Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/02/senate.funds/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI CS/04/02/senate.funds/index.html</a> No one has apparently let Dick Cheney see the poll numbers or has the guts to tell him (he did shoot his friend in the face, after all) that this kind of rhetoric isn't working anymore. In his latest speech it's more of the same nonsense we've heard the last three years: passing the blame on the Democrats, using words like "victory" and "defeat" as if it was all that black and white. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it any time these jokers say something like this: Bush and Cheney lost the war. Period. To try and paint it any other way is beyond absurd.
Originally Posted By DAR Bush and Cheney should be ashamed for letting the war go on too long. But the those who voted to cut funding for the war should equally be ashamed. Both of these are just a slap in the face to our troops who really deserve better than those in Washington deciding their fate.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I'm just happy that Congress is finally starting to remember that they have responsibilities to fulfill and powers reserved for them when the United States uses its armed forces. From the Constitution: " 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; " I've always found it interesting how our Founding Fathers specifically wrote our Constitution to limit Congress appropriation authority for armies to 2 years -- doesn't that say something about how far we have strayed from the principles our nation was founded on when we have the leader of our executive branch declaring that he wants no timetables? Timetables are part of our Constitution! I'm guessing President Bush didn't do all that well in civics class.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I'm guessing President Bush didn't do all that well in civics class." He took a Civics class?
Originally Posted By gadzuux Bush's press conference this morning was more of the same blather too. He invoked 9/11 as justification for the iraq war - again, and spoke as if congress hadn't PASSED the appropriations bill. He didn't answer any of the questions put to him directly, instead choosing to continue to hammer away with the same old talking points. He was asked point-blank questions about the attorney scandal, and the weekend's revelation about his `04 campaign manager's bush bashing - which is a topic in itself that I've been meaning to start a thread on. (I've been busy.) His answers to each of those questions borders on the comical. If he were more deft at subtlely shifting the topic of his answers, he might have been able to get away with it. But bush has never been a statesman, and his hamfisted and graceless attempts to stumble through a response using the same tired rhetoric were useless. There's almost no point to press conferences with him anymore because no light is ever shed on any topic of importance.
Originally Posted By jonvn How many more months of this clod? Jan 2009? 21. 21 more months. tick tock tick tock.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>There's almost no point to press conferences with him anymore because no light is ever shed on any topic of importance.<< Rumor has it that at future press conferences, he'll merely provide links to past stetements. ; )
Originally Posted By gadzuux A couple of cheney's quotes from ecdc's link above ... >> "The fact is that the United States military answers to one commander-in-chief in the White House, not 535 commanders-in-chief on Capitol Hill," he added. "We expect the House and the Senate to meet the needs of our military on time, in full, and with no strings attached." << Aside from the fact that this statement is factually incorrect, it shows the petulance and the disconnect that this administration has with the public. They may know that there's resistance to the iraq war, but they don't really "know" it. They believe they can hold back the tide, and they're dead-wrong. >> He added, "It's also clear that we've got enough supporters of the military in Congress to sustain a veto, and so it is pointless for the Democrats to continue pursuing this legislation." << No, it isn't "pointless". It's straight to the point. There is a divide within our nation about the iraq war, and they're on the losing side. With this new congress, they're starting to get some 'pushback' and they don't like it. This administration thinks it's because of the dreaded 'democrats', because they would never assume responsibility for anything. But it's actually because of their own fumbled execution - they're the ones that made it the hopeless mess that it's become.
Originally Posted By DAR All this is those in Washington engaging in a p***sing contest. This has nothing absolutely NOTHING to do with the well being of the troops. People want to disagree with the war that's fine. But to cut off funding absolutely is beyond the pale.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Bush could just sign the appropriations bill, and then not adhere to the timelines later. It would be a win/win for him, but it requires him to capitulate, which he will never do. So the result is that he's "choosing" to take a political stand rather than doing the expedient thing and acting in the military's best interests.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< But to cut off funding absolutely is beyond the pale. >>> I'm glad that you agree that the President has made a deplorable move. The Congress PASSED a law giving the President all the funding he asked for and more, yet the President threatens to veto it.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 It's the "more" that has doomed the bill. More pork, more special interest items, more absurd add-ons like timelines which ensure chaos and massive death the moment we leave. This bill will fail, the dems will capitulate and the funding will go to the troops. And the dems will look foolish when it's all over.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< It's the "more" that has doomed the bill. More pork, more special interest items, >>> I know. Man, how bad has it gotten with pork and special interest items since the Dems regained control of Congress? The Republicans set such a stellar example on how not to do these things over the previous 6 years. <<< more absurd add-ons like timelines which ensure chaos and massive death the moment we leave. >>> I agree with this. I think that the notion of a timetable is a terrible idea. But that has nothing to do with misrepresenting the current bills as one to "cut off funding" as was done a few posts ago. <<< This bill will fail, the dems will capitulate and the funding will go to the troops. And the dems will look foolish when it's all over. >>> Well, there's plenty of foolishness to go around. Virtually the entire world, and an increasing majority of Americans think the whole operation in Iraq is foolish.
Originally Posted By jonvn "ensure chaos and massive death the moment we leave" That will happen in any case. When you accept that, then the cut off is not a bad thing. Just get us out, let them kill each other and partition the land. That's simply going to happen if we leave now, in 2 years, or 10 years. We might as well make it as soon as we can and get it over with.
