[BUMbaronos]

Last I heard, it was the House that wanted firm deadlines, that the Senate that wanted softer "goals" and that in the converence committee, the House caved and adopted the Senate position.


BTW: I'm surprised the Dems haven't taken a firmer position over all, saying something like: "Here's your extra money. You can veto this bill if you like because you don't like our guidelines, but this is the only bill, you're getting. The American people spoke in the last election; they want the troops home, and this bill is designed to impliment their will. If you veto this bill, you're not getting another."

[LomodiorCon]

Seems to me that if Bush vetoed this bill, the dems would try to make another, softer bill that would be more to Bush's liking?? Your suggestion is probably what will happen.

I think the Dems were quite cunning to put the "goal" of beginning a withdraw into a bill providing supplemental funding for the Iraq War.

Under my scenario -- which probably won't happen -- Bush would be given the choice of signing the bill he hates or not getting any bill at all...and he desparately needs the additional funding to the troops.

[entaifsfets]

Any bets who's going to take the blame if there is no additional funding.

I bet the dems blink first. But at least they'll be able to whine afterwards that they tried to get the troops home.

[EmpaccalGah]

Question to Drake,

Will Hagel ever see political office again after this?

Certainly not as a repug.

[gghrdfffhfyj]

Originally posted by rah
Any bets who's going to take the blame if there is no additional funding.

I bet the dems blink first. But at least they'll be able to whine afterwards that they tried to get the troops home. Okay....I know that you as a republican would probably be against a withdrawal. Add to that the fact that as things stand now, a withdrawal would probably be the worst thing possible for Iraq.

But you can't argue against the fact that it's the will of a majority of the American people. And that Bush with his continued stance on this is probably worsening the chances of having a republic president after the 2008 elections.

[RogHammon]

I would think the democrats would lose a lot of ground if troops left before the presidential election.

It's not like Bush has been following basic Republican doctrine about the economy, so the Dems can't win on that easily., especially when the Democrats have failed to win on that in the previous two elections.

A Republican governor, especially one without strong religious ties, could step in and win it.

The Democratic primary is going to basically turn into another who wants to spend more on various program debate like in 2000, which turned off a lot of people. Not necessarily that good when you want to attack the Republicans on the economy too. That is the more optimistic situation too, assuming they don't go into character assassination.

I don't really see why the Democrats really want to pull out that soon. Especially when things can easily go to hell there in a 6 month period after troops are gone.

[brilkyPlayday]

BTW here's a great piece where John Stewart utterly pwns John McCain on just about every Republican talking point. Seeings how the Republican candidates are all pretty much the same on this issue Stewart just pwnd them all.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/...ain-042407.wmv

[gugqgbyzlp]

Hilarity ensues. End Act II.

-Arrian

[Assunkkensatt]

Originally posted by Asmodean


Okay....I know that you as a republican would probably be against a withdrawal. Add to that the fact that as things stand now, a withdrawal would probably be the worst thing possible for Iraq.

But you can't argue against the fact that it's the will of a majority of the American people. And that Bush with his continued stance on this is probably worsening the chances of having a republic president after the 2008 elections. I'm against a scheduled withdrawal. We need to get out, but we have to clean up after ourselves a bit first to be fair to the iraqi people.

And I think what Bush is doing is could actually help a repug in 2008. One, it won't be BUSH. (jeb won't fly at this point) So a repug can modify the stance a little and seem more reasonable. The Dems are starting to sound a bit out on the edge on this. Regardless of how the majority voted, people don't want to see IRAQ descend into a hell of civil war and genocide. Many people still feel responsible so while a majority may want our boys home, there is still considerable debate to how and when. But time will tell. I've been wrong before.

[eEwbYjOH]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Imagine if Bush signed it. He'd make democrats look like huge idiots.

edit: and also piss off many, many republicans. It's win win win.

[BEyng6hj]

is genocide necessarily a reason to stay or go into a country?

[preptarra]

Originally posted by MRT144


He'd make democrats look like huge idiots.

edit: and also piss off many, many republicans. It's win win win. So the appropriate thing is for him to fall on the sword sign it and **** the Dems for years to come.

So that just leaves the question of what happens to the region, the iraqis, and more importantly the oil.

[iDzcs7TU]

Do you think it would get better if we pulled out now? Or would there be more open genocide. Yes, and dont know, its pretty open already. We invaded to drain the swamp, and everything we've done was designed to attract terrorists to the drain. So I dont see how our presence inhibits violence...

[putza]

yes, the path to citizenship leads thru Baghdad

[RorieSorNearop]

The Senate voted for a deadline and not a "goal?" The problem with that is the Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief. Congress has no authority to order troops out or pass laws saying they must be out by a date certain. Congress cannot micro-manage.

That's why I liked the idea of stating a policy of having a "goal." Then leave things up to the Excutive Branch to achieve that goal, if they can, in the best way possible. Even this is pushing the envelope...but I think it would be constitutionally viable.

[kuzbaslachek]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The Senate voted for a deadline and not a "goal?" The problem with that is the Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief. Congress has no authority to order troops out or pass laws saying they must be out by a date certain. Congress cannot micro-manage. Thank you

[Dndjzirw]

The power to declare war is not the power to make it.

[oronozopiy]

Congress's job is not to blindly execute the will of the people. Nope, its job is to blindly let the Prez do what he wants. We have a Decidership, not a democracy

[zenihan]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
Zkrib: Weve had an extensive thread about the constitutionality of Congresses 'micro-managing' of the war and your argument has been roundly crushed.

[Louthcoombutt]

oops... dp