Senate Defies Veto Threat

[Annie]

So, in 2006 we didn't know we'd be at war in 2007? Dumbest assertion of the day.

And here you have VP Cheney on the weekend talk shows telling us that we're going to be in this thing for a long, long time... blah blah blah...

As if 'going to be in this thing for a long, long time... blah blah blah...', was something new and different. Daring your charge of 'cut and paste', for we all know how your bad opinion cuts me to the quick. Oh and there are links to the WaPo and Cheney stories:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017197.php

The Democrats Were Against Cut and Run Before they Were For It

A few months before the Iraq war began, Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel toured the Middle East, including Kurdish Iraq. They wrote this op-ed in the Washington Post:

The United States will face enormous challenges in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, as well as broad regional questions that must be addressed. These are both matters that members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have been focusing on for some time. During a week-long trip to the region, we came away with a better understanding of the possibilities and perils that lie ahead.

In northern Iraq we saw the extraordinary potential of Iraqis once they are out from under Saddam Hussein's murderous hand. ***

Although no one doubts our forces will prevail over Saddam Hussein's, key regional leaders confirm what the Foreign Relations Committee emphasized in its Iraq hearings last summer: The most challenging phase will likely be the day after -- or, more accurately, the decade after -- Saddam Hussein.

Once he is gone, expectations are high that coalition forces will remain in large numbers to stabilize Iraq and support a civilian administration. That presence will be necessary for several years, given the vacuum there, which a divided Iraqi opposition will have trouble filling and which some new Iraqi military strongman must not fill. Various experts have testified that as many as 75,000 troops may be necessary, at a cost of up to $ 20 billion a year. That does not include the cost of the war itself, or the effort to rebuild Iraq.
​

Americans are largely unprepared for such an undertaking. President Bush must make clear to the American people the scale of the commitment.​

That 75,000 post-war troop estimate turned out to be low, but in the ballpark.

Dick Cheney, too, said before the war that we would have troops in Iraq for a long time after the war with Saddam was over. But the administration didn't do anywhere near enough to emphasize post-war uncertainties or the long-term nature of our commitment. Biden and Hagel were right: the American people were "largely unprepared" for what happened after Saddam fell. This was the administration's biggest mistake, one for which it is now paying a terrible price.

Posted by John at 08:14 AM

 

[boedicca]

So, in 2006 we didn't know we'd be at war in 2007? Dumbest assertion of the day.

And here you have VP Cheney on the weekend talk shows telling us that we're going to be in this thing for a long, long time... blah blah blah...

As you believe you are able to predict the future, please provide the winning numbers for the next $300M+ Powerball.

The BA has said since the beginning that we would not know how long the war would take, but that we should expect a long campaign and transition time for the new government to become self-sufficient in handling Iraq's security. And what did the Dems do? Start yelling "Quagmire" after a few weeks. In such an environment, it is impossible to do any long range funding because the opposition is undermining the objective.

 

[Vintij]

As you believe you are able to predict the future, please provide the winning numbers for the next $300M+ Powerball.

The BA has said since the beginning that we would not know how long the war would take, but that we should expect a long campaign and transition time for the new government to become self-sufficient in handling Iraq's security. And what did the Dems do? Start yelling "Quagmire" after a few weeks. In such an environment, it is impossible to do any long range funding because the opposition is undermining the objective.

The objective is not working, there is not enough pressure on the iraqi government to maintain its authority in its own country. I dont know how being there longer will help the iraqi people in the long run, considering the fact that the citizens dont help the troops with anything. My friend was going door to door asking iraqi people for any information about a roadside bomb that went off 40 feet from there house killing an american soldier. What did they say? "I didnt see anything." How could these people not see someone bury a bomb, wait in the bushes, and detonate it when an american passes by!?!?! It was 40 feet from your house!!! And this is all over iraq, no civilian help at all. You veterans know what im talking about.

 

[Annie]

The objective is not working, there is not enough pressure on the iraqi government to maintain its authority in its own country. I dont know how being there longer will help the iraqi people in the long run, considering the fact that the citizens dont help the troops with anything. My friend was going door to door asking iraqi people for any information about a roadside bomb that went off 40 feet from there house killing an american soldier. What did they say? "I didnt see anything." How could these people not see someone bury a bomb, wait in the bushes, and detonate it when an american passes by!?!?! It was 40 feet from your house!!! And this is all over iraq, no civilian help at all. You veterans know what im talking about.

Ah, but that is not true, based upon milbloggers or Iraq the Model. Too bad, good try.

 

[Vintij]

Ah, but that is not true, based upon milbloggers or Iraq the Model. Too bad, good try.

Well thats what my sources in the military say, maybe not all over iraq. But certainly in baghdad

 

[Annie]

Well thats what my sources in the military say, maybe not all over iraq. But certainly in baghdad

ok, want to site?

 

[Vintij]

ok, want to site?

site what? This is personal information that you are lucky enough to hear. A personal friend of mine, and my own brother in law can confirm this. They are back after 3 tours of iraq. Does someone with iraqi military experience want to reply to me instead? It would be more logical that way.

 

[Annie]

site what? This is personal information that you are lucky enough to hear. A personal friend of mine, and my own brother in law can confirm this. They are back after 3 tours of iraq. Does someone with iraqi military experience want to reply to me instead? It would be more logical that way.

then let us hear 'them', not you. So far, it's all through your filter...

 

[Vintij]

Well when someone steps foward and confirms this type of activity among the iraqi civilians, we can wrap this up and go home. Then someone can inform bush that we are not wanted there, so he can either put some pressure on this government of iraq, or sign this timeline bill. All dems want is some pressure to move foward.

 

[Annie]

Well when someone steps foward and confirms this type of activity among the iraqi civilians, we can wrap this up and go home. Then someone can inform bush that we are not wanted there, so he can either put some pressure on this government of iraq, or sign this timeline bill. All dems want is some pressure to move foward.

Can you put that in English that we all understand? Who step forward? Confirms? Who wraps up? Who decides 'not wanted there'? I'm assuming this is all fair and balanced?

 

[Vintij]

Can you put that in English that we all understand? Who step forward? Confirms? Who wraps up? Who decides 'not wanted there'? I'm assuming this is all fair and balanced?

Well when i said "someone step foward and confirm", I was refering to an iraq war veteran posting/confirming that what i described as civilian lack of co-operation in iraq is a slap in the face that they dont want us there. "wrap this up" meant the end of this very civilized argument between you and I. Not wanted there refers to the ground troops in Iraq, they are not wanted there by the civilians, according to my sources. And President Bush "decides" if we are wanted there or not. Wow, you are the most classy poster and I have the upmost respect for you and your arguments.

 

[Annie]

Well when i said "someone step foward and confirm", I was refering to an iraq war veteran posting/confirming that what i described as civilian lack of co-operation in iraq is a slap in the face that they dont want us there. "wrap this up" meant the end of this very civilized argument between you and I. Not wanted there refers to the ground troops in Iraq, they are not wanted there by the civilians, according to my sources. And President Bush "decides" if we are wanted there or not. Wow, you are the most classy poster and I have the upmost respect for you and your arguments.

When someone calls me 'classy' it's pretty hard to slam them. even if it were tongue in cheek. There are so many citations of Iraqi civilians helping the troops and now on the increase. The polls in Iraq I've seen, show the opposit of what your are claiming. Since Bush lacks creds here and abroad, I'm at a loss to see where citing him adds to either side?

 

[Edward]

No, it is unconstitutional. Congress is trying to usurp military power given exclusively to the President.

Tell that to Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, Sherman and many others who would be disgusted that idiots like you think that the President has the power to set U.S. policy and to determine war policy. This power was explicitly given to the Congress and not the President. There was simply no one at the time including those who advocated a monarchy such as Alexander Hamilton who believed the garbage you just stated. The only military power given to the President by the Founding Fathers was to be Commander in Chief while there is an entire war powers section outlining the policy function of Congress. In the words of Hamilton who was a vigorous supporter of a strong Presidency the President would be the chief General and Admiral. General's and Admiral's do not set U.S. policy moron.

 

[Edward]

So you would substitute a King for 9 Kings in black robes?

The President got the Constitutional role to determine whether laws are unconstitutional when he took the oath of office to protect and uphold the constitution of the United States. It's his duty as President to veto unconstitutional laws as it's Congress's duty to not create them in the first place and the judiciaries to strike them down.

And it's not the funding or defunding part of the bill that is unconstitutional. its the rest of it.

You are a complete idiot. If the President tries to take the authority of Congress to set policy to himself than he has exceeded his authority as Commander in Chief (i.e., General) of the military and has violated the Constitution. The bill as it stands is constitutional as everything in it is within the authority of Congress to do. Even Eisenhower would disagree with your retarded logic and he knew more about the military than the current retard in the Oval Office.

 

[Edward]

That's bullcrap and you know it. The President has to sign or veto virtually everything Congress does. (Keeping in mind that if he choices to just do nothing its counted as if he signed it).

Congress does not have the authority to set policy that infringes on the power of executive in time of war. They have the power to declare war and to fund/defund it. They don't have any other power.

That's shit and you know it. The Executive power in war as intended (of course you only want to talk about the intent when it agrees with your retarded talking points) by the Founding Fathers was to be the Commander in Chief of the military and not to set policy. Of course, you are so retarded that you forgot about:

Congress shall:

1) define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

2) declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

3) raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

4) provide and maintain a navy;

5) make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

6) provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

7) 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;

And like a retard take three words "Commander in Chief" and twist them to what you want them to mean and thus give the President exclusive war powers even though every one of our Founding Fathers would have referred to such powers as that of a King and roundly condemned idiots like you who lived at the time. Also, being an ignorant piece of shit you don't even realize that the word "declare war" was changed from "make war" because the Founding Fathers wanted to allow the President to respond if we were attacked. Now get a brain and take your retarded concept of the Constitution and shove it up your ass because even those who were for a strong central government at that time would not agree with morons like you and Mr. Bush.

 

[Edward]

How exactly is vetoing a bill the Democrats have deemed "The slow bleed" plan going to hurt the troops? There is a reason its called the slow bleed. It's because they intend to make it impossible for the troops to fight the war, increase the casualties and continue to call for the end to the war.

This of course defies all logic, because they have authority to defund the war if they chose which would end the war immediately. Yet they have chosen a method that prolongs the conflict while making sure troops dont get the necessarily equipment without jumping through an insane amount of hoops.

On top of it, the bill is filled with billions in pork. It's a military appropriations bill. There is no need for non-military pork.

First, it is not a military appropriations bill. It's an emergency appropriation bill. One part of that emergency appropriation bill is intended to address the emergency funding needed in Iraq because Bush failed to include any request for money as a part of the actual budget. Other parts of it address other emergencies as deemed by Congress to be emergency. This bill did not originate in the White House because no bill can originate in the White House but originated in Congress so its only a "military appropriations bill" if Congress says it is. I don't see how you can take your twisted logic about what you want the bill to be and to claim that a bill you had no say in drafting is something that it isn't.

Second, it is not the policy of Congress to de-fund the war and Congress does not wish to take that course of action nor does Congress want to bring the war to an abrupt end and that is why anti-war protestors have protested the Speaker of the House. The day Congress changes its policy because some retard named George obstructs the will of the people because he has the support of jackasses such as yourself is the day we lose our democracy and cease to be a republic. Also, they don't need to de-fund the war to end the war and Madison made that clear as did other of our Founding Fathers were they said that those who conduct the war cannot have the power to declare it, continue it or conclude it. You have advanced a claim that the President has authority that he does not or that the only course Congress can take is to de-fund the war when this is simply not true. Our Founding Fathers never debated the accepted fact that Congress had the power to "make war" while the President has the power to "conduct war." Even the man who claimed in the Constitutional Convention that the British system of government was probably the best there was does not agree that the President has the powers you claim he has and he is the founder of the party that is the predecessor of the Republican Party. Even Bush is fond of quoting him except when he disagrees with the retarded asshole.

 

[Gunny]

That's shit and you know it. The Executive power in war as intended (of course you only want to talk about the intent when it agrees with your retarded talking points) by the Founding Fathers was to be the Commander in Chief of the military and not to set policy. Of course, you are so retarded that you forgot about:

Congress shall:

1) define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

2) declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

3) raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

4) provide and maintain a navy;

5) make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

6) provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

7) 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;

And like a retard take three words "Commander in Chief" and twist them to what you want them to mean and thus give the President exclusive war powers even though every one of our Founding Fathers would have referred to such powers as that of a King and roundly condemned idiots like you who lived at the time. Also, being an ignorant piece of shit you don't even realize that the word "declare war" was changed from "make war" because the Founding Fathers wanted to allow the President to respond if we were attacked. Now get a brain and take your retarded concept of the Constitution and shove it up your ass because even those who were for a strong central government at that time would not agree with morons like you and Mr. Bush.

We'll skip over the part where you're an ill-mannered asshat and get straight to the part where you're full of shit.

The Founding Fathers would NEVER walk away from an unfinished war. They had something you obviously lack ... balls. If you wish to presume to speak for them, let's add the fact that each and every one of them would be ashamed and probably move back to England if they could see what kind of monster they created. A monster personified by idiots and liars who twist their words around to suit their own bullshit, agenda-driven arguments.

The President is Commander in Chief, period. Not Congress. And using the military budget to push their political agenda is bullshit.

 

[Edward]

How exactly can the President obstruct the will of the people when he is a servant of the people? The people elected him. He is answerable to the people. He is acting in their behalf as much as Congress is.

Congress is specifically limited in its options during a time of war. The have clearly violated these provisions of the constitution by attempting to do more than simply fund or defund the war.

Oh and dirt is hardly a Bush supporter. He, like the rest of us, just happens to know when we are dealing with someone who has no clue what he is talking about.

And I know when I am talking to a retard as it is obvious that you are a retard based on your ignorant assertions. Of course, "the President has exclusive war powers," and "Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution doesn't exist" or so you say but the rest of us who have a brain and some common sense see your assertion for what it is. If you can show me where Congress is limited during time of war than you may have a point but you cannot because they are not limited in time of war. The only function they do not perform in time of war is to conduct the daily activities of the war and to act as chief General or Admiral of the Military of the United States of America in Congress.

There is only one provision you can possibly be speaking of and those are three words "Commander in Chief" and yet our Founding Fathers including some of the strongest supporters of a vigorous national government do not agree with you about the role of the President in time of war.

In the words of Alexander Hamilton, "The President is to be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies -- all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature."

Here we begin to understand what the Founding Fathers meant when they decided to give Congress the power to "regulate troops." In essence, they were giving Congress the power to decide whether we will send more troops or less troops to Iraq, and where we would move them because this is in essence the power to "make war" or to "declare war." There was a distinction made between "governing the military" (i.e., Congress), "regulating troops" (i.e., Congress) and "commanding troops (i.e., President).

Hamilton also said in making the distinction between the President and a King, "The one would have a right to command the military and naval forces of the nation; the other, in addition to this right, possesses that of DECLARING war, and of RAISING and REGULATING fleets and armies by his own authority." We begin to even see more clearly what the Founders were speaking of when we see that Congress has the power to declare war (changed from "make war"), and to "raise" and "regulate" fleets and armies. In addition they have the authority to "govern it" according to rules they prescribe. All the talk about the "exclusive war powers" of the President are simply non-existent as the Founding Fathers saw the role of the President as that of the chief General or Admiral and they did not intend for him to have any power that any other general or admiral would not have if that General or Admiral were not also President. Once we understand that the "Commander in Chief" is in fact the Supreme Commander of the Military we begin to realize that he does not have authority to set U.S. policy in matters of war. Wilson, Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Washington and many others would be appalled at the retarded reasoning of people such as you who do not understand the Constitution or the role of the President. Most of them figuratively speaking would be ready to throw some tea over the sides of some ships at the present state of things as a result of assholes like you and George Bush.

 

[boedicca]

"Supreme command and direction of the military forces" would mean that the Commander In Chief should not be saddled with withdrawal deadlines by Congress, no?

 

[Dirt McGirt]

The President is Commander in Chief, period. Not Congress. And using the military budget to push their political agenda is bullshit.

I didn't like it when the Repubs did it and I'm unhappy now that the Dems are doing it. Bush did the right thing by vetoing the bill. Not only was it overloaded with pork but I suspect that the majority of the equipment that they purchase for the troops won't even reach them in time before the withdrawal date. The people voted the Republicans out for shit like this and I suspect that they'll be more unhappy with the Dems than they will be with Bush. If the Dems want out of Iraq, let them defund the war outright.