Third Party & Independents: Archives

Way to spin doctor this, David. You’ve spun this so hard I started wondering if it was a propeller. The President isn’t vetoing funding. He’s vetoing setting hard, and transparent, deadlines.

The threat behind these bills is “if you veto it, Mr. President we’ll cut funding. It will be your fault if we cut funding.” That’s like a criminal pulling a gun on you and saying, “Give me all of your money, or I’ll shoot you. If you choose not to give me your money, it will be your fault that I pull the trigger.”

Give me a break, David. I know you’re smarter than that.

John, I think you have that upside down. If the Congress offers the money and resources, it is not cutting funding. If Bush, by vetoing the bills, refuses the money, because he is the CINC, he is the one who is putting the troops in jeopardy. You seem to be saying that Congress must do as the President wishes. Well to me it seems that Congress has a responsibility to ensure that appropriations fund rational and reasonable policies, and that being the case, Congress is entitled to be the arbiter of what is rational and reasonable. That’s why you have a divided government, so that no one element can act unilaterally.

I believe in any case that the Dems are simply cynically playing politics; that they have no true patriotism or even plain old integrity. They are simply attempting to manipulate the situation for their benefit in 2008. My gut tells me that such utter cynicism will be properly and appropriately rewarded, and justly so.

I have to admit Congress has Bush by the gonads on this one. It’s damn if he does, and damn if he doesn’t. And anyway he turns he’s gonna look bad.
But I have to disagree that Bush will be the only one responsible for any increase in casualties if he vetoes the bill. O, he’ll be the one hung out to dry alright. But Congress will be just as responsible for sending him a bill they knew he’d veto.
By attaching the deadline they’ve made sure the troops won’t get the funding for their supplies. And without supplies the casualty rate will go up. By doing this they have proved they don’t care about our troops just as long as they get their win in 08. And that’s the only thing they care about.
Bush is showing that he’s willing to let more of our troops die because he’s not getting his way.
Your right they’re playing a high stakes political game and our troops will be the losers. And the thing that pisses me off is that both Bush and Congress are playing games with our troops lives for their own gain.
The Democrats are willing to let more of our troops die just so they can get more seats in Congress and control of the White House in 08. And Bush is willing to let our troops die just to prove he’s right.
Both Congress and Bush are the villains here. Neither care what happens to the troops as long as the get what they want.

My gut tells me that such utter cynicism will be properly and appropriately rewarded, and justly so.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at April 3, 2007 08:26 PM

Just how the hell is rewarding idiots playing games with our troops lives proper, appropriate, or just?
Ya gotta be kidding. But it aint even the least bit funny.

I would seem to me that based on election results from November 2006, and the promises made in those elections that the Democrats would have been best suited presenting a pure bill without the spending additions. Why did they blow it and convolute the bill. It would have highlighted Bush’s veto “hard”. If the biggest issue in our country is the war, a single focus in the spending bill would appear to have the best advertising and political impact. Why did they super size it?

It’s not meant to be funny Ron. I think if you read what I wrote more carefully, you will understand it better and realise what I said is not what you think I said.

John, you are overlooking the FACT that Congress gave Bush everything he asked for in the way of funding. The President can accept the funds HE asked for or CHOOSE to defund operations in Iraq by vetoing the bill.

THE CONGRESS and DEMOCRATS offered Bush the funding. It is a bit biased to think that Bush should get what he wants of Congress without Congress getting some of what it wants. It is the way our Constitution was set up, John.

There is no way the Republicans can say the Democrats are withholding funds for the troops. The funds are right there in the bill Bush is going to veto.

You ought to be dizzy with the spinning you are trying to pull off. Facts are facts. You can have your opinion about them, but, the money is there and Bush is turning it down.

Honest, I agree with you entirely about the PORK in this bill, by BOTH Dem’s and Rep’s. But, that is why we have many more incumbents to remove from office in 2008. 2006 was just a down payment.

But, the Congress is representing the people in asking the Bush administration to begin planning for the safety of our troops by removing them from their occupation and police role in a Civil War. Bush won’t listen and respond appropriately to the will of the people, but, that is precisely what the Congress was designed to do and is doing by adding the provision for changing our occupation mission in Iraq.

Why did they super size it?

Posted by: Honest at April 3, 2007 08:53 PM

For their political gain.

Paul said about Dem’s: “They are simply attempting to manipulate the situation for their benefit in 2008.”

If representing the majority will of the people to draw down our troops their costs, and our nation’s costs in Iraq by adding such a provision to the spending bill is playing politics for 2008, I have to agree with you 100%.

I’ve asked before on another thread about this bill and didn’t get an answer. Maybe I can this time.
If the Democrats are really concerned about the troops, why didn’t they give Bush a clean bill like he asked, and then pass another one with the deadline? They could still make political hay if Bush vetoed it.

David,
Are they really ‘representing the majority’? Or are they just out to get Bush at all cost, even at the cost of our troops lives?
My bet is they don’t care who gets screwed just so they get Bush, and get the big win in 08.

David, agreed. I keep forgetting that 90% of the encumbants were relected in 2006. So more of the same.

Congress is not doing such a great job of representing the people with this bill.

Ron, I don’t understand your convoluted thinking here. You say: “Are they really ‘representing the majority’? Or are they just out to get Bush at all cost, even at the cost of our troops lives?”

The majority of Americans want to see an end to American losses in Iraq. That’s a fact, this bill includes it that will. And how in the hell does a proposal to DEescalate our military involvement in Iraq cost troop’s lives. It would save lives, not cost them.

You may want to rethink that last sentence of yours. Ending war SAVES lives, CONTINUING war, spends them. This bill calls for ending our role in Iraq’s civil war. That will save our troop’s lives. Bush keeping our occupation going indefinitely will COST troop’s lives.

You been listening to Rush Dumbaugh?

David
No I aint been listening to Rush. I don’t listen to any talk radio. It’s all full of crap.
I have a very hard time believing that either party is interested in representing the will of the people. They’re more interested in keeping or regaining power.
True ending war does save lives. But ending it by cutting funds will cost more lives than it should.
I want to see the war end as much or more than anyone. But I have a very hard time believing that cutting the funding to end it will save any lives.
I’ve heard the argument that Bush will have no choice but to withdraw the troops without the funds. And I agree with that. The problem with that argument is it’s being made by folks that have been claiming for the last 5 years that Bush is a stupid bumbling idiot that can’t do anything right. I’m not going to argue with that, but if if he is all that just how the hell do they think he’s gonna be smart enough to withdraw the troops?

If the bill makes it to Bush’s desk and Bush vetoes it, David is right that some will try to pin not giving the troops what they need on Bush.

But David is totally wrong that it would work. And even the Democrats know this, as the recent arguments about how long it would be before the Pentagon runs out of money demonstrates (with Bush saying it will happen much sooner than the Democrats do).

Here is why David is wrong.

1). The Democrats have already blown the politics on this. Charlie Rangel admitted that the only way this got through the House was by buying votes with pork. On its merits of Iraq alone, the bill doesn’t even enjoy a real majority in a Democratically controlled Congress. Bush will find it very easy to stress the point while using his veto pen.

2). With so many reports of the “surge” enjoying at least some success, Democrats who up for reelection won’t want to walk into the trap of opponents saying that things were turning around in Iraq until Democrats stabbed them in the back. And believe me, that wold be the storyline and could easily turn into the dominant narrative of the Iraq war.

3). Despite all of Bush’s bumbling in Iraq, Democrats simply don’t have any credibility on the issue of even wanting to succeed there. In fact, the opposite is the case. They want America to lose because they think that translates into Democratic votes, and even those of who distrust Bush give no credence to the Democrats when it comes to seeking the success instead of the failure of our armed forces. Bush won’t even have to try to frame the debate that way. It’s already well established.

LO-
I hate to say this- No Actually, I’d love to say this, But the only thing that can prevent the funds from going to the soldiers at this point is Bush’s Veto. And everybody knows why: he wants to continue the war. Do the majority of Americans want that? On point of fact, no.

Congress gives the President the authority to go to war. Without them, he can’t order any military operation longer than two or three months. What they give, they can take away. The whole point of having a commander in Chief is a unified chain of command. However, Congress, as one body can tell the president what action is legal and what is not. I think that’s in the War Powers act, as a matter of fact.

Is the Surge working? Depends on how you ask the question. Is it winning the war? No. That it can’t do. Is it reducing violence? Yes. That it will do, for the short term.

Why is that not cause for joy? Because we leave, one way or another, in due time. If it is not sufficient to the task of ending the strife that keeps the violence going, even now during the Surge, what can it do for the time that comes after?

This is the strategy only a few advised him to do, and that most Americans opposed from the outset. He is writing checks on a negative balance here, and soldiers are being sent back to this place without their units being brought back up to full readiness. This is bad policy to cover for bad policy.

LO and David,

I agree with both of you. I will now corkscrew my way through the center of the earth!!!

The troops will NOT be defunded. Bush will NOT withdraw. Enjoy the show.

There has been no success of the surge. There will not be a magical victory in Iraq. The war will still be going on in Nov. 2008, we’ll still be there. A Democrat will win the White House.

The crystal ball is now closed.

Stephen, you’re taking a very short-sighted view of the American public’s opinions about the war.

Who wants the war to continue? Nobody does, and polls reflect that.

But who wants to pull out of Iraq now and watch it, along with its oil resources and strategic location, turn into a province of a nuclear-armed Iran?

That’s what WILL happen if we leave now, and even savvy Democrats know it and don’t want to be blamed for it four or five years down the road when we’d have to go in AGAIN and most likely fight a nuclear instead of a low-grade conventional war.

For better or worse, Bush’s approach is what we’re stuck with for not only the rest of his term but during the next administration as well—even if a Democrat is elected. There really is no alternative.

There’s going to be a lot of noise made on both sides in coming months and years—a lot of sound and fury which, if it doesn’t exactly signify nothing, is not going to signify a change in approach.

LO-
Our presence aggravates the situation, and does little to stop the Iranians from exploiting the things anyway. I don’t see how our presence in Iraq, even now undermanned, can pose serious enough of a threats to the Iranians to discourage their nuclear development. They seem to be doing it anyways.

Our best bet is to get out of Iraq and deprive the Hardline Mullahs of the use of our forces as a means to justify their excesses. If they follow us out and cause trouble or if they go nuclear and start making threats, we can remind them of the natural order of things. Otherwise, we’re just giving fodder to the American is Satan crowd.

We will see the beginning of a withdrawal in a few months, mainly because Bush forgot to build up the armed forces sufficiently enough to maintain a ready army. What he’s doing now is to convince people like you that at this point, we had a chance, and Democrats got in the way.

Truth is, the real chance was three years ago, or earlier. Not now. Few wars, if any, get won in the eleventh hour.

Few wars, if any, get won in the eleventh hour.

Huh??? Seems to me that any war gets won (or lost) late in the war. If they’re won earlier, why keep fighting them?

Excellent article, David. I agree.

If the White House vetoes the bill, and Congress sends up another appropriations bill with a withdrawal from Iraq set in it, then the President is going to have a far tougher time vetoing this second bill

…especially if they remove some of the more extraneous emergency funding from it.

Congress has the power to declare and end wars. That’s straight from the Constitution. If President Bush insists on giving our troops a mission without the funding to carry it out, then it’s all on him.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 3, 2007 11:11 PM
“…we’d have to go in AGAIN and most likely fight a nuclear instead of a low-grade conventional war.”

HUH? “Go in” and fight a nuclear war??? Explain that one please. Please tell me you spoke with emotion, not logic.

David,

Your logic continues to trump any other Watchblog contributor. Please contribute more and keep up the good work!!!

-Dutch_expat

The dems put a poison pill in the funding bill. The American people don’t like that.

Yae right, us American People would prefer the debacle in Iraq to continue on till hell freezes over were not quite drained yet and we all know Haliburton still needs the money.

By the way, Bush’s argument that they need to money by April 15th or it will hurt the troops is complete BS. Last year, the GOP Congress didn’t pass an appropriation for Iraq until mid-June. There was also a special “bridge fund” passed last fall in case the next appropriation was held up.

insensitive,

By “poison pill” you mean a timetable for withdrawal. Maybe YOU don’t like it, but the public supports it.

Newsweek poll

“Do you support or oppose the legislation passed this week by the U.S. Senate calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by March 2008?”

Support 57%
Oppose 36%

David R.
What would stop the President from getting the money needed for the troops by cutting other govt programs? Is there a law against doing that?

kctim, yes, it is called misappropriation of funds allocated by the Congress. It is illegal. Remember the Iran Contra Affair? - same deal, and Reagan got caught. Even Reagan accepted responsibility for that wrong doing.

The Congress was in no mood to impeach Reagan. This Congress would impeach Bush in a heartbeat if he misappropriated funds in that manner (taking funds from NCLB for example to fund continuance of our occupation in Iraq).

AP and Dutch-Expat, thank you for the kind words.

Ah, thanks alot David.
Should be interesting to watch the “teams” spin this to their political advantage over the next year.

kctim, I should qualify and state that I do not know to what extent the President may reallocate funds from within the Defense Department budget for Iraq purposes. I suspect those budgets are also specifically and exclusively allocated by the Congress and not subject to transferability, but, I may well be unaware of rules or laws passed by the previous Congress’ granting the President such authorization.

Gergle said: “A Democrat will win the White House.”

And America will be back in the one party government boat of excesses and abuse, without constraint.

David,
Maybe…maybe not. I suspect the Congress will remain a close split.

All I’m really saying is that both parties are playing to their bases right now, but it’s purely for show. The Iraq war albatross will remain around Bush’s neck and drag the Republicans down with him. Hagle has made an anti war stance, but Republicans won’t support him. Hillary may have the smart position here…if the war situation improves(a rather slim chance, in my opinion), but Obama does have less baggage than her (other than being black in a still somewhat racist nation).

gergle, the Republicans have far more seats up for reelection in ‘08 than Democrats. Historically, that means the close split will cease to exist, especially in the Senate where Democrats are poised to pick up at least several more seats by the numbers up for reelection alone.

If a Democrat wins the White House, almost guaranteed at this point, it will be a heavily dominated one party government. The Senate won’t be filibuster proof, but, it will only take 2 or 3 Republicans to cross over on any particular vote to render it effectively filibuster proof on a wide range of bills, compared to the 5 or 6 required now.

Of course it’s very early yet, but I find it interesting that anyone could say that at this point that it’s “almost guaranteed” that a Democrat will win the White House.

Especially when almost all the polls on that very question show either one of the currently leading Republican candidates (Guliani or McCain) beating either of the currently leading Democratic candidates (Hillary, Obama). Of course it’s not a done deal, but interpreting this as a lock for Democrats, when they’re actually the ones who need to make up ground, just doesn’t make sense.

And don’t forget, by November 2008 the voters will be seeing just what the Democrats are doing and how they are little different than the Republicans, which can make the election open for any candidate that successfully maneuvers the game well enough to be considered the true outsider/leader/etc.

So, no, not a done deal, but the prospect of a democratically controlled house/senate/white house scares the willies out of me, my checkbook and my poor copy of the constitution…

LO, its a lock because of Iraq. Barring any other issue taking the front seat from Iraq, a Dem. candidate will win in ‘08. The Republicans have no coattails for their candidate to ride on. The public is disappointed in both Bush and the Republicans in Congress. If Iraq, (a Republican war), is still the front issue in Nov. 08, a democrat will win.

The word “if” above should not be under emphasized.

David, isn’t it kind of strange to say that it’s a “lock” and a Dem candidate “will win” on one hand, but on the other there is a big “if” which should not be underemphasized?

There are several things wrong with your point of view.

1). Yes, the public is disappointed with Bush and the Republicans in Congress. But Bush won’t be running, and the Congress the public will be disappointed with by next year will be Democratic.

2). If Iraq is the determining factor and the public sees the war as a soley Republican problem, then why aren’t the Democratic candidates leading in polls now? In fact, why are they behind?

3). A Republican war? Maybe, but a Democratic presidential candidate will have to explain to the American people how he/she will take responsibility for it as President. It’s not going to be enough to just shift responsibility on Bush for everything while he’s busy making his retirement plans in Crawford, Texas. Hillary and Obama are going to have a hell of a time placating the many divergent factions of independents and anti-war Democrats, and neither Hillary or Obama is advocating an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Hillary in particular VOTED for the war and is catching all kinds of grief for her continnued support of it from the left wing.

Nobody knows how the Iraq war will look a year and a half from now, or what other major issues will arise in the meantime—i.e, further terrorist attacks, North Korea and Iran. To say nothing of domestic issues. It’s just completely premature to be talking at this stage about “locks” and who “will win.”

David,LO and Rhinehold,

Unless the albatross of Iraq, and the lying Bush magically dissapear, I think the WH is a lock. My thinking re: the Congress is that Americans have the willies like Rhinehold about one party gov’t. Of course, each House/Senate race is a district issue, so I’m less sure about that outcome.

Maybe if Bush had the CIA kill Rove and Cheney, they’d have a chance:)

I think Guliani and McCain are weak candidates.

Guliani will hear the drib drab of scandal over the next year…sneaking out on his wife, Kerick’s deals, corruption, meaness, hypocrasy.

McCain is the shadow of his former self driven by ambition to sell out his beliefs. A nice stalwart hero, driven to pandering and delusion.

At this point it seems like Obama’s, but Hilary is tenacious. I think Edwards is now the sick candidate, although I like his ideas.

Obama’s blackness worries me though, I think if he is the candidate we’ll see a very racist Republican tilt. Hilary will have to run away from Bill, but then she can always use Bush as evidence that Bill wasn’t really that bad. I’m not sure if Americans are more scared of women or blacks.

Sad, ain’t it?

Gergle, Bush’s “magical disappearance” won’t be all that magical.

It’s called term limits, and for some reason you’re not even bothering to ask yourself why, if Bush and Iraq is such an albatross for Republicans, Republican presidential candidates are almost always outpolling their Democratic counterparts NOW.

Your point seems to be that Bush and Cheney, with Rove at their side, are going to have a hell of a time winning the presidential election in 2008. Well, I agree with you. That’s gonna be tough.

Gergle, your analysis is not only weak, but flies in the face of readily observable reality.

How can you say that “at this point it seems to be Obama’s” when he is 10-20 points behind Hillary in most polls? If you think it’s possible for him to catch up, that’s one thing, but that is not what’s going on at what you call “this point.” “This point” seems to be a figment of your imagination.

You think Mccain and Guliani are weak. Fine, but right now their “weakness” translates into a lead over Democrats in almost all the polls.

You think they’ll be brought low by scandals? Maybe you’re right, but so might anybody— including Hillary and Obama. The idea that they are going to be scandal-free while McCain and Guliani are not ignores the nature of presidential campaigns. You can bet there’s going to be plenty of scandal, accusation and counter-accusation to go around. How things will look when the dust settles is anybody’s guess—and that is the correct word. A guess.

LO asked: “David, isn’t it kind of strange to say that it’s a “lock” and a Dem candidate “will win” on one hand, but on the other there is a big “if” which should not be underemphasized?”

No! Logic dictates that when prognosticating one set the conditions for the prognostication. Hence, the IF.

Your projecting the outcome based on today’s polls is very illogical. Rarely have the polls this early ever predicted the outcome of a presidential race some 18 months later. Also, those early polls have built in biases. Working people can’t be reached at home, for example.

Retired people who are at home tend to be more conservative. Probability and Statistics 101, “all things being equal”, which of course they aren’t at this point. A huge number of voters are still undecided both Democrat and Republican.

gergle has possibly a good point as well: those polled are leery of a one party dominated government. That would affect today’s polling. BUT, on election day, Democrats concerned about one party government are not likely to vote for a Republican.

In the end, it will be the Independent voters who will decide who is president, and without much regard for party affiliation of the candidate. Independents have 4 main issues, (1) Ending our monkey in the middle role in Iraq, (2) fiscal responsibility, (3) reform as in election, ethics, and campaign finance, and (4) Illegal immigration and border security.

Republicans score points, based on recent past performance, only on #4, and Dem’s lose points big time on this same issue. Dem’s however are scoring points on PayGo for #2, and of course #1, Iraq. But there are a lot of potential IF’s between now and Nov. 2008. I personally don’t want a one party government, ever again.

But, the Republicans are going to have to produce better candidates than they have so far if they hope to have a chance with Independent voters. I see that Mitt Romney is making a potential pitch to independent voters on fiscal responsibility. But, GW Bush did that two elections in a row and we saw how that turned out.

Unbelievable that Bush would today admonish Congress for tacking on unrelated spending to the war funding bill, when last year, Bush himself tacked on funding for two projects having nothing to do with the war spending bill, avian flu research money for big Pharma and increased border security. This kind of hypocrisy is giving Republicans a bad name.

LO,

I don’t call spouting about this analysis, but O.K.

Your absolutely right, anything could happen between now and November. Hell, I might even be elected. That would really scare you.:)

I was simply giving my impressions, I didn’t expect you to agree. Like David says, polls are meaningless at this point, except as tools to profer the idea that a candidate wants to project.

David R. Remer,

Very good article. I’ve not taken time to read every response, but want to respond while I’m capable of doing so.

Both the house and senate bills piss me off, real damn bad! The senate bill is just plain stupid and every US Senator knows it, that’s why McConnell sat on his hands and didn’t invoke the “nuclear option”.

The house bill is stupid for two reasons: #1: NO PORK SHOULD BE ATTACHED! I’m against pork anyway, but in this case the pork is an unnecessary distraction. #2: Rather than a “time-line” we should be pressing the necessity for troop readiness. What’s happening today is an absolute travesty to our armed services. Too few are having to sacrifice too damn much.

Pelosi blew it! Now she’s acting just as ignorant as Bush. What we’re witnessing is a pissing match where no one wins. What Congress should do is approve 1/3 of the money and demand a full report from Gates, Petraeus, etc. every four months. That would serve as notice that we’re gonna pull the plug unless we see some real results.

We should also DEMAND honesty regarding our troop readiness. A good first step would be totally anonymous “redress” where any of our troops could contact any member of the house or senate (not just their own) and NO ONE but that representative would know their identity.

You can read more about the current redress activity here:
http://www.appealforredress.org/index.php

And remember these are all VOLUNTEERS!

We’re killing our military, and we’re killing our military personnel, and Bush, Pelosi, and everyone else is playing f*#%ing games with their lives!

There are no winners in this mess. We can do better.

Kansas Dem, years ago, I wrote that enough of our soldiers had already died in Iraq and it was time to say ‘Mission Accomplished’ and do what people do when their mission is accomplished: leave. I was called unpatriotic and an enemy sympathizer.

Now it’s my turn. Those who continue to support America’s role as cop and occupier of Iraq are no friends to our troops and not patriotic, and indeed are furthering the aims and agenda of our enemies who use our occupation as a tool to their own advantage.

The only just way to treat our troops is to give them a mission for which they are trained, equipped, and licensed to accomplish by the accepted rules of war, and then remove them as fast as possible when its over. This respectful treatment of our soldiers was abandoned the day after Saddam Hussein was captured when our government failed to avail our troops an exit from Iraq. And to this day, this administration has NO exit strategy for our soldiers.

Our troops, by the thousands with their loved ones, have been suffering unjustly ever since, because our troops were not trained or equipped to police a civil war in cities in a foreign land with a foreign language and for which there could be no solution but to let the parties to that civil war find their own political resolution.

It is truly sad that our government has such a low regard for the life and limb of our soldiers as to use them for political purposes of saving face long enough to pass the problem on to another administration.

KansasDem,
Well said!
David makes a very good point.
Bush is vetoing funding needed now.

David wrote: Do Democrats have the saavy and intestinal fortitude to play this kind of high stakes poker with the White House?

The BILL had enough funding to last a while … long enough to determine if there has been sufficient progress. Bush, in a way, is sort of admitting/revealing that he doesn’t expect sufficient progress, but instead, wants to occupy Iraq indefinitely, while trying to make Congress feel guilty for cutting funding beyond that time limit.

And, to top it all off, they ALL take off for vaction, except Pelosi who decided to go galivanting around the Middle East. Never mind that she has no litte-to-no bargaining power. I suspose some people are tickled about what Pelosi is doing, but it isn’t helping anything, except to waste the tax payers money.

Then there’s John McCain. I used to have some respect for him, but his last little visit to Iraq was an attempt to twist the truth. He walks about in an Iraqi marketplace in the Green zone and talks about how things are improving. Never mind that he’s wearing a bullet proof vest, surrounded by troops, there are U.S. snipers on all the nearby roofs, two Blackhawk helicopters are circling nearby, and they probably scanned/surveyed the area before entering it. Never mind that there were sniper incidents 24 hours later. Never mind that the the Green zone is only a tiny region within a large country where civil war and sectarian violence continues to rage. I’m not trying to take anything away from John McCain’s service record (in Vietnam), but John McCain pretty much went on camera and lied to all of us. That one little market in the Green zone is NOT representative of the rest of Iraq.

David and d.a.n.,

I really agree with both of you. I just want to see the most orderly withdrawal possible. At the end of the day that can only happen if the CinC has a change of heart or if we have a new CinC.

Neither is likely to happen. If our rapid withdrawal results in massive loss of American life we Democrats will bear the blame. The voting public will say GW was right and we’ll end up with another GW clone occupying the White House in ‘09.

The best we Democrats can do now is tie up the funding for weeks and weeks. That’s also the worst we can do. This would be a good time to pull a “rip Van Winkle” and just wake up sometime down the road and see how it worked out……… sigh!

All the “better” options have long since passed us by.

John Edwards nearly quoted the theme of this article verbatim yesterday as viewed on MSNBC. He called for sending this bill without change back to the President after each veto, keeping the President in the position of denying funding for the troops.

That’s one! Will there be other players at this table?

I heard a couple Democratic Representatives say the same thing on the talking head shows yesterday. Looks like that’s the plan.

This article in Time needs no explanation or comment:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1606888-1,00.html

Say it loud and clear, KansasDem. It’s vital that Americans understand how the Bush administration is destroying our military and our national security. Right now, two-thirds of all Army, Marine and National Guard units are rated unfit for combat.

The only combat-capable troops that can effectively defend our country are ten thousand miles away in Iraq.

Illegal immigrants are pouring unhindered over our border in the millions. What’s to stop the Chinese military from doing the same?

AP,

What’s to stop the Chinese military from doing the same?

They don’t have an idiot in power.

kctim asked “What would stop the President from cutting other programs to get the funding needed for Iraq.
Remer responded that it would be misappropriation of funds.

Well, that is exactly what the Democratic Congress has said the Pentagon can do in the case that it runs out of money. The President claims that funds will run out in April. The Democrats claim the funds will run out in June. The Dems say the Pentagon can call upon war-time powers to shift resources from other accounts to fund Iraq if a bill has not been signed.
The President could easily use this war-time power to shift funding from other areas to fund the Iraq war. There is provision for that, as the Democrats have said. The question is, “Why continue this incessant quibbling just to gain political headlines, putting our troops in the middle of it?
At some point, the public is going to get tired of the Democratic tactics that are being played to undermine our military and our President. I’m sure that if polls were taken of Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria, the public would not support negotiating with leaders who fund terrorists. Yet, Pelosi is doing just that, just to make a look of defiance and to undermine the power of the Administration. The Democrats are trying everything they can to undermine the success of this war, period!
I have no doubt that the Democrats would like to see the Pentagon and the President try to shift funds from other resources so that they could claim that they are misappropriating funds and carrying out more high crimes. I’m sure it would be plastered on the pages of the NY Times in bold headlines calling for impeachment. It is probably just another Democratic strategy to take down the President.
JD

JD, you are confusing budget items for non-defense with budget items within the Defense allocation. As I said, I was not sure about reallocation of funds within the defense agencies, precisely because the President had been granted by Congress discretion in those areas, though what specifically I could not recall.

However, the Congress NEVER granted the president the authority to reallocate NON-defense budget allocations to Defense.

It is important to distinguish the two, because the law does.

Perhaps, the law does. However, that is a matter for the courts to decide. It could certainly be debated that if the Pentagon can call upon war-time powers to shift funds from defense accounts, the President, as Commander in Chief should have war-time powers to shift funds from accounts that he has in his control. The issue could probably be delayed in the courts until after President Bush leaves office a little over a year and a half from now.
If I were the President and the Democrats left me no choice but to shift funds from non-defense accounts or watch our boys die, I would shift funds in a heartbeat, and let the Democrats try to impeach me for it!
Nothing should come before protecting our troops in times of war. Unfortunately the Democrats don’t understand this!!

JD