87GT Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 So this bill was vetoed for the Iraqi war spending bill, with timetables for troop withdrawals. What is your opinion? Do you agree with the President or disagree, and why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptn janks Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 this is only the second time he has used his veto power. the first time was for a stem cell research bill... as for the situation, i think this pretty much sums it up: http://images.ucomics.com/comics/td/2007/td070414.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl1647545488 Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 That comic fails. They need to take the nest out, or withdraw and have it follow them home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 I agree with the veto personally. I felt the bill was used as a political ploy by the dems. Congress is playing politics right now rather than looking to do something right. I think Bush's speech about the veto was actually well delivered and echoed what I felt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHaze Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 I agree with this veto but not the stem cell research one. On this topic, I think any politician is looking for their own agenda with "yeah, I voted for it, I'm not the bad guy." It's bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 It's been a few years since I've been in Gov't class, but, Congress can still pass the bill with a 2/3 vote, yes? As for the current veto, I'm not sure how I feel about it. As for the veto of stem cell research, what exactly is the argument against it? Religion getting in the way of progress, again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Ok, here we go; this is all the shit I've spent hours of research on, and I've come to a few conclusions. Congress is going about this all the wrong way; George Bush is absolutely right in not wanting Congress to declare a timetable for withdrawal because it is not Congress's power to do so. He is the Commander in Chief and he decides what happens with the troops and how to allot funds. There is one thing and one thing only that Congress can do to get their way; they must declare war. It is the one power granted to Congress that the President cannot veto. If Congress declares war, they thereby grant themselves the power to declare the objectives of war and to allot funds according to the necessity of those objectives. IF they were to declare war, they could say "Alright Mister President, your objective in this global war on terror is to eliminate terrorist threats in the Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan or in Tikrit" or whatever they want to say. The President would be FORCED into constrictions of the declaration of war, and any spending and operations peripheral to the declaration of war would be grounds for impeachment. The whole reason that the U.S. hasn't declared war is because the executive branch doesn't want "their hands tied" in operations, and Congress like a good lap dog, cooperates. Bush is right; Congress doesn't have the right to tell him how to fight the war. But they do have the right to tell him what he's allowed to fight for. The U.S. has fallen into the trap of fighting a war for limited goals; everyone wants to be Clausewitzian and use "war as an extension of politics", but they don't realize they're destroying the credibility of the U.S. What logical conclusions can the terrorists draw? I'll tell you: Terrorist train of thought as of now: Okay, so we fucked up all sorts of American buildings, have taken hostages and beheaded them on camera, and fought them in unconventional means and killed 3,300+ of their people. They're pretty pissed. So what have they done to us? Well, they invaded Afghanistan and took out the Taliban, and they invaded Iraq and took out Saddamn Hussein...they haven't hunted us down and brutally killed us, they haven't swept through all the nations of the middle east to kill all of us, they haven't even thought about biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. They're really not that willing to fuck with us. They want to use roundabout tactics that won't work on a stateless guerrilla force like us. /terrorists We need to identify the enemy. We can't simply say the enemy is all people who oppose freedom, because that doesn't tell our men and women in uniform who to shoot at. You can't tell the soldiers to just shoot anyone with a gun, because not all people with a gun mean us harm. You could tell them to kill all the Sunnis or all the Shiites, but that would be discrimination and would be wrong. There's a general (I forget who) who has been talking about trying to create a "culturally sensitive soldier." He wants the soldier on the street corner in Baghdad to be aware of different cultures. Do you know what that does? It forces the soldier to decide! HOW THE FUCK IS THE SOLDIER SUPPOSED TO DECIDE WHO THE ENEMY IS WHEN OUR FUCKING GOVERNMENT CAN'T EVEN DECIDE??!?!?!? ok, done with my rant Cliffs: 1) congress should declare war to outline its objectives 2) policy now sucks 3) profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptn janks Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 It's been a few years since I've been in Gov't class, but, Congress can still pass the bill with a 2/3 vote, yes? yeah they can, but they dont have the 2/3 to get it. the senate is split 49/49 and the house is split 233/202. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mushijobah Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Good point 10x. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bam Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 thanks for the cliffnotes, i dont have the attention span for this bullshit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lustalbert Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 I am glad that it was vetoed. The politicians on the hill have no business telling someone 6000 miles away how to fight a war. The comander in chief is just that, the comander of the armed forces. Congres does not hold that title, and I am glad they don't. On a related note, the amount of pork that they lined that bill with is absolutely sickening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPLN SUX Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Heres an idea... when we dont change shit, the country sucks... when we change things and take chances, things get awesome... i vote Ricky Bobby for President. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbomark Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 He is the Commander in Chief and he decides what happens with the troops and how to allot funds. Allotting funds is actually congresses duty, they're the ones in charge of taxation as well as funding specific programs such as the military and defense. This is one of the duties of the appropriations committee in each leg of the congress. Of course the president can veto or pass anything the congress puts in front of him, however he alone cannot create a piece of legislation including a war funding bill, that is strictly the providence of congress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Heres an idea... when we dont change shit, the country sucks... when we change things and take chances, things get awesome... i vote Ricky Bobby for President. Shake and Bake.....That just happened! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPFSTheFett Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Veto = Good Withdrawl Now = Bad Expressed Time Table = Bad Democrats are simply trying convince the american public that Bush is bad and everything he does is wrong and he's ruining this country. As they do this, they gain more and more support in the hopes that when the next election comes around they'll get more votes. The Media doesn't allow a president to even do his job anymore. Ever since Clinton was in office and he had his issues the media has found out. "People really eat this shit up" So regardless of who gets elected next, the media will dog them and put as many people on TV as possible to show 'why' the president is failing. I support our President 100% as I supported President Clinton 100%. If anybody thinks that shady shit happens behind closed doors they are right. We probably know 5% of what really goes on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Allotting funds is actually congresses duty, they're the ones in charge of taxation as well as funding specific programs such as the military and defense. This is one of the duties of the appropriations committee in each leg of the congress. Of course the president can veto or pass anything the congress puts in front of him, however he alone cannot create a piece of legislation including a war funding bill, that is strictly the providence of congress. I meant that once he is given funds by Congress, he appoints his staff (SECDEF/CJCS) to figure out how to distribute it...that once he's got the money, he tell his staff to spend it all on 1,000lb bombs and F-22's and B-2 overflights, or he can tell them to spend it all on armored vehicles and M-16 ammunition. Yes, Congress has to approve, but in almost all cases they approve the way he spends it once they've given it to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Veto = Good Withdrawl Now = Bad Expressed Time Table = Bad Democrats are simply trying convince the american public that Bush is bad and everything he does is wrong and he's ruining this country. As they do this, they gain more and more support in the hopes that when the next election comes around they'll get more votes. The Media doesn't allow a president to even do his job anymore. Ever since Clinton was in office and he had his issues the media has found out. "People really eat this shit up" So regardless of who gets elected next, the media will dog them and put as many people on TV as possible to show 'why' the president is failing. I support our President 100% as I supported President Clinton 100%. If anybody thinks that shady shit happens behind closed doors they are right. We probably know 5% of what really goes on. I disagree about the media not letting the President do his job. I believe the media has made presidential scrutiny much harsher, but that doesn't mean the job description of the office of the POTUS (President of the United States) has gotten much different. The only thing the media has done is to make it much harder to get re-elected if you simply focus on policy. People no longer care for grand speeches rallying the masses; this administration has shown that people would rather see President Bush leisurely spending time in Crawford, TX than delivering powerful addresses to the nation. In addition, the media is the greatest power now that the American people have to check the power of the executive branch. Ever since 1950 and the "police action" in Korea when President Truman went around Congress and sought approval from the U.N. for deploying troops in the Korean peninsula, the role of Congress has absolutely been diminished as the executive branch of the government has found itself with a much higher ceiling on its power. We as the people of this nation have gotten fed up with Congress simply going belly up on all controversial issues. I personally am disgusted by the fact that government's handling of issues is based entirely on hopes for re-election instead of thinking of what is in the best interest of this country and attempting to move forward and make progress in the world. Why do we put up with China? Because China helps keep our Wal-Mart's prices low, and when prices are low, spending is high and GDP is high. Never mind how many American jobs we lose to them, nor how many human rights violations they're guilty of. The media, though I admit they often represent the radical 20% on either side of the political spectrum, has done wonders to keep the voice of the American public shouting in the President's ear and not allowing him to carry on his own agenda without feeling some sort of consequences. In other news, I saw a wonderful headline in The Onion: "Bush Has One Of Those Days Where He Feels Like 68 Percent Of People Hate Him" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 aaaaand just topping it off with a triple post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 The question that needs to be asked is what do we gain from staying any longer ? The negative. We lose more tax dollars. We lose more troops. Though if we leave too early it looks like a win for the terrorists, unfortunetely this may be un-avoidable at this point anyway. The positive. We may gain more ground in creating a more stable enviroment for a budding democracy. The more democracy in the middle east the better. However the moment we leave the country will be plunge into a civil war between warring islamic factions. They are already doing it with us there. Also we can look at the Palestinians to prove how "democracy" works in a country full of religious zealots. Hamas (the terrorist organization) gets voted into parliament power. Its the same reason so-called "christians" get voted into political office over here. Popularity. 10X is correct when he stated this "war" is not against a country. Its not a border war, its not a government organization, and they do not stay "in-bounds". Its facism. Religious facism, and its spreading at an alarming rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 It's funny when people say WE, like they've been there. Sorry if you ain't served, your opinion don't mean shit cause you don't know what REALLY goes on there. You just see/read what somebody writes or reports. On another note. MY SOLUTION TO IRAQ http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/54/039_26708.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 It's funny when people say WE, like they've been there. Sorry if you ain't served, your opinion don't mean shit cause you don't know what REALLY goes on there. You just see/read what somebody writes or reports. On another note. MY SOLUTION TO IRAQ http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/54/039_26708.jpg When we say "we" we mean the countrymen(women) of "The United States of America." Not being in Iraq fighting the war does not invalidate anyones opinion on the matter. The soldiers didn't all get together and decide to go into Iraq, they were ordered to, and they did. Thats what soldiers do. Our leadership makes decisions on what and how to go about said war(s) and we vote those people into office. Therefore everyone and anyone has the right to say whatever the hell they want to regardless of how unpopular that opinion may be. That said. Your solution is sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrousbird Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 There SHOULD be a fast time window for us pulling out, just not declared to the public. We need out of that crap hole, and need to start minding our own business. The US has enough problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptn janks Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 We need out of that crap hole i agree. we went in on bullshit pretenses... going in after "terrorist camps". keep in mind, these "terrorsit camps" were NONEXISTANT unitl AFTER we invaded. i hesitate to use the word "quagmire" but it does come to mind... there were never any terrorist training camps in Iraq, pre-invasion. there was no al-qaeda in iraq pre-invasion. saddam offered no aid to the terrorists, and had absolutely zero contacts with any said terrorists. When al-zarqawi was in an Iraqi, saddam attempted to hunt him down and kill him, according to an NIE that came out last year. they found these things out after studying millions of documents from saddam's files that they recovered. saddam was a dictator, and the last thing he would do is let a terrorist organization in his country to take things over, and give them an ounce of power. but that won't stop the bush administration from repeating these lies. Just weeks ago cheney was on meet the press talking about hos al-zarqawi was in iraq pre-invasion, and how that justified everything, even though we knew there was no operational link between iraq and al-qaeda... ask george tenet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted May 5, 2007 Report Share Posted May 5, 2007 There SHOULD be a fast time window for us pulling out, just not declared to the public. We need out of that crap hole, and need to start minding our own business. The US has enough problems. No way can a time table be kept from the public. Troop movements of that size are a massive undertaking. As soon as we start to plan a withdraw the public and terrorist will be aware of it. i agree. we went in on bullshit pretenses... going in after "terrorist camps". keep in mind, these "terrorsit camps" were NONEXISTANT unitl AFTER we invaded. The intelligence from multiple countries, including the liberal mecca of France pointed to Iraq having WMD. As a matter of fact WMD materials and prohibited weapons were found...click i hesitate to use the word "quagmire" but it does come to mind... there were never any terrorist training camps in Iraq, pre-invasion. there was no al-qaeda in iraq pre-invasion. saddam offered no aid to the terrorists, and had absolutely zero contacts with any said terrorists. When al-zarqawi was in an Iraqi, saddam attempted to hunt him down and kill him, according to an NIE that came out last year. they found these things out after studying millions of documents from saddam's files that they recovered. saddam was a dictator, and the last thing he would do is let a terrorist organization in his country to take things over, and give them an ounce of power. “President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Tariq Aziz This may not be al-Qaeda, but the funding of terrorist is just as bad! but that won't stop the bush administration from repeating these lies. Just weeks ago cheney was on meet the press talking about hos al-zarqawi was in iraq pre-invasion, and how that justified everything, even though we knew there was no operational link between iraq and al-qaeda... ask george tenet. I cannot comment on that because I did not see the interview. I stand with the President. I don't think that our country has the guts anymore to fight tough wars. The American people want a quick decisive War with no deaths on either side. WARS are tough, people die! That is the way it is. My heart goes out to all of the soldiers and their families that keep us safe. Speaking of keeping us safe, many forget that NO FURTHER attacks have occurred on our soil since the war on terror has been going on. I would venture to say that is a good aspect in a bad situation. I do not agree 100% with all of Bush's policies, with the war I am with him 100%. Kill them in the sand box, I don't want to live like the people of Israel. Fearing the next car bomb, wondering if my kids will make it home from school due to someone blowing the bus up, is not the way I want to live. For those that say that would never happen in the US, the best way to keep it from happening is to stop it before it starts. My.02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted May 5, 2007 Report Share Posted May 5, 2007 Its the same reason so-called "christians" get voted into political office over here. Popularity. I am just curious where your dislike for Christians came from? Just curious.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.