure the above happens.

Policy is decided by the executive branch. The legislative branch writes laws that implement that policy. If Congress tries to implement policy through legislation that is not line with the executive branch, they face a veto. That is how a federal republic works, the chief of state and head of government resides in the executive branch, not with the legislature.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,067]

>Policy is decided by the executive branch.

I realize that's what happens now, but that is not what the constitution intended. There were three branches, the legislative (creates law) executive (executes law) and judicial (decides on questions of law.)

>If Congress tries to implement policy through legislation that is not
>line with the executive branch, they face a veto.

That is part of the checks and balances of our government, not an indication of who's in charge of what. Arguing that it is is like arguing that congress arbitrates on questions of law, since they can impeach judges.

[narcimund 0]

  Quote

Policy is decided by the executive branch. The legislative branch writes laws that implement that policy.

I'm pretty much immune to reading stupid things on the internet but this sincerely, honestly made me sad.

I wonder how prevalent this basic, outrageous, 180-degree misunderstanding of american government is.

There's not much to hope for any more is there?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[funjumper101 15]

  Quote

  Quote

Policy is decided by the executive branch. The legislative branch writes laws that implement that policy.

I'm pretty much immune to reading stupid things on the internet but this sincerely, honestly made me sad.

I wonder how prevalent this basic, outrageous, 180-degree misunderstanding of american government is.

There's not much to hope for any more is there?

Pretty scary, isn't it?

When someone swears an oath to protect and defend something, one would hope that they had read and understood it.

Let's see how many righties chime in and say "Gawain is correct!!". This could be quite amusing.

[billvon 3,067]

>There's not much to hope for any more is there?

I do worry. And Max is a smart guy. What do the less-intelligent types out there think? They outnumber people like Max by a wide margin.

[jakee 1,562]

  Quote

Policy is decided by the executive branch. The legislative branch writes laws that implement that policy. If Congress tries to implement policy through legislation that is not line with the executive branch, they face a veto. That is how a federal republic works, the chief of state and head of government resides in the executive branch, not with the legislature.

Ok dude, slow down, seriously. I've got three words for you (well, two meaningful words and a link).

Checks and balances!

How can you say with a straight face that congress is intended to be a puppet of the executive? I mean really, what the hell would be the point?

Explain to me, please, if congress is only intended to implement the will of the president why on earth would you go to the bother of electing them? A staff of political appointees would be so much more efficient!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Amazon 7]

  Quote

How can you say with a straight face that congress is intended to be a puppet of the executive? I mean really, what the hell would be the point?

Explain to me, please, if congress is only intended to implement the will of the president why on earth would you go to the bother of electing them? A staff of political appointees would be so much more efficient!

Give it another year and one attack with WMD on our soil...we will get to see what this country is really made of.

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

>Instead of withholding money . . .

They're not. They approved the funding.

>they should be demanding the pullout.

Right. And Bush would say "fuck you too!" and order more troops in. He's the commander-in-chief; the military obeys him, not Pelosi or Reid.

>In other words, Congress can mandate the removal of troops at
>anytime, if there has not been a formal declaration of war.

Right. And it's unconstitutional to wiretap without a court order, or to deny people the right of Habeas Corpus. Since when does Bush care about any of that? If Congress did push such a bill through, he'd sign it and attach a signing statement saying "The president interprets this such that he can keep troops in a country when he determines there is a clear and present danger to the security of the United States of America."

WARNING WARNING !! Thread redirect in process

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[akarunway 1]

  Quote

  Quote

How can you say with a straight face that congress is intended to be a puppet of the executive? I mean really, what the hell would be the point?

Explain to me, please, if congress is only intended to implement the will of the president why on earth would you go to the bother of electing them? A staff of political appointees would be so much more efficient!

Give it another year and one attack with WMD on our soil...we will get to see what this country is really made of.

Ding Ding. We have a weiner. Can you say MARTIAL LAW?

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[GQ_jumper 4]

The military is not an organization that should be deployed for nation building. They are the ones suffering the abhorent decision making of the administration.

They did what they were sent to do long ago. Its time to bring them home. Immediately.

  Quote

There's more to combat than crushing a foreign army. If all we had done was roll over Saddam's military then turn around and come home leaving the Iraqis to whatever fate decides to do with them what do you think would happen? We created the insecurity by destroying the forces that kept this country secure, that's what happens when you invade. Now until this country once again has fully capable security forces it is our responsibility to remain here and provide that security for them.

As for the BS that congress is pushing, they're playing politics, not supporting the troops. They are trying to corner Bush to make themselves look better. Why not put the funding and the troop withdrawls on two seperate bills, they are two seperate issues, we need the money over here regardless of how long we're going to stay here. Congress damn well knows that Bush would veto anything with a definite time table attached to it. A timetable is bullshit anyways, you can't predict how long it will take to win a war, that's impossible. Everytime you are making strides in the right direction something comes out of left field that no onecould've planned for. Although the Dems do a great job of pointing at Bush for not planning for everything that comes up like they knew it was going to happen the whole time.

As I've said a thousand times before, you want an exit strategy, make a list of all the milestones that need to be accomplished to get out of here. Both sides I'm sure could agree on what those steps need to be. Make that your time table, when all of those things are accomplished we go home. An attitude of "I just need to tough it out for six more months and then I'm home whether I finish the job or not" is the wrong answer. Letting people know that things need to be accomplished in order to go home is the way to get it done.
But what would I know anyways?

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[billvon 3,067]

>Why not put the funding and the troop withdrawls on two seperate bills,
>they are two seperate issues, we need the money over here regardless of
>how long we're going to stay here.

Because the only "lever" they have is funding. They cannot order the troops out, and Bush will ignore them if they pass a bill saying he should do so.

Fortunately for the troops there's a compromise in the works, a new bill being proposed:

----------------------
(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.
-----------------------

I can't imagine him rejecting this one, since it's giving him money for everything he's been asking for.

[rehmwa 2]

It looks like a one year contract - Come back for more if you plan to go past Mar 31 08

That's a bit less slimy, but still allows both sides to claim victory by inferring stuff that's not really in there. good deal if it goes out as you wrote it

1 - let's see what it looks like after they add in pay raises for themselves and some provisions on snow meltoff and wind power and airline bailouts

2 - let's see if the pres signs it

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants