au1929 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:au1929 wrote:Cycloptichorn
I totaly disagree with you. Bush and his cronies would be spreading the news that congress does not support our troops and our troops are are lacking equipment and armament because of it. And the public will buy it. In addition they are not being asked to nor in my opinion can't just up and leave immediately. They need funding even if they stay another six to eight months. Yes indeed congress has no option but to vote the funding.
Who cares what Bush says?
The public will
not buy it, as they hate Bush and the hate the war! Every time Bush proposes something, it
loses popularity nationwide.
How can you not see this?!!!
Cycloptichorn
And how can you not see the publics response if we do not fund our troops in the field?
au, Have you been following general Petraeus? At the congressional hearings, he said this war cannot be won by our military alone. Guess what? We've been losing our buts in both the military and diplomatic fronts. They continue to believe that the Iraqi government can and will meet some goals established by the US government; total ignorance. The Iraqi government is powerless and breaking at the seams; they can't even hold their government together. You want until September? For what purpose, exactly? Give us details.
And I should add playing politics when the lives of our troops are on the line
War is politics; nothing more, nothing less.
cicerone imposter wrote:au, Have you been following general Petraeus? At the congressional hearings, he said this war cannot be won by our military alone. Guess what? We've been losing our buts in both the military and diplomatic fronts. They continue to believe that the Iraqi government can and will meet some goals established by the US government; total ignorance. The Iraqi government is powerless and breaking at the seams; they can't even hold their government together. You want until September? For what purpose, exactly? Give us details.
I want us to get out of Iraq as soon as feasible. However I also know and you should know that even if they should decide to leave it can not be at a moments notice. And no one is asking that they do not even congress.
cicerone imposter wrote:War is politics; nothing more, nothing less.
Yeah! Not the troops in harms way.
I doubt anyone has said we vacate Iraq post haste. All the American people want are some reasonable timelines - not the indefinite Bush "stay the course" rhetoric. That's the reason why only 32 percent now support Bush; he'll continue to lose more conservatives support the longer he stays stubborn.
Bush has been successful in losing about 25 percent of conservative voters. Many political pundits say he'll continue to lose more the longer he insists we stay in Iraq without some solution beyond what's been said.
That's what Bush keeps telling the American People and congress, but Bush has cut veteran's benefits by over 15 percent starting next year while trying to make his tax cuts permanent.
Yeah, sure, support our troops.
cicerone imposter wrote:I doubt anyone has said we vacate Iraq post haste. All the American people want are some reasonable timelines - not the indefinite Bush "stay the course" rhetoric. That's the reason why only 32 percent now support Bush; he'll continue to lose more conservatives support the longer he stays stubborn.
We agree and that is why congress, squirm as they may, will have to approve the additional funding. And the wanabe dictator knows it.
cicerone imposter wrote:That's what Bush keeps telling the American People and congress, but Bush has cut veteran's benefits by over 15 percent starting next year while trying to make his tax cuts permanent.
Yeah, sure, support our troops.
Another misguided action by the f*uckup in the white house but that is another subject in a long line of f*ukups by the misbegotten clod in the White House.
C.I.
Democrats Relent On Pullout Timetable
By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 23, 2007; Page A01
Democrats gave up their demand for troop-withdrawal deadlines in an Iraq war spending package yesterday, abandoning their top goal of bringing U.S. troops home and handing President Bush a victory in a debate that has roiled Congress for months.
Bush, who has already vetoed one spending bill with a troop timeline, had threatened to do the same with the next version if it came with such a condition. Democratic leaders had moved ahead anyway, under heavy pressure from liberals who believe that the party won control of Congress in November on the strength of antiwar sentiment. But in the end, Democrats said they did not have enough votes to override a presidential veto and could not delay troop funding.
They can delay troop funding.
The problem is that you have bought into the bullsh*t, Au. You seem to think that the troops will be negatively impacted by cutting their money off; it isn't true. They would be brought home. Otherwise, whose fault is it? Bush's. The American public response would not be to sink the Democrats, they hate bush and the war and want it over.
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
You are living in a dream world. Do you think the Dem's in congress would have voted the funding if were not forced to. You are being guided by what you want not the reality of what is.
I hate to tell you, since it will no doubt be a blow to your ego, that you, in spite of what you may believe, are not all knowing. :roll
Got to go now the Met game has started. Much more important that this discussion.
au1929 wrote:Cycloptichorn
You are living in a dream world. Do you think the Dem's in congress would have voted the funding if were not forced to. You are being guided by what you want not the reality of what is.
I hate to tell you, since it will no doubt be a blow to your ego, that you, in spite of what you may believe, are not all knowing. :roll
Got to go now the Met game has started. Much more important that this discussion.
Nothing forced them to, except for people like you who can't tell Republican bullshit when they see it.
Thanks, our troops appreciate staying there longer, I'm sure.
Cycloptichorn
Edited: And, what's even more, the idea that the Dems are looking to defund the troops in any way is
bull ****. They PASSED a funding bill which had all the money the Prez asked for in it, and he refused to sign it. How this got turned around into the Dems looking to defund the war is beyond me.
Iraq's Zebari urges Britain and U.S. to maintain troops
Quote:...this is not the time to cut and run. This is the time to stand with the people whom you helped liberate and to assist."
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKL1910900420070521
Cycloptichorn
You seem to forget the situation in Iraq is the direct result of the action as idiotic and thoughtless as it may have been of the US. We unfortunatley have some obligation to not just cut and run.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If surge sinks, it's Baker time, sez W
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BY KENNETH R. BAZINET
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Friday, May 25th 2007, 4:00 AM
WASHINGTON - President Bush surprisingly suggested yesterday that if the surge fails, he will consider the recommendations of the Iraq Study Commission, which said most combat troops should be pulled out early next year.
"The recommendations of Baker-Hamilton appeal to me," he said, referring to James Baker and Lee Hamilton, who headed the commission. "That is, to be embedded and to train and to guard the territorial integrity of the country, and to have Special Forces to chase down Al Qaeda.
"I believe this is an area where we can find common ground with Democrats and Republicans," he admitted.
The commission recommended that by the first quarter of next year "all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq." U.S. forces still in Iraq would help train Iraqi forces, support them and hunt Al Qaeda.
Though he has ignored that plan since its release in December, Bush's comments came as a New York Times/CBS poll showed opposition to the war at an all-time high.
Some 60% said the U.S. never should have gone into Iraq, and 63% favor a timetable for withdrawing troops, the poll showed.
Bush said he's still committed to his surge plan and will decide after he consults with Gen. David Petraeus in September. Petraeus, the commander on the ground in Iraq, plans to make his assessment of the troop surge at the end of the summer.
Defense Secretary Bob Gates said if Bush decides to embrace the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, it "clearly would involve fewer forces than we have now, and forces with a different mission." Gates was also on the Baker-Hamilton commission.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) gave Bush a Bronx cheer for finally considering a Plan B.
"While we are glad the President has started to acknowledge the value of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group as a 'Plan B,' this has been 'Plan A' for Democrats, military experts and the American people since before the report came out in December," Reid said.
Could have done without the surge but that if he follows through is a step in the right direction
Cycloptichorn wrote:Okay, and even more important, so what?
There are crooks and criminals of all types here and all over the world. Terrorism is something that has to be fought against, but it isn't pernicious to the survival of the US or even of your own personal behind.
The cowardice of some people here amazes me. Whatever happened to 'Give me liberty, or give me death?'
Now the Republican mantra is 'Take our liberties to keep us safe, please!'
Cycloptichorn
IIRC its the liberals who want to disarm the people. Wouldn't that be "take our liberties"?
You love to call people cowards....
Tell us when and where did you ever "fight"....
cicerone imposter wrote:woiyo, It makes no sense, because the Iraqi government has no influence or power. To assume they can "meet specific goals" only shows ignorance by the American people. They want to continue funding a war on worthless goals that's impossible to meet. In essence, funding a war to continue the loss of lives and treasure.
I was referring to the poll not making sense.
My stated position has been that this "war" was OVER the day we stopped looking for WMD and we replaced the Saddam regime.
We should have left the next day.
We are involved in a police action and nation building which as far as I am concerned is unconstitutional and the entire House, Senate and Administrative Branch should be impeached.
woiyo wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:woiyo, It makes no sense, because the Iraqi government has no influence or power. To assume they can "meet specific goals" only shows ignorance by the American people. They want to continue funding a war on worthless goals that's impossible to meet. In essence, funding a war to continue the loss of lives and treasure.
I was referring to the poll not making sense.
My stated position has been that this "war" was OVER the day we stopped looking for WMD and we replaced the Saddam regime.
We should have left the next day.
We are involved in a police action and nation building which as far as I am concerned is unconstitutional and the entire House, Senate and Administrative Branch should be impeached.
Well I agree with your position on when the 'war' ended. It ended the day Bush was on the aircraft carrier.
I also agree with the impeachment of the administrative branch, as they were very much involved with every aspect that has led us to where we are today. But where I disagree is the impeachment of our current house/senate, it was not this house or senate that was a simple rubber stamp for everything Bush wanted to do.
