Bush vows to defund troops

[molson_golden2002]

1) They aren't "attempting to bring them home" because this has zero chance of working. As DC already pointed out, this is almost certainly unconstitutional because Congress isn't in the chain of command. This is basically a publicity stunt.

2) And for what? To bring the troops back in 17 months? If Pelosi really believes the war is such a disaster, why wait 17 months? More importantly, how does doing this ensure success for what our troops are trying to do over there?

3) Do you think General Petreaus is happy about this?

 

4) This is pretty much the last thing you'd want Congress to do when you're trying to achieve your goals in a military conflict and the fact that they had to sweeten this thing up to grab the extra votes needed to barely make this thing pass confirms it's a complete abortion.

1) Yes they are attempting to bring them home, by playing politics. That's how it works in America. The Democrats are clearly drawing a line in the sand. They are against the Iraq occupation, Bush is for it. Eventually Americans will decide the issue at the polls. Things take time.

 

2) Yes, Hey Iraqis you have 17 months to get your country in order, recruit your own troops and police so we can bring our troops home.

 

3) Who cares?

 

4) No, this is exactly what we want, to push this thing to get our troops out of there. And the abortion was invading in the first place, or the Bush Presidency, what a joke it has been. One of the very worst Presidents in our history

[Wacka]

MG= Totally clueless on another subject

[molson_golden2002]

MG= Totally clueless on another subject

Wacka!

[Johnny Coli]

Everyone wants the troops home but how they leave is the big issue. Announcing your troop movements to the enemy a year and a half in advance is pretty much only going to ensure that things get worse over the next year and a half. And they're doing this about two months (?) into Petreaus's turn in charge there and his implementation of a new plan (which is still in the early stages). Fighting a war with a timer pretty much ensures that you won't achieve your goals because the enemy will just wait you out.

 

And, again, this bill is just a useless gesture based on how Congress has nothing to do with these decisions and how even if they did, Bush is vetoing this thing.

bull sh--. Saying your going to start holding the people of a supposedly sovereign nation accountable for dealing with their own problems is not telegraphing anything to "Your enemies." I've got news for you, guy, the enemy (whomever that is presently) needs the US there. If we're talking Al Qaeda, then they are only too happy to have the US stuck in Iraq while Bin Laden sips coffee and laughs at The Drudge Report from Musharref's Karachi brownstone. If we're talking about any of the numerous sectarian groups fighting in Iraq, then they are only too happy to have the US there as a nice target to blame for all their problems, to train against on the US' dime, and to use as a valuble recruitment tool.

 

The bill isn't useless, by the way, as it gives Bush all the money he asked for (and more) for the troops. The House voted to support the troops. A Bush veto (temper tantrum) will be the reason they don't see any of that money.

[SilverNRed]

bull sh--. Saying your going to start holding the people of a supposedly sovereign nation accountable for dealing with their own problems is not telegraphing anything to "Your enemies."

That's a nice way of putting it except all this bill really does is say "Look, we're only going to try for a little bit longer and we really don't care what happens after that." So all that means is anyone who is against the new government in Iraq will figure out 1. they're fighting people who have no will to win and 2. they only have to hold out a little longer. In other words, it guarantees that everything we're trying to accomplish over there won't happen. I don't see how that's helpful, especially when you're two months into the new plan that everyone was demanding (a plan most likely formulated without a timer in mind).

 

If we're talking Al Qaeda, then they are only too happy to have the US stuck in Iraq while Bin Laden sips coffee and laughs at The Drudge Report from Musharref's Karachi brownstone.

Bin Laden is in such great shape that they haven't even been able to snap a new picture of him in 2-3 years. The guy lives in a cave in Waziristan (if he even lives at all) and has sex with a goat every night. I'm honestly a bit skeptical when I hear people tell me how great things are going for him and his jihad right now.

 

If we're talking about any of the numerous sectarian groups fighting in Iraq, then they are only too happy to have the US there as a nice target to blame for all their problems, to train against on the US' dime, and to use as a valuble recruitment tool.

That doesn't match the facts. Al-Sadr, for example, fled to Iran and his Mahdi militia is dissolving. These sects don't benefit from the U.S. army being there to crush them if they get too unruly. And I don't think the violent sects represent the vast majority of the 25 million people who live there.

 

The bill isn't useless, by the way, as it gives Bush all the money he asked for (and more) for the troops. The House voted to support the troops. A Bush veto (temper tantrum) will be the reason they don't see any of that money.

Yes it is. The timer pretty much destroys any chance of success in the conflict and the money it sets aside doesn't balance that out. (And on a side note, it would be nice to just once hear a Democrat talk about finding a way to succeed instead of constantly harping about how terrible everything is going and the terrible things our troops are doing a la Kerry, Murtha, and Durbin. Whatever.)

 

The deadline can just as easily be called the temper tantrum in this because it's unconstitutional. Congress is not in the chain of command. This isn't their call. The Democrats had their chance to get in the chain of command in 2004 and they blew it. The Commander in Chief is Bush and it's going to be that way until January 2009.

 

It will be vetoed. It should be vetoed. And its only lasting effect will be that it openly declared that one of our two political parties has zero interest in success in the conflict.

[X. Benedict]

Everyone wants the troops home but how they leave is the big issue. Announcing your troop movements to the enemy a year and a half in advance is pretty much only going to ensure that things get worse over the next year and a half. And they're doing this about two months (?) into Petreaus's turn in charge there and his implementation of a new plan (which is still in the early stages). Fighting a war with a timer pretty much ensures that you won't achieve your goals because the enemy will just wait you out.

 

And, again, this bill is just a useless gesture based on how Congress has nothing to do with these decisions and how even if they did, Bush is vetoing this thing.

 

Generally I think announcing troop movements is a bad thing if you are facing some kind of coherent army.

 

But the real danger is that who we perceive as allies in the theater are "waiting us out" - as well as our enemies.

[Johnny Coli]

That's a nice way of putting it except all this bill really does is say "Look, we're only going to try for a little bit longer and we really don't care what happens after that." So all that means is anyone who is against the new government in Iraq will figure out 1. they're fighting people who have no will to win and 2. they only have to hold out a little longer. In other words, it guarantees that everything we're trying to accomplish over there won't happen. I don't see how that's helpful, especially when you're two months into the new plan that everyone was demanding (a plan most likely formulated without a timer in mind).

 

No government in Iraq will be consider legitimate to the Iraqis or anyone else in the region as long as the US is occupying the country. Any government endorsed by the US and backed with the power of the US military will be considered a puppet of the United States. What makes you think that anything will change in Iraq if we continue to follow the same path that Bush/Cheney and the Neocons have been following? You have got to be out of your mind if you think that this new plan (which is really just the same old plan) will work? There are four-plus years of evidence to the contrary.

 

Bin Laden is in such great shape that they haven't even been able to snap a new picture of him in 2-3 years. The guy lives in a cave in Waziristan (if he even lives at all) and has sex with a goat every night. I'm honestly a bit skeptical when I hear people tell me how great things are going for him and his jihad right now.

You may want to check up on what's happening in Afganistan then.

 

That doesn't match the facts. Al-Sadr, for example, fled to Iran and his Mahdi militia is dissolving. These sects don't benefit from the U.S. army being there to crush them if they get too unruly. And I don't think the violent sects represent the vast majority of the 25 million people who live there.

They're not dissolving, they're splintering off into more radical groups. That's even worse and highlights even further how over-they're-heads incompetent the handling of this occupation has been. Instead of having a single group to deal with and a single leader that you know who had the backing of a good portion of the population, you now have multiple unnamed radical armed extremists. I don't see how that can be considered a positive development.

 

 

Yes it is. The timer pretty much destroys any chance of success in the conflict and the money it sets aside doesn't balance that out. (And on a side note, it would be nice to just once hear a Democrat talk about finding a way to succeed instead of constantly harping about how terrible everything is going and the terrible things our troops are doing a la Kerry, Murtha, and Durbin. Whatever.)

 

Well, the Dems could lie and pretend things are looking up over there. Would that make you feel better about the Dems?

 

Furthermore, how exactly, in your world, would you measure success in Iraq? If we're going to measure it by using Iraqi involvement in the security of their own country, then it's been a colossal failure. How long do we continue to put US military lives on the line for a supposedly sovereign nation that seems complacent to let the US deal with (and pay for) it's own Civil War?

 

The deadline can just as easily be called the temper tantrum in this because it's unconstitutional. Congress is not in the chain of command. This isn't their call. The Democrats had their chance to get in the chain of command in 2004 and they blew it. The Commander in Chief is Bush and it's going to be that way until January 2009.

 

It will be vetoed. It should be vetoed. And its only lasting effect will be that it openly declared that one of our two political parties has zero interest in success in the conflict.

It's not unconstitutional. Bush has to ask congress for the money to fund his war. They gave him the money. They just didn't give him the money to do whatever he wants. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. If he doesn't like it, he has the power of the veto. But using that veto power means he's screwing over the troops. The House gave him his money.

[SilverNRed]

Well, the Dems could lie and pretend things are looking up over there. Would that make you feel better about the Dems?

No. I want what I said I wanted. I want them to offer real solutions. I want them to talk about actual success. All they've done for years is score points by crapping on the effort and the troops.

 

If they have a plan to make sure things are better there in the future, then let's hear it already. The problem is, they don't. For them it always boils down to "Let's leave, Bush lied anyway."

 

Furthermore, how exactly, in your world, would you measure success in Iraq?

I used the word stability.

 

If we're going to measure it by using Iraqi involvement in the security of their own country, then it's been a colossal failure. How long do we continue to put US military lives on the line for a supposedly sovereign nation that seems complacent to let the US deal with (and pay for) it's own Civil War?

Longer. You broke it, you bought it. Again, it's not about "how much longer" or setting a timeline. It's about doing what's best for the long-term. Leaving the region totally fugged only means we're going to end up right back there.

 

Moreover, our presence does not guarantee their government is not legit. U.S. troops are still present in countries all around the world from previous conflicts, including Germany and Japan.

 

It's not unconstitutional. Bush has to ask congress for the money to fund his war. They gave him the money. They just didn't give him the money to do whatever he wants. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. If he doesn't like it, he has the power of the veto. But using that veto power means he's screwing over the troops. The House gave him his money.

Screwing the troops is telling the world you don't want to win a war but making sure the troops are there 17 more months.

 

And it is unconstititional because Congress can't decide on troop movements. They can decide on how much money. That's it.

[SilverNRed]

Generally I think announcing troop movements is a bad thing if you are facing some kind of coherent army.

 

But the real danger is that who we perceive as allies in the theater are "waiting us out" - as well as our enemies.

I agree.

[X. Benedict]

And it is unconstititional because Congress can't decide on troop movements. They can decide on how much money. That's it.

 

This is much more murky constitutionally.

Who exactly are we fighting? And when was that authorization given by congress?

It is no longer the regime of Saddam, is it? That is long gone.

 

I'm just saying that it is murky.

[Bungee Jumper]

This is much more murky constitutionally.

Who exactly are we fighting? And when was that authorization given by congress?

It is no longer the regime of Saddam, is it? That is long gone.

 

I just saying that it is murky.

 

 

Murkier still...regardless of all that, the President has the authority under the War Powers act to effectively fight wars without Congressional consent anyway...

[X. Benedict]

Murkier still...regardless of all that, the President has the authority under the War Powers act to effectively fight wars without Congressional consent anyway...

 

Of 1973?

[molson_golden2002]

Screwing the troops is telling the world you don't want to win a war but making sure the troops are there 17 more months.

 

Screwing the troops is sending them back for their fourth and fifth tours. Where are all the college Republicans?

[molson_golden2002]

No. I want what I said I wanted. I want them to offer real solutions. I want them to talk about actual success. All they've done for years is score points by crapping on the effort and the troops.

 

If they have a plan to make sure things are better there in the future, then let's hear it already. The problem is, they don't. For them it always boils down to "Let's leave, Bush lied anyway."

 

I used the word stability.

There are no solutions to Iraq. Its been blown apart. How do you put humpty dumpty back together without these people? From the Los Angeles Times today:

 

Iraq's urban, educated, largely secular middle class had everything to gain from the fall of Saddam Hussein's oppressive and isolating regime. Four years later, it is on the way to being wiped out.

 

Writers, doctors and university professors are hunted down and killed. Entrepreneurs and engineers are kidnapped for lucrative ransoms. And the symbols of Iraq's intellectual heritage — its bookstores, libraries, museums and archeological sites — have been plundered and burned.

 

More than 200 Iraqi academics, 110 physicians and 76 journalists have been killed since Hussein's fall, according to figures compiled by government ministries and professional associations. Thousands of others have fled the country.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...headlines-world

 

Sounds like a Conservative wonderland, all the thinking people gone and nothing left but violent religious freeks

[Johnny Coli]

No. I want what I said I wanted. I want them to offer real solutions. I want them to talk about actual success. All they've done for years is score points by crapping on the effort and the troops.

 

If they have a plan to make sure things are better there in the future, then let's hear it already. The problem is, they don't. For them it always boils down to "Let's leave, Bush lied anyway."

 

I used the word stability.

 

There is a real solution--phased redeployment and force the Iraqis to start controlling their own country. Start working diplomatically with the other countries in the region that have a vested interest in a stable Mid-East. This was all put forth in the bipartisan Iraq plan last fall...the one that Bush ignored.

 

Also, you say you measure success in Iraq using stability. If you're using that as your benchmark then Iraq is a total failure.

 

Longer. You broke it, you bought it. Again, it's not about "how much longer" or setting a timeline. It's about doing what's best for the long-term. Leaving the region totally fugged only means we're going to end up right back there.

 

Stay the course? It's not working. Doing what's best for the long-term does not mean continue doing what you're doing (which isn't working by even your measure of success), but even longer. Ending the US military occupation of Iraq is not a concrete recipe for chaos. Furthermore, ending the US military occupation of Iraq does not mean the US is withdrawing all influence and presense from the Mid-East. It doesn't even mean a complete abandonment of Iraq.

 

Moreover, our presence does not guarantee their government is not legit. U.S. troops are still present in countries all around the world from previous conflicts, including Germany and Japan.

 

Iraq is not Germany or Japan, and it is precisely that thinking that has put the US in the position it is in. No sovereign nation's government will be considered legitimate as long as they require another nation's military to prop it up.

 

Screwing the troops is telling the world you don't want to win a war but making sure the troops are there 17 more months.

 

And it is unconstititional because Congress can't decide on troop movements. They can decide on how much money. That's it.

The empty rhetoric that this bill doesn't fund the troops is false. The money is there for the troops. However, the money is not there for a prolonged, open-ended occupation of Iraq to be used at the discretion of the President. The troops will be paid. The troops will get everything they need. I would argue that screwing the troops is continuing to involve them in a bogged-down occupation of a country with no end in sight.

 

And I would like someone to make the argument that this bill is unconstitutional, rather than stating that it is because they think so. Let's see someone bust out their Con Law texts and put forth the legal reasoning behind that statement.

[X. Benedict]

How about this one.."Go on the offensive and win the damned thing!"????

 

Not being an ass, but I would say they already did that.

Now the whole country is in factions, with some factions helping us with

some elements of this puzzle are working against us on other things.

 

I don't have any doubt that if our military had the ability to point at an

enemy they would "go on the offensive.'

 

Even Petraeus says there is no military solution to this.

The private armys standing in the way of a political solution are also the

ones providing social services and security to large populations.

[GG]

There is a real solution--phased redeployment and force the Iraqis to start controlling their own country. Start working diplomatically with the other countries in the region that have a vested interest in a stable Mid-East. This was all put forth in the bipartisan Iraq plan last fall...the one that Bush ignored.

 

And what is the vested interest of the Mid East countries? Would you say that the vested interest of Iran are the same as that of Saudi Arabia? Is taking 15 British soldiers the means to jump start a dialogue?

 

Or are you still sticking to saying that there's no plan, because that plan hasn't filtered through the Wash Post or NYT? Yet, there's Khalizad admitting that he has had extensive dialogue with the insurgent groups in '06, and was rewarded with the Samarra bombing.

[Johnny Coli]

And what is the vested interest of the Mid East countries? Would you say that the vested interest of Iran are the same as that of Saudi Arabia? Is taking 15 British soldiers the means to jump start a dialogue?

 

As a whole, I do not believe that the countries in that region want to see region-wide chaos, no. In fact, isn't "spreading the chaos outward" more of a Neocon policy for the region, in the hopes that the governments would be overthrown? Be that as it may, incorporating the surrounding regional powers in the diplomacy for the region is what the Iraq Study Group had in mind, not a round-table of insurgent gang leaders.

 

 

Or are you still sticking to saying that there's no plan, because that plan hasn't filtered through the Wash Post or NYT? Yet, there's Khalizad admitting that he has had extensive dialogue with the insurgent groups in '06, and was rewarded with the Samarra bombing.

Khalizad said he had dialogue with insurgent groups both before and after Samarra, so to suggest that Samarra was his "reward" for those talks is not bourne out by any direct evidence. He may not have even been talking with people that had any influence at all.

 

From the today's paper based on the Khalilizad interview with the NYT on Friday (Today's NYT):

An American official said it was difficult to determine whether the people Mr. Khalilzad met with really were influential representatives of insurgent groups, as they claimed. In addition, the Sunni insurgency has no umbrella leadership, and the groups have competing ideologies. While the Islamic Army of Iraq and 1920 Revolution Brigades are believed to be led by Iraqis bitter at being ousted from the government and the military, some of the most militant groups are radical Islamists, particularly Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, who have no interest in being brought into politics. “We were never able to find people who could reduce the violence,” the American official said. “The insurgency itself does not have anything resembling a unified command. Even within different cities and different provinces, the insurgency is very fractured.”

[GG]

As a whole, I do not believe that the countries in that region want to see region-wide chaos, no. In fact, isn't "spreading the chaos outward" more of a Neocon policy for the region, in the hopes that the governments would be overthrown? Be that as it may, incorporating the surrounding regional powers in the diplomacy for the region is what the Iraq Study Group had in mind, not a round-table of insurgent gang leaders.

 

Does the neocon goal of toppling existing Mid East regimes mean that you will never again accuse Bush & Co of being in bed with those same regimes?

 

Of course stability is favored by everyone in the region. Unfortunately, there are dispersed goals in achieving that stability, and age old fears of the cousins. Thus, having a destabilized Iraq is much better for Iran than it is for Sauds & Jordan, who won't look kindly on Sunni slaughter.

 

The items in the study group that Bush ignored were the ones that called for direct negotiation with Syria & Iran. So far, Iran's actions are proving Bush to be wise, as Amenijad (sp) is taking a page out of Kim Jong's book in negotiating tactics. Of course, since WP & NYT aren't reporting on any negotiations between the sides, means that nothing is going on. The disappearance of the former head of the Revolutionary Guard is meaningless in the theater.

 

 

Khalizad said he had dialogue with insurgent groups both before and after Samarra, so to suggest that Samarra was his "reward" for those talks is not bourne out by any direct evidence. He may not have even been talking with people that had any influence at all.

 

From the today's paper based on the Khalilizad interview with the NYT on Friday (Today's NYT):

 

So now the goal posts have moved from no plan, no discussion, to discussions aren't happening with people whose names we recognize. Plus, elevating Al Queda as representative of Sunni insurgents in Iraq is only going to get Pasta Joes & Molsons believing it.

[PastaJoe]

Plus, elevating Al Queda as representative of Sunni insurgents in Iraq is only going to get Pasta Joes & Molsons believing it.

 

I wish we were smart enough to realize how smart you really are.

 

Now that the Senate has joined with the House in approving funding for the troops, all that remains is for a compromise on language and for Bush to sign it and the money can get to the military. Otherwise Bush will be denying the funds he says they desperately need. And since we were told the surge is supposed to be a short-term tactic with results by the end of summer, it should be over before 2008 anyways, so the deadlines will be met. No way to spin it, the balls in Bush's court to fund or deny funds.