This is a ridiculous take on Bush's veto. You could just as easily say Congressional Democrats Tie Strings to Troop Funds, Use Troops as Political Pawn in Fight with Bush.

Bush would approve the funds with no date for mandatory withdrawal. He's made that clear. Bush is right. Democrats should approve the funds without the troop withdrawal date and without any other spending provisions.

As for me, I wish Bush had used the veto pen a lot more over the past 6 years.

This is a ridiculous take on Bush's veto.

Oh? By what standard?

By my lights, this is no more ridiculous than the way Kerry's pre-war votes were characterized.

Or the way that Max Cleland was called a coward and an Osama-loving traitor.

Or the way that Jack Murtha's patriotism has been questioned over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Bush is right. Democrats should approve the funds without the troop withdrawal date and without any other spending provisions.

Because it'll be different in the next 3 Friedman Units? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

No more blank checks. Bush has had $1 TRILLION to unfuck this.

____________________________

Georgia's in Florida, dumbass!

Blame congressional Republicans for not filibustering the bill.

And, CBT, it's funny as hell to think that Bush would veto anything his own party whipped up in the last six years, but go ahead and blame it all on him if you must.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

This clause from Art. I, Section 8 of the Constitution is the reason Duhbya has to talk to Congress on a regular basis. It is irrefutable proof that the Framers did not intend for the President to have the unchecked authority Duhbya claims.

So, Duhbya is compelled to compromise with Congress, and his utter failure to even consider compromise shows his imperial stubbornness and where the fault lies in this stand-off.

Are the Democrats playing politics? Nope. They are engaged in the deadly serious business of expressing the will of the American people.

Liberty and justice for all.

Boy howdy, this has the shades of the time that Newt Gingrich forced a showdown by shutting down the government -- y'know, so that the GOP could play a brinksmanship game, also attempting to blame the Democrats for "playing politics."

That ruse failed then. I suspect it will fail now.

With a whopping 28% approval rating, this is a dangerous game. Perhaps we have hit bottom...

____________________________

Georgia's in Florida, dumbass!

George W. Bush, 7/16/04: "Earlier this week, Senator Kerry said he is proud that he and his running mate voted against the funding for the troops. And yesterday, he said that his vote against funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan was complicated. No, there's nothing complicated about supporting our troops. As the Commander-in-Chief of a great United States military, I will make sure they have what is necessary so they can do their jobs."

Dick Cheney, 3/17/04: "Senator Kerry has also had a few things to say about support for our troops now on the ground in Iraq. Among other criticisms, he has asserted that those troops are not receiving the materiel support they need. Just this morning, he again gave the example of body armor, which he said our administration failed to supply. May I remind the Senator that last November, at the President's request, Congress passed an $87 billion supplemental appropriation. This legislation was essential to our ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan - providing funding for body armor and other vital equipment; hazard pay; health benefits; ammunition; fuel, and spare parts for our military. The legislation passed overwhelmingly, with a vote in the Senate of 87 to 12. Senator Kerry voted no. I note that yesterday, attempting to clarify the matter, Senator Kerry said, quote, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." It's a true fact. On national security, the Senator has shown at least one measure of consistency. Over the years, he has repeatedly voted against weapons systems for the military. He voted against the Apache helicopter, against the Tomahawk cruise missile, against even the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. He has also been a reliable vote against military pay increases - opposing them no fewer than 12 times."

Joe Lieberman, 10/26/03: "If everyone had voted the way John Kerry did, the money wouldn’t have been there to support our troops."

Joe Lieberman, 10/26/03: "I don’t know how John Kerry and John Edwards can say that they supported the war but then oppose the funding of the troops who went to fight the war that the resolution that they supported authorized."

Etc.

Etc.

Funding the war without benchmarks or exit dates is the real folly.

Haven't the American people and the Iraqi people paid enough? The Al Queda element in Iraq is very, very small. The people fighting in Iraq and killing our troops are not going to follow us home and do a 9/11. They are locals mostly who have managed to recruit local people who are enraged by our occupation.

This is a war founded on false premises and the fact is in order to keep it going the Bush administration has had to keep changing its stated goals almost as often as dogs scratch fleas. First WMDs, then freedom for the Iraqi people--rmember that one?, then to stop an attack here at home, then to save the entire Middle East from falling into chaos, etc. etc. etc...

The fact is this war is now being fought just so the Republican Party can dream of somehow saving face, to support the personal ego need of George W. Bush, and to keep corporations profiting from it. It has little to do with our security here at home. In fact it threatens it.

The only thing that makes sense is to get out. Then we can regroup and go after the real threats to America. We can start the American reconstruction effort which is lomg overdue and lacking in funding.

Bush should wake up and support the real war on terrorism and stop biting the ear of the dead dog in Iraq.

Bush is one of the biggest cowards to live in the White House. His "missing" military records prove that.

The gall of that man saying the Democrats are politicizing the war! This war was concieved by politicians, sold to the people by politicans, and the whole mess was covered up by politicans.

The Republicans are spinning this one fast as they can, but they'll never sell this one to the American people.

Supporting the troops means getting them out of Iraq's civil war.

Live by sword, die by same. Why do Bushies hate our troops?

We need to come to grips with the fact that georgeboy has no conscience, no heart and barely enough mind to go to the bathroom all by himself. He and his cohorts need to be impeached and jailed for crimes against humanity.

And then there is this:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/01/big-money-players-up-from-texas-visi...

True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler

...as a man of conscience, I could not sit idly by as you told the American people today that your veto was based on the recommendations of military men. Your administration ignored the advice of our military's finest minds before, and I see no evidence that you are listening to them now.

Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired

This blog is like yelling in a cave. Everyone in one accord (or is that a Prius?).

The American people, me included, would like a simple answer and a definite end. But, war and terrorism are not simple and don't always allow for definite end dates. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that it's stupid to tell your enemy when you'll be leaving. I won't debate the entire war. The issue now is do we tell our enemies the date of our troops departure. I say no.

I have no problem with some benchmarks or requirements on the Iraqis. Demanding progress and accountability on the part of the Iraqis is ok with me.

Great post, Neal. Deserters like Bush do not and never have cared about some grunts. All a soldier is to Bush is a man with the kind of guts Bush can only dream of having.

Hey, CBT. Your prez'dent just cut our troops throats. And since you approve, you have too.
You headin' down to the recruiter's office yet? The troops need your support.

"The mind is like a parachute, it only works when it's open."

Speaking strictly as a caveman here...What's with you republican's about war? You're patriots when you call for a withdrawal date in Somalia after a few months and one death, and we're traitors when we call for withdrawal ...

after four years,

a growing casualty rate,

hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths,

a bungled International situation,

several fired Generals who spoke the truth to a lying president, and

no plan or end in sight?

You may think we're in a cave, but you, friend, are in a hole and digging.

Peace,

And I mean that!

Which enemy do you speak of CBT? Just wondering...

Is there a clear cut enemy in Iraq? And if there is who are they targeting? I believe there are factions of Iraqis targeting each other (and we aren't picking sides there). And there are terrorists and Iragis targeting Amertican soldiers. If Americans aren't there, who do the terrorists target then? If you are clearer on the situation over there please explain it to us.

Surely we should give this presdient a break. He needs time to think of why we should really leave Iraq.
No WMDs, gotta stay.
Take down Saddam, gotta stay.
Elected government, gotta stay.
Rebuild infrastructure, money spent, no more left, gotta stay.

We can send more troops to slow down the insurgency. Never mind the lesson from Vietnam, e.g. more troops does not mean we will "win". More troops means more US soldiers dead. April was the 4th deadliest month for Coalition soldiers since the beginning of the war. Gotta stay.

What is the mission?

What is the mission?

Here's a poet's take on that question:

(By way of Digby)

We don't live in a vaccumm. This veto has to be viewed in several lights. Others have outlined the actions of the republicans when Clinton was attempting to prosecute the action in Somalia. Others have mentioned the Constitution and responsibilities of Congress described therein. You, on the other hand, wish to reduce the irreducible to a simple question of fight terror or give up. It is simple and completely meaningless to our current situation.

We are in this situation primarily because in the previous congress, compromise meant the dems rolling over and taking what ever the repugs chose to give. George Bush is acting as though it should still be that way. Show me where the Bush administration has given up anything it really wanted in the last six years as a concession to compromise with dems. If he will not, why should they? The dems have the majority of the polled Americans on their side. Recently quoted active and retired members of the military, especially flag rank, appear to mistrust the administration and/or side with the dems. Still, there is no hint of compromise. It is Bush's way or no way. It is the antithesis of democracy and is a gross flaunting of the ideals upon which this nation was founded.

Everything governmental is politics. War is politics on an international level. You can no more remove politics from this than you can remove basic American xenophobia (without which we would probably not have this war).

If you are truly interested in "fighting" this war on terror, I suggest that you start by stopping being afraid. Without American fear, logic and reason will rule the response to senseless acts. As a minor student of war, I think I would hate to face a composed, emotionless enemy. Unless you were clearly superior to them, you would have no chance against them.

CAFKIA

----------------------------------------------------------- 

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
  - William G. McAdoo

"La, la, la...I can't hear you...La, la, la..."

"Today is the fourth anniversary of the president of the United States announcing 'Mission Accomplished,' " Rep. Stephen Cohen (D-Tenn.) proclaimed on the House floor. These days Bush "has been channeling Warren Zevon, who said, 'I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. Send lawyers, guns and money,'" Cohen said, paraphrasing the rest just a little: " 'The Shiites have hit the fan.'"

"Telling the enemy when you're leaving..."

Not that it matters, but isn't there a flaw even with the lame theory that the enemy can plan a takeover for the exit date? (Aside from the fact that we're the biggest enemy there, that a pullout would still leave a large peacekeeping force, etc. etc.)

Wouldn't the terrorists have to "wait it out" and thus need to pull back substantially in the meantime? Logically, that should leave Iraq open before the pullout date for us to secure it. If we announced a pullout date, Bush would be free to surge until then. Without progress after X months, it would be truly ridiculous to imagine that it could eventually turn around on its own. Especially when our opponents' resources are fed primarily by our presence and as the strain on our military grows while it needs to focus on Afghanistan. How could this work out?

Did anyone happen to see John McCain on the Daily Show?

What boggled me was that McCain kept pretending the surge represents a legitimate or reasonable strategy improvement. Same commander in chief, deciding solely from his clueless gut, surrounded by the same bunch of incompetent neocon sycophants.

... this way goes.

So, it is okay to tell the enemy your plans as long as those plans include what you want to do? Do I have that about right? Yes, I am speaking of the ludicrous announcing of the idiotic surge plan to the international media. How in the fuck is that better or even different than telling the enemy when you will leave?

No respectable student of war would believe announcements from the enemy. Warriors act based upon reality. To react to the announcements of an enemy who would benefit from your swallowing of his lies would be the very hallmark of stupid. Our enemies in Iraq are many things but stupid doesn't seem appropriate to describe then.

The announcement of the surge or a withdraw date would intrigue students of war. They would wonder what was really planned behind this obvious deception or, what was the underlying reason and could that be exploited.

You want to point the finger of failure? Point it at those who broadcast their "surge" plans to the world.

Where's my damn echo?

CAFKIA

----------------------------------------------------------- 

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
  - William G. McAdoo

John Duncan just reinforced his original vote to keep our troops occupying Iraq with a vote against overriding the veto. Tell me again why I'm supposed to like that jerk?

Keep pouring on gasoline until the fire is out!

If 2/3 of the voting public wants us outta there, why are Democrats (or anyone else who wants reelected) still voting special extra-budgetary funds to keep the thing going? Is the American public really stupid enough to buy this "support the troops" propaganda?

trite at best and disingenous at worst. when clinton would not sign bills, the neals in the media blamed congress for cutting off funding---by knowingly sending clinton a bill he would not sign. u simply cannot take these people seriously.

i was against the war before it started; i was against it when it started; and i am against it now. but i feel uncomfortable to find myself in the same company w/ this cheap propagandist.

Or shut it up. Neither "trite" nor "disingenuos" describes anything I have ever seen from Mr. Neal. He lays out the numbers and calls the results. I agree with Randy in his frame of the Bush veto.

Congress sent a bill authorizing the funds but calling for a phased withdrawal in a nonbinding resolution. Bush got his money and could simply ignore the will of Congress if he so chose. Bush chose instead to grandstand in a cheap political theater that will cost hundreds more American lives.

"trite at best and disingenous at worst. when clinton would not sign bills, the neals in the media blamed congress for cutting off funding---by knowingly sending clinton a bill he would not sign."

I knew it was The Media's fault! I just didn't know how ...

Yeah it passed, but not all Dems were automatically on-board with this bill. According to USA Today, the Iraq War Funding bill is full of pork, promised as a means to get many liberal's support.

*$25 million for spinach growers to recoup losses suffered when contaminated spinach sickened nearly 200 people and resulted in three deaths last year.

*$252 million for a government milk program beneficial to dairy farmers, inserted in the bill by Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the Appropriations Committee, which wrote the bill.

*$1.5 billion in livestock assistance for producers affected by wildfires or blizzards.

*$500 million to fight wildfires in drought-stricken states if current funds run out.

Gang, I'm a conservative who want the troops out of Iraq as much as the next guy, but if the withdrawal date was so important, shouldn't it have passed on its own merits?

At best, this was an attempt by some legislators to get a quick hit for their home states.

Sometimes I hate politics.

no. i'm not going anywhere. i choose to criticise and ridicule instead.

this is a liberal blog that promotes open and lively discussion and does not tolerate trying to silence others by asking them to leave or whatever.

right...?

but as long as we r into this, perhaps YOU would be happier somewhere else.

i choose to criticise and ridicule instead.

Be careful what you wish for, "jbarker." Or is that "Coach Parker?"

____________________________

Georgia's in Florida, dumbass!

You should really respond to the full post, not half of it.

"The Iraq War Funding bill is full of pork, promised as a means to get many liberal's support."

The bill is being presented as though it had the complete support of dems. The reality of it seems to be that some libs votes hinged on the inclusion of their pork.

Yeah, I know all types of these bills contain pork, but if the dems wanted to make a point...send it through untouched.

Here's the source of talking points re. pork in the Iraq supplemental bill:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1397.cfm

And here's what the same outfit said about the 2006 Iraq supplemental bill offered up by the Republican controlled Congress last year.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1038.cfm

"President George W. Bush requested an emergency appropriation of $92 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and another round of hurricane recovery. The House approved the request, but the Senate Appropriations Committee has loaded the measure with $14 billion in new spending, most unrelated to national security or hurricane recovery. Still not satisfied, Senators are now readying floor amendments to add as much as $10 billion more in spending, which would push the price tag to $24 billion above the President’s request.

This new spending is tremendously irresponsible considering the state of the budget.

...

As it now stands, the Senate’s supplemental bill would provide $72 billion for the President’s request for the Iraq war, $20 billion to fund fully the President’s request for additional Katrina relief, and $14 billion in new, non-emergency spending across all categories, including:

$4 billion for farm bailouts, which comes on top of the $25 billion that will be spent this year on farm subsidies, even as farm income reaches near-record highs;

$700 million to re-route a rail line several miles away, reportedly to help private developers build casinos nearby its present location;

$1.1 billion for private fisheries;

$2.3 billion to prepare for the avian flu, on top of the $3.8 billion that was appropriated in December 2005;

$594 million for highway projects unrelated to the Gulf Coast—some as far away as Hawaii;

$20 million for AmeriCorps"

It's just a rite of spring.

Did you pay NO attention whatsoever to what happened to the Soviet Union's armies in Afghanistan? We had PLENTY of precedents to look to when contemplating interfering in the politics of the Middle Eastern region, and the Republican party (which was in charge and should have been paying stricter attention to their REAL job of representing ALL the citizens of the United States, not just those who agreed with you or voted for you) is responsible for this boondoggle.

You forgot one minor point. The cheerleader warned us during the 2000 campaign that his family weren't much for reading. I'm afraid the days of the Soviets in Afghanistan may have coincided with his purple haze phase. He was just getting up to a picture book about a pet goat when all hell broke loose and he was forced to discover that presidenting is hard work.

The Hill Online

"The Iraq War Funding bill is full of pork, promised as a means to get many liberal's support."

*promised as a means to get many liberal's support
*promised as a means to get many liberal's support
*promised as a means to get many liberal's support
*promised as a means to get many liberal's support
*promised as a means to get many liberal's support

My point has nothing to do with the subjective pieces of pork that are contained in the legislation, I'm simply stating that without some of the pork...some dem "yes" votes...likely become "no" votes. The dems aren't as innocent as this thread would have you believe.

By the way, I was just as pissed at Frist when he tacked on the internet gambling legislation to the port security bill.

Important legislation dealing with Iraq or national security, should be able to pass on its own merits, not because a member of Congress gets $74 million for peanut storage subsidies.

Important legislation dealing with Iraq or national security, should be able to pass on its own merits, not because a member of Congress gets $74 million for peanut storage subsidies.

On that, I would heartily agree. I'm just a little suspicious that this is your primary concern.

couldn't the democrats block funding of the war if they would by simply passing/sending no bill? and if they really wanted to end the war would they not do this?

"The Iraq War Funding bill is full of pork, promised as a means to get many liberal's support."
*promised as a means to get many liberal's support

Disingenuous.
Disingenuous.
Disingenuous.
Disingenuous.
Disingenuous.
Disingenuous.

The "pork" was what percentage of the total package?

It amounts to gnat shit. Peanut storage: $74M is 0.05% of $124.2B.

And as far as peanut storage goes? Can you say "cash crop?"

World peanut production totals approximately 29 million metric tons per year, with the U.S. being the world’s third largest producer, after China and India. Worldwide peanut exports are approximately 1.25 million metric tons. The U.S. is one of the world’s leading peanut exporters, with average annual exports of between 200,000 and 250,000 metric tons.

And, by the way... the peanut storage provision was dropped before it went to the president, anyway...

4/29/2007: Southern peanut farmers lost a major funding battle this past week as lawmakers dropped $74 million in subsidies for the crop from a massive war spending bill.

Peanut producers had sought to piggyback on the war bill as their last chance at continuing government supports that expired last year that helped farmers cover storage and handling costs.

But the peanut money —- which many Republicans had ridiculed as an example of Democratic largesse —- didn't make the cut as House and Senate negotiators agreed on the latest version of the legislation Monday.

"We ended up being the poster child for everybody that was against whatever was attached to that spending bill," said Don Koehler, executive director of the Georgia Peanut Commission. "It sure is sad that it had to be us because this is something that's real important for the economy of the rural South. It's just real disappointing to me because somewhere along the line you'd like to see us investing here at home in our own people."

(Georgia alone contributes 40% of peanut production in the US.)

____________________________

Georgia's in Florida, dumbass!

I realize the pork is a small percentage of the entire bill, and I realized (after my post) that the peanut portion was removed before it passed...my apologies for the error.

But that isn't the point.

The point is, some dems would not have voted for the Iraq War funding bill
if their pork was not included. It was not the Democratic slam dunk approval that many news reports would have us believe. That's all.

Listen, I'm not here to stir up a bunch of trouble. If you guys want, I'll go back to being a silent reader..no big deal...but I think I have a perspective of politics that isn't represented on this board. If you make me choose a side, I would like to think it is "conservative" with common sense. (insert your own joke here!) However, I think Bush is the most embarassing, idiotic president our country has ever elected and I think our troops need to be out of Iraq. Not exactly the the Republican talking points of the day.

I don't blindly support the GOP, and I don't automatically disagree with Liberals. I take each issue for what its worth. Based on that, if you want me part of the discussion, wonderful. If not, then say so, and I'll vanish.

You might find this interesting:

http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2007/04/how-they-voted-southern-r...