What's gonna happen?

5/1/2007 10:45:24 PM

bidens head will explode

5/1/2007 10:52:16 PM

good...one less person that cant hack it...

5/1/2007 10:54:47 PM

now that Bush vetoed the troop funding bill..... he will get to claim that the Democrats are withholding funds for the troops.

....right?

5/1/2007 11:20:40 PM

Quote :

"Getting Iraq War Funding Wrong Again by Ron Paul This week, Congress finalized the controversial $124 billion Iraq emergency supplemental spending bill, with the House and Senate both voting in favor of final passage. The majority of my Republican colleagues and I voted against this measure, and the president has vowed to veto the legislation. In this final version, the House leadership retained billions of dollars in pork meant to attract skeptical votes, retained a watered-down version of the problematic “benchmarks” that seek to micromanage the war effort, and continued to play politics with the funding of critical veterans medical and other assistance. In other words, this final version was even worse than the original in almost all respects. As I wrote when this measure first came before the House, we have to make a clear distinction between the Constitutional authority of Congress to make foreign policy, and the Constitutional authority of the president, as commander in chief, to direct the management of any military operation. We do no favor to the troops by micromanaging the war from Capitol Hill while continuing to fund it beyond the president’s request. If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense. If one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war, without a constitutional declaration, voting against funding for that war makes equally good sense. What occurred, however, was the worst of both. Democrats, dissatisfied with the way the war is being fought, gave the president all the money he asked for and more to keep fighting it, while demanding that he fight it in the manner they see fit. That is definitely not a recipe for success in Iraq and foreign policy in general. What is the best way forward in Iraq? Where do we go from here? First, Congress should admit its mistake in unconstitutionally transferring war power to the president and in citing United Nations resolutions as justification for war against Iraq. We should never go to war because another nation has violated a United Nations resolution. Then we should repeal the authority given to the president in 2002 and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then we should start bringing our troops home in the safest manner possible. Though many will criticize the president for mis-steps in Iraq and at home, it is with the willing participation of Congress, through measures like this war-funding bill, that our policy continues to veer off course. Additionally, it is with the complicity of Congress that we have become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrolled spying on the American people. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true. "

5/1/2007 11:38:26 PM

Quote :

"Iraq: You Break It, You Own It. -- Colin Powell "

i was against this war from the beginning. But now that we've fucked it up, we can't just leave. I dont know what the solution is, but I've got a general framework:

(1) simultaneously impeach Bush and Cheney, and bring criminal charges of war crimes against Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Gonzalez.

(2) get some people in there who don't have their heads up their asses to sort the mess out, and start implementing key aspects of the bipartisan Iraq Commission. anything will be better than what the George W. Bush Clown Troupe is doing.







[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 1:57 AM. Reason : ]

5/2/2007 1:57:09 AM

what we ought to fucking do is what we should've done from the start. swarm that fucking place with a million goddamned troops

iraqis shouldn't be able to walk half a block without seeing a geared up american GI

then we'll get some fucking order in there, institutions of civilizaiton can rebuild themsleves, and in a few years people will actually have something to lose when their fruitcake neighbor starts dirka-dirka-jihading in the alley back behind the house

[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 5:48 AM. Reason : s]

5/2/2007 5:47:49 AM

Quote :

"i was against this war from the beginning. But now that we've fucked it up, we can't just leave. I dont know what the solution is, but I've got a general framework: (1) simultaneously impeach Bush and Cheney, and bring criminal charges of war crimes against Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Gonzalez. (2) get some people in there who don't have their heads up their asses to sort the mess out, and start implementing key aspects of the bipartisan Iraq Commission. anything will be better than what the George W. Bush Clown Troupe is doing."

At first I agreed with you, but then you had to go all batshit crazy with impeachment and war crimes(!) charges. We shouldn't have gone into Iraq, but it wasn't illegal nor were war crimes committed. We are there now, and we have a responsibility to the people of Iraq to stay there. Yea it's fucked up over there, but we shouldn't have invaded in the first place. A lot of the Democrats voting to withdraw now voted for the war in the first place. That is disgusting. Oh whoops it wasn't as easy as we thought, we'll just leave now cause it will hurt out political rivals back home.

The Democrats strategy for Iraq is to leave. Fuck the Iraqis, even though we invaded their country and let loose major internal strife the causes of which have been brewing for years.

5/2/2007 6:22:00 AM

Quote :

"nor were war crimes committed"

Yes they were.

Look up the various massacres, murders, and torture of civilians and POWs that have been documented, and over which several soldiers have been punished (with slaps on the wrists, for eg, a year or two for murders etc).

Whether animals such as Perle, Wolfowitz, etc al are responsible, is another issue, but war crimes have definitely been committed.

5/2/2007 7:08:25 AM

Quote :

"What's gonna happen?"

One thing that is going to happen is protesting against the veto.

Quote :

"In North Carolina at: Chapel Hill 6:00 PM Durham 5:00 PM Raleigh 4:00 PM Greensboro 5:00 Hickory 5:30 Wilmington 5:00 COLUMBUS 5:00 for location details on these or info on other rallies across the nation tomorrow just enter your zip at: http://johnedwards.com/r/12075/813727/ "Four years ago today, George Bush landed an S-3B Viking jet on the USS Lincoln and told America that major combat operations were over—mission accomplished. It wasn't. The troops have done everything they were asked. They deserve a hero's welcome. They deserve to come home." David Bonior Campaign Manager, John Edwards for President Veteran, United States Air Force (1968-1972)"

5/2/2007 7:44:40 AM

Quote :

""nor were war crimes committed""

seems to me that invading a country under false pretenses should be illegal too

5/2/2007 8:17:45 AM

The democrats will continue to talk big, and Bush will continue to talk big... and at some point before the troops actually run out of ammunition the democrats will cave, at least enough to send some funding over there...

And Bush will basically hold this line until '08 when he hands the ball off to somebody else.

5/2/2007 8:44:19 AM

Bush was resolved to veto anything that isn’t exactly what he wants.

And the dems were resolved to put through a bill with a time table to bring the troops home.

Now that they have butted heads, the dems will probably allow some compromise by doing benchmarks that they can get republican legislators on board with.

Once they have given ground, shown some compromise, and garnered a little more rep support, Bush would be hard pressed to veto troop funding again over bench marks.

5/2/2007 8:51:32 AM

wtf will benchmarks without stipulations do?

waste my money :/

5/2/2007 9:05:29 AM

Quote :

" seems to me that invading a country under false pretenses should be illegal "

gotta love all those false UN resolutions that were violated

5/2/2007 9:20:45 AM

^yeah. Or the fact the entire govt voted to go. Hard facts to overlook.

Although, Im not opposed to having an exit strategy consisting of timelines. But its just retarded to make those public, so the enemy will be aware of it. And with all the political wrestling over iraq there is no way anyone can keep their big mouth shut about it bc they want EVERYONE to know THEY were the only one responsible to bringing the troops home.

5/2/2007 9:28:18 AM

Quote :

"and at some point before the troops actually run out of ammunition the democrats will cave, at least enough to send some funding over there..."

The troops will never run out of ammunition. As long as we have people over there, money will be pulled from somewhere for them. Now I'm not saying Congress shouldn't fund them directly with spending bills - they should - but that's a red herring to suggest that if Bill X isn't passed by Y date, then all of a sudden there will be no more money for them.

Quote :

"gotta love all those false UN resolutions that were violated .... Or the fact the entire govt voted to go. Hard facts to overlook. "

i'm not suggesting that they didn't get the proper authority to invade, i'm suggesting that the case to go to war was knowingly built upon false pretenses.

5/2/2007 9:36:00 AM

impeach bush and cheney! jon stewart for prez!

5/2/2007 9:36:37 AM

well i think we'd be equally screwed if Pelosi were promoted up, via impeachment of Bush & Cheney. I think she's full of hot air and doesn't have the fortitude to stand up to the job herself.

5/2/2007 9:38:41 AM

I seem to think that the Republicans will cave first, as a majority of the US is in favor of troop withdrawal and to continue this war would be political suicide for reelection.

5/2/2007 9:39:27 AM

^^i think we'd be a lot more screwed

^given your past record on predicting which side will do what, its clear the democrats will cave

5/2/2007 9:39:35 AM

Having a deadline does nothing but provide a political victory for some people while putting our troops in danger. Im no general, but its just stupid to tell your enemy what and when you plan on doing. Surely this is something we ALL can agree on.

5/2/2007 9:44:41 AM

Quote :

"Once they have given ground, shown some compromise, and garnered a little more rep support, Bush would be hard pressed to veto troop funding again over bench marks."

BS, no way the Dems should give ANY ground, especially when yours truly in the WH hasnt given an inch of ground in five years, they don't have a majority for NOTHING.

5/2/2007 9:46:00 AM

Its clear that the longer this impasse goes, the more it hurts the Democrats...the President is clearly for the war, while the Democrats are clearly against the war...so what side looks worse when the troops don't get funded for whatever reason, the side thats for the war (troops) or the side thats against the war (troops)?

^it would be pretty simple for the Republicans to spin the Democrats "standing their ground" as "being stubborn, while at the same time being negligent of our troops"

5/2/2007 9:47:56 AM

Put it in the regular budget like they should have from the get-go. Getting mired down in Iraq is not an "emergency" that needs to be funded with these stop-gap spending bills. Once grandma gets her Medicare coverage cut becuase we're spending 2 billion + a day in Iraq, watch how fast we get the hell out of there.

Paying for this nation-building exercise with a credit card is going to bite the US in the ass for decades. Over half a trillion spent thus far, with no end in sight. I wouldn't be nearly as pissed if we actually had taken care of Afganistan immediately (and held onto it), then put the Iraq Nation-Building Exercise in the budget proper.

Fukking Clinton was more of a conservative than Bush II ever thought about being.

5/2/2007 9:51:05 AM

Quote :

"Im no general, but its just stupid to tell your enemy what and when you plan on doing. Surely this is something we ALL can agree on."

i don't get this line of argument..... so we tell them when we're leaving. so what? That's what they want, and that's what people here want. As long as we remain in Iraq, they will continue to kill us, and we will continue to kill them. As soon as we leave, they will stop killing us. And no matter how we stay there, they're not going to stop killing each other unless one side is completely eradicated.

Talk about "putting our troops in harms way" by specifying a withdraw date? what kind of BS is that? By keeping the troops there indefinitely, you've leaving them in harms way! Guess how many US troops would be killed daily by Iraqi Insurgents if we bring them all home? Zero

5/2/2007 9:55:08 AM

i think there will be a compromise where there will be benchmarks and maybe a later phased withdrawal.

5/2/2007 9:55:36 AM

Quote :

"so we tell them when we're leaving. so what? "

so then they know "if we can just hold on until this date, the US pigs will leave us to do whatever we want!"

like the war or not, or the reasons for going to war...iraq is the frontline for the war on terror at the current moment

5/2/2007 9:57:19 AM

they're doing whatever they want now. What's the difference. At least then, they won't be killing us in the process

5/2/2007 9:58:10 AM

Quote :

"Having a deadline does nothing but provide a political victory for some people while putting our troops in danger. Im no general, but its just stupid to tell your enemy what and when you plan on doing. Surely this is something we ALL can agree on."

Thats ridiculous. The president put the troops and continues to keep the troops in constant danger. Four years later, the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate. The president simply does not want to admit fault and suggest a course of corrective action that negates his prior actions. Therefore, continuing the war is driven only by political reasons... to not admit that this undertaking is the biggest foreign policy mistake in US history and continue putting people in harms way for a politicians political career is immoral and illegal.

6 months from now or 50 years from now, it doesn't matter when we leave.... the same sectarian strife will happen. We certainly wouldn't support a never ending commitment of troops to Iraq, which would be necessary (think Israeli and Palestinian conflict going on since 1948). Us leaving Iraq is not going to cause the world to cave in...people said them same shit about Vietnam. Oh no! The enemy knows we are leaving.... and then nothing happened once we got home. There are perceived threats and there are real threats. You have perceived a threat that simply will not materialize.

[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 10:02 AM. Reason : .]

5/2/2007 10:01:54 AM

^^So right now we're trying to kill the terrorists in Iraq, and drive them out of the area so that hopefully Iraq can be rebuilt into some type of semi-Democratic state

If we tell them when we are leaving, why arent they just going to wait? Do you not see the fundamental problem with making compromises that give our enemies the upperhand knowledge of our exit strategy?

Quote :

"people said them same shit about Vietnam. Oh no! The enemy knows we are leaving"

who ever said that about Vietnam?

5/2/2007 10:02:37 AM

so we're just supposed to secretly leave? is it never going to be discussed in america if we were to leave in the future?

5/2/2007 10:10:08 AM

^^^ I wasn't speaking quite that literally, but my point is that the democrats will probably cave and pass some alternate funding bill with less stipulations before it comes time to pull funding from elsewhere.

5/2/2007 10:10:16 AM

^^^ oh, if we leave, the communists will take over all of Asia and then we will have a red nightmare

never materialized

And we are "killing terrorists in Iraq". There are hundreds of thousands of them streaming into Iraq. You act like there is a finite number. Every day another martyr creates several more. Once you realize this, you will figure out that we have no way of defeating an exponentially growing insurgency.

And perhaps they don't want a semi-democratic state. It seems that dictatorships, monarchies and military rule are the only systems that work in that area.

[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 10:12 AM. Reason : .]

5/2/2007 10:11:53 AM

Quote :

"It seems that dictatorships, monarchies and military rule are the only systems that work in that area."

5/2/2007 10:30:51 AM

Quote :

" Quote : "nor were war crimes committed" Yes they were. Look up the various massacres, murders, and torture of civilians and POWs that have been documented, and over which several soldiers have been punished (with slaps on the wrists, for eg, a year or two for murders etc). Whether animals such as Perle, Wolfowitz, etc al are responsible, is another issue, but war crimes have definitely been committed."

Guess what, in war/combat civilians die, sometimes civilians are shot when unarmed. It happens, but it isn't a war crime.

Obviously I was talking about the actions and policies of the US government and military in reference to no war crimes being committed. There has never been a war were "war crimes" have not been committed by isolated groups of soldiers.

The only proven major "war crime" is Abu Ghraib, and I highly doubt anyone in the US Army or the Bush administration were very happy about what went on there. But again, that was something done by an isolated group of individuals. ~10 soldiers out of the hundreds of thousands that have served in Iraq.

It use to be when people talked about war crimes they were talking about the genocide of the Jews, the work camps of the Soviets/Nazis, the prison camps of the Japanese, the ethnic strife and systematic rape/murder of ethnic groups in Africa. All of which were massive organized efforts by governents and/or their militarys. Nothing like that has occurred in Iraq.

Calling Wolfowitz and Perle animals makes you look like even more of a fool.

5/2/2007 10:46:00 AM

Quote :

"iraq is the frontline for the war on terror at the current moment"

Because we made it one. Bush claimed Iraq had al-Qaeda ties before the invasion (proven false), but I guess he got what he wanted didn't he? Now you have people streaming in from Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, all there to fight proxy wars. Of course it's the front line for the "war" on terror. How could it not be when Bush forcibly removes an entire nation's government in the middle of one of the most sectarian divided regions in the world without any semblance of a plan to fix things?

It's a total mess and now we are in it for the long haul. There are really only options now - pull out and watch the country implode, or drain the national coffers for another 5+ years until the next administration can (hopefully) get things moving in the right direction there.

5/2/2007 10:47:40 AM

Quote :

"It seems that dictatorships, monarchies and military rule are the only systems that work in that area"

like Israel

Quote :

"Because we made it one."

Thanks for agreeing that Iraq is the frontline for the war on terror right now

5/2/2007 11:04:44 AM

Quote :

"It seems that dictatorships, monarchies and military rule are the only systems that work in that area"

Like Turkey

5/2/2007 11:05:04 AM

Quote :

"It seems that dictatorships, monarchies and military rule are the only systems that work in that area"

Like the UAE

5/2/2007 11:05:25 AM

Quote :

"It seems that dictatorships, monarchies and military rule are the only systems that work in that area"

Like Kuwait

5/2/2007 11:05:53 AM

Quote :

"It seems that dictatorships, monarchies and military rule are the only systems that work in that area"

Like Quatar.

5/2/2007 11:06:34 AM

suspend

5/2/2007 11:07:41 AM

shut the fuck up you douchebag fucking sub 60 IQ faggot

5/2/2007 11:08:07 AM

Quote :

"queer. lock. suspend. terminate."

5/2/2007 11:09:04 AM

Quote :

"Having a deadline does nothing but provide a political victory for some people while putting our troops in danger."

"In other news, the insurgency made their final push at killing the American troops before they were finally out of the country. Sadly, they must now return to killing each other."

It isn't like we are telling them when and where we will invade. I don't see how a withdrawal deadline puts the troops in danger. If anything, the insurgents stand down for awhile, waiting for us to get out of the way.

5/2/2007 11:10:13 AM

Sadly they must now look to attack Americans elsewhere

5/2/2007 11:11:38 AM

That might be true, but the troops won't be in any danger because of a known withdrawal date.

5/2/2007 11:15:19 AM

If you are an insurgent, and your goal is to fight and kill Americans/American allies...and you know its a tough battle and both sides are taking losses...aren't you going to rejoice when your enemies give you the date of their essential surrender? So you can tell yourself "if we can just wait til this date, we can feel free to wreak havoc without those pesky Americans trying to stop us!"

5/2/2007 11:19:42 AM

Quote :

"^it would be pretty simple for the Democrats to spin the neocons"standing their ground" as "being stubborn, while at the same time being negligent of our troops""

5/2/2007 11:19:57 AM