I agree with the gist of what you’re saying. But shouldn’t that be “fucking commander-in-chief of the fucking military,” the “Speaker of the fucking House” who “is not in the fucking chain of command”?
As coiner of the term ‘simulpeachment,’ I’m cool with that. But I agree there’s no fucking consensus for it yet.
True. But remember this war’s being funded through a series of special appropriations bills outside the usual budget framework. Presidential veto = NO money for the war. So a Presidential veto of an Iraq war appropriations bill is a whole lot worse in terms of “stabbing the troops in the back” than merely trying to limit the approprations to certain areas in order to rein in the war.
There you go again, “political suicide” versus our soldiers being killed. Defunding the war in Iraq would have no more effect than us pulling out when the President decides to, except alot sooner. Obviously, a pull out by defunding or by the Executive will always involve soldiers on the ground by definition, no difference.
The Senate won’t do crap. Lieberman is behind this war all the way.
The f’g Constitution also gives the Congress the power of the purse. Like Rep. Rangel said, you can’t fight a war if nobody funds it (para).
The long-overdue investigations have not even really started yet. Recall the poll from a couple of years ago that had a solid majority in favor of impeaching Bush if it were shown he’d lied about the intelligence? Congress may have to scramble to catch up with the people on that. That includes the Goppers, ya know.
Brownback stalled those hearings just as long as he could, bless his little heart, but it ain’t gonna be easy for him to explain why on the campaign trail, is it?
Oh, btw, “surge” is a way to avoid saying “escalation”, nothing more.
Did you read the post at all, or just quote the entire thing? It is not political suicide to pull the troops out of Iraq right now, it is physically and Constitutionally impossible for Congress to do it that fast. Why won’t you listen to what anybody says?
I don’t believe we should lose even one more soldier for a war that most Americans and over half of the Congress doesn’t want. There is no way to win a war under those circumstances.
I don’t give two craps about the 100 hours agenda. Most Americans agree with me. The latest polls show that the Iraq war is a more important issue by factor of 6, or more, to 1 versus any other issue.
I have read all posts here, but I also listen to other people like Rep. Kucinich, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, etc. It was Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, et al, in 2006 who called for the President to begin redeployment in a few months. So it is physically possible, one. The argument that we can’t redeploy the most mobile military ever in a few months is silly. This has been said over and over here and I am suppose to buy it.
Second, if the President was told to start redeployment because there will be no additional funding for the Iraq war, he would have do it. This notion that he could find the required billions of dollars somewhere else to continue the war is absurd. The only argument presented here is that it would be political suicide. Who cares when US soldiers are getting killed?
So you believe the current problem is merely that the American people have lost the will to fight? Does that mean that you think that the war WOULD be winnable if it had more support here at home?
Personally I think the war was a doomed idea from the start. And as more people have come to realize this, support has evaporated. It’s not that we’re losing because the war is unpopular. The war is unpopular because we’re losing.
(I should qualify my “doomed from the start” remark by saying that I do think we could have won Iraq if we’d sent in 350k to 400k troops at the very beginning. But that would have meant reinstating the draft and delaying the war for a year at least while we trained the new soldiers. Since there’s no way THAT was going to happen, it was doomed.)
Well, you’re definitely not a lefty, then.
I’m curious why you’re so defensive about your overall political position. It seems to me that perhaps you’re just looking for a convenient club to bash the Democrats with, instead of actually being concerned about the best way to bring this unfortunate war to a speedy conclusion.
If that’s the case, you might take some time to ponder who in this scenario is REALLY cynically using the troops for political ends … .
Sigh. I meant it is physically impossible for the people in charge not in the White House to redeploy troops that quickly, not that the soldiers themselves can’t move quickly. I thought that would be kind of obvious.
Have you even witnessed this man’s obstinacy over the last six years?
The Department of Defense’s annual budget is ~425 billion, which does not include appropriations bills for the war. Finding billions of dollars in that would be perhaps not trivial, but certainly not difficult either.
Actually, you’re the only one saying that. Everybody else is trying to tell you why we can’t pull our soldiers out of Iraq right this second, and you’re ignoring them.
I have said our soldiers could be moved to secure bases and redeployed based on a schedule. Nothing about them being moved out this second.
Secondly, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid could tell the President today that there will be no additional funding for the Iraq war. He would have no choice but to start redeployment. The notion he could find $60 to $80 billion is fantasy, even in a DoD budget of $400+ billion.
The only serious argument I have heard, so far, is that it can’t be done for politically reasons and that is no reason when our soldiers lives are on the line. This sort of makes sense since their priority is the 100 hours agenda without a mention on how we get out of Iraq. Redeployment was great when they were campaigning in 2006.
Only the president can order this. The Congress has no say in it, and even if cutting funding would do anything at all, it would not achieve this. Which part of this statement are you having difficulty understanding? Because its clear that you are not understanding something.
Assuming this is true (its not), how would this force the President to put our troops in a more defensive posture and achieve your first statement? What would prevent the President from simply using existing funds from the DoD budget to continue the war in the short term? Why do you seem incapable of doing more than continuing to spout this same arguement even though others have challenged you on it. Feel free to do some research and back up your assertion with a cite that in fact Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid et al CAN cut funding and that this would force the President to bring the troops home.
While you are at it, try and figure out exactly how the Dems would get such a thing through, when they have such a slim majority…feel free to back up any further assertions that they CAN do this with some real numbers on HOW it would be done.
He wouldn’t need to redeploy…the troops are THERE already, in case this has slipped your mind. Its possible (even probable) that cutting funding would have the effect of preventing the President from deploying any ADDITIONAL large bodies of troops to Iraq…but this would do absolutely nothing for the troops already there.
Cite? Feel free to back this up by showing that there is no way the President can juggle the DoD budget (or any other funding) in order to maintain those troops in Iraq in the highly unlikely even YOUR fantasy of cutting off funds happens.
Ignorance is bliss…and its hard to hear others why you have your fingers in your ears and are going ‘lalalalalla!’ at the top of your lungs. Tell you what…when you can back up some of the assertions you’ve made above with some cites, then we can go from there…hows that sound?
The first 100 hour agenda was NEVER about Iraq…because people who live in the real world realize that there are no solutions to Iraq that can be magically whipped out in 100 hours. People who live in fantasy worlds often think there are easy solutions to difficult problems, or that all it takes is for some politician to wave the magic fiat wand at it to make it go away. Would that it were so…
Sure, the President is going to leave the soldiers in harms way when he has no funding. Silly. ( the argument he can find the funds is silly too, next)
The idea that DoD funds could be used as he wishes wasn’t brought up by me. So why don’t you cite? I have seen several appropriation bills where, for example, the funds cannot be used to build permanant bases in Iraq. Listening to you this can’t be true because the C-C is in complete charge of the military and the war in Iraq.
I don’t know what the vote would be for cutting future appropriations for funding the Iraq war. You don’t either. You must think I made up the concept of defunding. It has been brought out on several news broadcasts and members of Congress.
Are you saying if the next appropriation for the war were cut, it would have nothing to do with the troops there now, but not funding the “surge” would stop additional troops being deployed there? And, if the President wants a surge he can do it anyway by using funds from other sources. Can you see how absurd this argument is?
If there is no solution, why did Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid call for the start of a redeployment by the end of 2006? Was there a solution back when they called for it?
I didn’t call cite when you stated 80% approval of the items in the 100 hours agenda. Plus, I said people want us out of Iraq just as much. So you go first … cite!
I was wrong, people support getting out of Iraq way more than the issues in the 100 hours agenda. All other issues are off the bottom of the chart when compared to Iraq in importance:
Re: “People also support us getting out of Iraq to the same level as the items on the 100 hours agenda.”
Saturday, December 09, 2006 – Americans today are much more supportive of getting out of Iraq ASAP. A new AP-Ipsos poll has 71 percent of Americans favoring getting out of Iraq in the next two years and 60 percent in favor of getting out in the next six months.
January 8, 2007 – A CBS News poll released Thursday found that 45 percent of voters want the Democratic Congress to focus on Iraq, a figure that far outstripped the percentages for the economy and jobs, at 7 percent; health care, at 7 percent; and immigration, at 6 percent. “Americans couldn’t be clearer,” the poll report concluded.
So tell us, harveyc, WHY do you think the Democrats are focusing on other issues instead of Iraq? What’s their hidden agenda, in your opinion? Why are they selling us out?
I’m saying that an out-of-power party on the campaign hustings has freedom to make bolder calls for the president to take a specific action than a newly inaugurated party that should not rashly take action that could be harmful without due consideration.
If the president (with access (whether or not he reads it) to information regarding the logistics of a successful and safe pullback) were to announce such a pullback Tuesday night, Ms. Pelosi would probably cheer, but for the Democrats to attempt legislation (that would not be veto-proof in either House) to radically alter U.S. involvement in Iraq without having the opportunity to study the actually military and intelligence descriptions of the situation would be foolish.
In contrast, decisions to change minimum wages (still subject to veto, but good for appearances) and change ethics rules in the House (not subject to veto and based on information already in the public view), would not be a rash act, per se.
Comparing the relative speed with which each could be addressed is like comparing apples and kiwifruit.
Gerald Ford was president for a little less than five months in 1974, but he wasn’t the POTUS during the war in Vietnam. Eisenhower sent the first American advisors in in the mid 1950’s and Nixon brought the last American military out in 1973.
Don’t let that discourage you from posting. Anyone can make mistakes. Welcome to the SDMB. An open mind helps. So does reading other posts carefully.
By the way, I think that Pelosi and Reid sent a letter to the President about Iraq on Friday.
When you think of the “hearings,” think of them as “searches for the truth” or “hearings of the truth.” Sometimes they can be really interesting. At other times they will drive you stark raving mad! (Some people use them for self-promotion. Imagine that!)
