Democrats step up pressure on Bush troop buildup
Reuters | Saturday, 17 February 2007

WASHINGTON: Democrats stepped up pressure today for President George W Bush to halt his Iraq troop buildup, and the president warned Congress against undercutting his military strategy.

Rep John Murtha, a war critic who chairs the House of Representatives panel that oversees military spending, said he planned to restrict war funding in a way that would effectively stop the 21,500 US troop buildup, and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid scheduled a new vote to confront Bush over Iraq.

The political manoeuvring came as a new poll showed public support for the Iraq war continuing to fall, with 53 per cent of Americans believing the United States should bring its troops home as soon as possible, a five percentage point jump in one month and the highest level since the war began.

Bush, in an address in Washington, warned US lawmakers against taking action that would restrict his $US93.4 billion ($NZ136.46 billion) emergency troop funding measure.

"Our men and women in uniform are counting on their elected leaders to provide them with the support they need to accomplish their mission," he said. "Republicans and Democrats have a responsibility to give our troops the resources they need."

With opposition to the Iraq war beginning to run deep in Congress, Democrats now in control of the House of Representatives and Senate are trying to assert their power of the purse in ways that they think could diminish the US military involvement, while also providing funds to support troops already there.

Murtha hopes to choke off the 4-year-old war in Iraq by placing four conditions on combat funds through September 30. "We're trying to force a redeployment not by taking money away, by redirecting money," the Pennsylvania Democrat said.

The Pentagon would have to certify that troops being sent to Iraq are "fully combat ready" with training and equipment; troops must have at least one year at home between combat deployments; combat assignments could not be extended beyond one year, and a "stop-loss" programme forcing soldiers to extend their enlistment periods would be prohibited.

"They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work," Murtha said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, told a small group of reporters that no final decision has been made on binding legislation, The Washington Post reported in its Friday editions. But she backed key provisions advanced by Murtha, including rest and training requirements, the newspaper said.

Separately, Pelosi endorsed legislation that would require Bush to seek congressional authorisation before any military strike on Iran, the Post reported.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, blasted Murtha's proposals.

"While American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely," Boehner said.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/3964708a12.html

If everyone is so opposed to the surge, why don't they just cut off the money?

If everyone is so opposed to the surge, why don't they just cut off the money?I must admit I'm a bit foggy on how the mechanics of that would work. I mean, how exactly do you cut off funds for the surge without cutting the funds for the troops that are already there? And can't Bush, as Commander-in-Chief order troops to go wherever he wants with or without direct funding? I'm sure there are adroit bookkeepers at the Pentagon who can find ways of shifting the money around, not to mention discretionary spending. I think, ultimately, that if Congress wants to exert control over the course of this war it will have to cut (or at least threaten to cut) defense spending as a whole. In the meantime these proposals of Murtha's will make it difficult for Republicans to cast themselves as genuine in their 'support' of the troops.

Remember Iran-Contra. That started with a law restricting the use of funds to support a war against the government of Nicaragua. It is harder to get around a law restricting the use of troops.

I must admit I'm a bit foggy on how the mechanics of that would work. I mean, how exactly do you cut off funds for the surge without cutting the funds for the troops that are already there? And can't Bush, as Commander-in-Chief order troops to go wherever he wants with or without direct funding? I'm sure there are adroit bookkeepers at the Pentagon who can find ways of shifting the money around, not to mention discretionary spending. I think, ultimately, that if Congress wants to exert control over the course of this war it will have to cut (or at least threaten to cut) defense spending as a whole. In the meantime these proposals of Murtha's will make it difficult for Republicans to cast themselves as genuine in their 'support' of the troops.

Funding for the Iraq invasion comes from an appropriations bill in the house of representatives.

The house can vote on stopping the funding and if it passes (which it will) that's all there is to it ... no filibuster, no veto, no nothing, the funding stops and if Bush continues the invasion, he will probably be acting outside the constitution. Then, impeachment is back on the table.

I'm not sure that Murtha's plan is a great idea either, notwithstanding it's better than the neocon stay the course plan.

A year tour will probably result in you losing your job. I doubt many employers are holding jobs open for that long and if they are and the returing soldier gets back the job it has to be with the understanding that the soldier will re-deploy in 12 months and be gone for another year and so on and so on.

Also, what's this do to family life? Does the spouse just sit home every-other years and go through the same old crap over and over again ... loss of job, little money coming in, kids growing up without a father/mother ... all kinds of doubt.

There's only one plan ... bring the troops home and if the neocons and religious right and Israelies want to continue the fight ... let them suit-the-F-up and get their chickenhawk a$$e$ over there or STFU.

I must admit I'm a bit foggy on how the mechanics of that would work. I mean, how exactly do you cut off funds for the surge without cutting the funds for the troops that are already there? And can't Bush, as Commander-in-Chief order troops to go wherever he wants with or without direct funding?

I think they can cut, or cut back, general funding for the war - I don't think they can cut funding specific to the surge.

I guess I'm getting sick of everyone marching around saying how opposed they are to the continued involvement in Iraq, but no one has the balls to do the one thing that would put an end to the war pretty much right away. It's just basically just a bunch of hot air at this point.

I think they can cut, or cut back, general funding for the war - I don't think they can cut funding specific to the surge.

I guess I'm getting sick of everyone marching around saying how opposed they are to the continued involvement in Iraq, but no one has the balls to do the one thing that would put an end to the war pretty much right away. It's just basically just a bunch of hot air at this point.
It's because anyone who proposes cutting funds for the war will forever be smeared as not funding or supporting the troops. Remember John Kerry and the $87 billion?

I guess I'm getting sick of everyone marching around saying how opposed they are to the continued involvement in Iraq, but no one has the balls to do the one thing that would put an end to the war pretty much right away. It's just basically just a bunch of hot air at this point.

Problem with that idea is that cutting off the funding leaves the troops on the ground in the lurch. It does not automaticly end the war.
The logical response by the commander in chief would be to remove the troops from danger with their remaining money, but nobody doubts that Bush would leave the troops right where they are just so they can spin the forthcoming American deaths as the fault of the Democrats.

He is, as usual, playing politics with the lives of our soldiers.

It's because anyone who proposes cutting funds for the war will forever be smeared as not funding or supporting the troops. Remember John Kerry and the $87 billion?

Well of course they would (not that they necessarily should) - but if the war's bad, and a majority want the troops home, then what's the problem? It's like saying your opposed to the war, but only to the extent that it doesn't hurt your approval ratings.

He is, as usual, playing politics with the lives of our soldiers.

Probably, yes. But I'd say that applies to both sides.

Probably, yes. But I'd say that applies to both sides.

Maybe, but in nowhere near equal amounts. There are a lot of Democrats, like Jim Webb, who sincerely want to end this war and bring our soldiers safely home.

Murtha's proposed plan is unrealistic. We don't have enough folks in uniform to pull that off. Now, if the taxpayers care to fund an additional 2 million uniformed troops spread among the 4 services, maybe.

We sure could if we reduced our commitment to the area. Shit, it's not like all those troops are doing anything worthwhile there anyway. The Iraqis can kill each other off just as well as we could.

Murtha's proposed plan is unrealistic. We don't have enough folks in uniform to pull that off. Now, if the taxpayers care to fund an additional 2 million uniformed troops spread among the 4 services, maybe.

Murtha's proposed plan is entirely realistic. All he is saying is that we should make sure that our troops have the proper training and equipment and should have reasonable deployment times.

Murtha's proposed plan is entirely realistic. All he is saying is that we should make sure that our troops have the proper training and equipment and should have reasonable deployment times.

Have a lot of experience with the military, do you? Murtha's got a pipe dream, not necessarily a bad one, but an unrealistic one.

Ok, so explain to me what is so unrealistic about demanding that our troops have proper equipment and training before sending them to Iraq? What is unrealistic about demanding that they get reasonable deployment times?

What seems unrealistic to me is the idea of sending our troops there without the proper training and equipment!

One year between deployments? Unrealistic.

The Americans have sent their forces to war without the proper training and equipment, ever since they entered WWI. This is NOT a criticism of the forces. It is a criticism of those that refused the necessary funding.

One year between deployments? Unrealistic.It might be possible if the military was expanded to a sufficient size. But that too is unrealistic.

On another point, how exactly are troops not receiving proper training before they deploy? In my own experience, most of our training is geared towards the type of missions we would conduct in Iraq.

One year between deployments? Unrealistic.

Sure it is. We will have to pull some troops out of our other bases around the world, like the 30,000 troops we have in South Korea. Or we can try to get more international help from the U.N. or NATO. Maybe we can get the Australians to commit more then 1400 troops.

The democrats don't have the stones to turn off the funding. They're willing to play politics with lives in order to score political points.

they did they run the risk of repeating the mistakes of the vietnam era which left them labled as soft on defence. Murtha's 'plan' is an attempt to avoid that fate.

The democrats would do well to heed the investors businessd daily's poll. Most americans still want to win and think it can be done. The democrats, in running counter to those beleifs leave themselves exposed.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=256522262721962

The democrats don't have the stones to turn off the funding. They're willing to play politics with lives in order to score political points.

they did they run the risk of repeating the mistakes of the vietnam era which left them labled as soft on defence. Murtha's 'plan' is an attempt to avoid that fate.

The democrats would do well to heed the investors businessd daily's poll. Most americans still want to win and think it can be done. The democrats, in running counter to those beleifs leave themselves exposed.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=256522262721962

Funding was pulled for Viet Nam.

The mistakes of Viet Nam? It wasn't just dems that wanted to end the war ... it was nearly everyone.

The dems will let bush have his war as long as he wants and for everyday that the war continues, another republican seat will be lost in '08 and '10. You think the dems are stupid? That's a big mistake. They know this can be the knockout punch to the republican party.

I'll say it again ... buh-bye republicans.

The mistakes of Viet Nam? It wasn't just dems that wanted to end the war ... it was nearly everyone.

2 Democratic administrations put us into Vietnam & escalated to the fracas it became. St. John the Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson were in office then. It took the eventually disgraced Richard M. Nixon to get us out of there.

The democrats don't have the stones to turn off the funding.

Another way of saying the same thing would be "Democrats don't want to abandon our troops in Iraq and leave them in harm's way."

But if you wanted to spin it for a Republican audience, then you would say it your way.

If you could just tear your attention away from Sinead O' Spears and Anna Nicole's baby and all that other shit, tell me:
How much longer are we going to keep avenging the assassination attempt on Bush's dad?
He got Saddam. He got his revenge. How many more precious lives on both sides are supposed to be sacrificed to satisfy President Bronson's blood lust?
Or is this revenge over 9/11? Must I remind everyone that Iraq was not involved with that? The guy who did it is still running loose!
We still don't have Afghanistan under control. After five fucking years. I don't know what more there is to do. The people who lived in these places were neither willing nor able to rise up against their tormenters and fight for their own freedom. Or if they were, they caved in a hurry.
How much more of our patriots' blood must be spilled over this fiasco?
We can't even put a lid on our own domestic insurgents!

Most americans still want to win and think it can be done.

I question this assertion. Do you have poll numbers that back this up?

A lot of people define "winning" in Iraq nowadays as simply getting our troops out of the middle of a raging civil war.

By that standard, I think most Americans do want to "win" and think it is possible.

It's not a war -- it's a police state.

I question this assertion. Do you have poll numbers that back this up?

the link is in the post, duh.

Some people define "winning" in Iraq nowadays as simply getting our troops out of the middle of a raging civil war.

(Fixed that for ya.0


By that standard, I think most Americans do want to "win" and think it is possible


Didn't like the answer so lets pretend it's a different question, eh.

What do you mean by "win", then? Killing all the Iraqis?

Didn't like the answer so lets pretend it's a different question, eh.

Watch a white house press briefing sometime.

It's called "framing". Republicans have been doing it for over 20 years.

Murtha should be brought up on charges of treason. the first person who defends him by bringing up his military service gets punched in the face


:comphit:

Murtha should be brought up on charges of treason. the first person who defends him by bringing up his military service gets punched in the face


It is statements like this that make me amazed anyone on here has any respect for you whatsoever Trav.

I certainly don't.

Can we punch dharma just for good measure?

Can we punch dharma just for good measure?

You hold him, I'll sell tickets & drinks. We'll split the profits & probably retire young.

:hitout: :hitout:

Can we punch dharma just for good measure?

Nobody wants to watch you cry kid.

You're even worse at this game than Decka!

You don't have many friends in real life, do you napster?

You don't have many friends in real life, do you napster?
pot...kettle...black

:corn:

Same question can easily be asked of you Mikezila. :rolleyes:

I think Dharma just never gets any from his wife.

Congrats Napster, your record of always being wrong is intact.

Pity sex to shut you up about it doesn't count.

You are the only one on here that would know about pity sex Nappy.... well, you and Darth...and Trav...

I think Dharma just never gets any from his wife.
that's ok, the rest of the state does:banana:

Yeah, we're the ones giving, not taking. As bad as you whine to your wife that she isn't giving you any, she whines to me to please her like no one else can. I make her beg for five good minutes on her knees before I give in.

ROFL!!

You have to beg women just to talk to you Kid.

At least, when I was your age, I wasn't wasting my youth on an internet message board. I was out dating, having fun and being a normal person... unlike you.

ROFL!!

You have to beg women just to talk to you Kid.

At least, when I was your age, I wasn't wasting my youth on an internet message board. I was out dating, having fun and being a normal person... unlike you.
when i was your age i had a job.:bombout:

when i was your age i had a job.

What a coincidence, so do I. :rolleyes:

Don't worry, maybe someday you will find another one.

What a coincidence, so do I. :rolleyes:

Don't worry, maybe someday you will find another one.
i don't need another one, i'm semi-retired:D....



medically:(

Sorry to hear that Mike. I hope you recover more fully.

ROFL!!

You have to beg women just to talk to you Kid.

At least, when I was your age, I wasn't wasting my youth on an internet message board. I was out dating, having fun and being a normal person... unlike you.
Drop the act, bitch-tits. You were probably still getting swirlied on a regular basis when you were 23. By other nerds!

You don't have many friends in real life, do you napster?

Probably as many as you had before your dog died.

I think Dharma just never gets any from his wife.

He's always got Rosy Palm and her sisters.

And you wonder why people say this board is immature... :rolleyes:

Probably as many as you had before your dog died.
More truth to that than I'd care to admit. Atlanta's a hard city to find good friends in.

And you wonder why people say this board is immature... :rolleyes:
Whose this 'people' you're talking about, dharma? I think you're mistaking the voices in your head for actual human beings.

And you wonder why people say this board is immature... :rolleyes:

Kid can dish it out, can't he? To bad he can't take it.

More truth to that than I'd care to admit. Atlanta's a hard city to find good friends in.

It would help if you weren't such a raging asshole too.

Just a suggestion.

Kid can dish it out, can't he? To bad he can't take it.

Nice grammer. LOL!

Of course I am not going to "take it". I am no Republican.

It would help if you weren't such a raging asshole too.

That's a behavior you seem to have mastered.

That's a behavior you seem to have mastered.

pot...kettle...black... :corn:

It would help if you weren't such a raging asshole too.

Just a suggestion.
Judging by the number of friends you seem to make everywhere you go, I'm going to go ahead give your advice the treatment it so desperately deserves.

My shredder's never been this happy!

I try to keep it interesting.

Judging by the number of friends you seem to make everywhere you go...

And what would you know about "everywhere I go", you clueless dork?

pot...kettle...black... :corn:

Such a unique post. Quite the imagination you have.

I try to keep it interesting.

Try harder. I grow very bored with your childish prattle.


:lolhit:




(I have always wanted to use the word "prattle".)

Such a unique post. Quite the imagination you have.

And so accurate too.

Just for dharmabum. (http://www.elks590.org/main/cooltest.htm)

We all know what a cool guy he is.

I'm a dork. :(

That's OK dharma, you can keep using the lolhit to tell everyone else how funny you are! I'm sure everyone watching thinks that's much more interesting than my moronic posts!

We all know what a cool guy he is.

ROFL!!!

What you know couldn't fill a thimble.
:upyours:

And so accurate too.

A legend in your own mind.

I'm a dork. :(

Yes, but you aren't a clueless dork. :)

I'm sure everyone watching thinks that's much more interesting than my moronic posts!

Well Nappy, at least you can admit your posts are moronic.
Thats a good start.

Now if you could only get over your desperate need for attention and contribute something relevent to a discussion once in a while...

Wow, you just totally 'served' me!

Time for my nightly cry! *sniffle*

Wow, you just totally 'served' me!

Time for my nightly cry! *sniffle*

I knew you would end up crying. :rolleyes:

I knew you would end up crying. :rolleyes:
Why is dharma so terribly not amusing?

Anybody?

Why is dharma so terribly not amusing?

Anybody?
Anybody?....Anybody?....Buhler???

probably because he has the personality of a piece of particle board

the link is in the post, duh.

The link you supplied goes to an opinion piece, not to the supposed poll itself.

I've looked around for this IBO/TIPP poll-taking group and they don't seem to exist. There's something called TIPP, but from their website, it looks like the last polls they took were in December 2006.

On the other hand, I checked out the polls taken by the AP/IPSOS people (http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr070111-1topline.pdf&id=3325), generally considered a legit bunch (certainly moreso than IBO/TIPP, whatever that is). The results seem to fly in the face of the numbers presented by the (nonexistent?) IBO/TIPP folks:

Poll taken Jan 8-10, 2007 (1002 adults polled)
Would you favor or oppose sending more troops to Iraq?
Favor – 26%
Oppose – 70%
Not sure – 4%

Do you think sending more troops to Iraq would help stabilize the situation there, or not?
Yes – 25%
No – 70%
Not sure – 5%

Did the US make the right decision in going to war in Iraq?
Yes – 35%
No – 62%

How likely is it that a stable, democratic government will be established in Iraq?
Very likely – 6%
Somewhat likely – 32%
Not very likely – 32%
Not at all likely – 27%

probably because he has the personality of a piece of particle board

And yet when compared to you I have the Charisma of Bill Clinton.

And yet when compared to you I have the Charisma of Bill Clinton.

http://www.allforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1349&stc=1&d=1172075908

And yet when compared to you I have the Charisma of Bill Clinton.

Goddamn boy, that's nothing to brag about. Are you telling us that you can step into a shit storm & come out smelling like ass? Are you known as "slick"? If so, is that because of the greasy kids stuff you use on your hair or the constant shine to your palms from continual use of hand cream? It's certainly not from any charisma you've demonstrated since you've been posting here.

:hitout:

Goddamn boy, that's nothing to brag about. Are you telling us that you can step into a shit storm & come out smelling like ass?


:lolhit:

I would have presumed that combat trops couls only be in a combat are for a set period of time before they have to be relieved, for at least six months anybody any stats.

http://www.allforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1349&stc=1&d=1172075908

Take your own advice, Chuckles.

Goddamn boy, that's nothing to brag about.

WTF are you talking about old man?

Bill Clinton is very charismatic.

I would have presumed that combat trops couls only be in a combat are for a set period of time before they have to be relieved, for at least six months anybody any stats.

I suggest you google "stop loss" or "backdoor draft".

I know people who have been in Iraq for multiple tours, for over a year at a stretch.

you dont know anyone in the miltary dickhead, so STFU with that, it buys you no credibility.

WTF are you talking about old man?

Bill Clinton is very charismatic.

If you have to say yourself that you have something, and you are the only one who thinks that way.. chances are you aint got it.

And Bill Clinton didn't have alot of personality. Bush has more "personality" than Clinton, not saying that is a good trait. It gets Bush alot of ridicule.

Bill Clinton is very charismatic.
People always say that. I have to date never seen him be an example of that trait.

Playing the sax on national television was an incredibly charismatic act.

Playing the sax on national television was an incredibly charismatic act.
As was committing perjury.

Indeed it was. It might not have been very honest, but what politician is?

I had the privledge of shaking Clinto's hand when he came to Fort Drum to make a speech. I dont recall thinking he was anything special, and that was before I even cared about politics really

And Bill Clinton didn't have alot of personality. Bush has more "personality" than Clinton,

ROFLMFAO!!!!

:lolhit:

its a well known fact that clinton has the most personality of anyone, ever.

Strange how the President played sex on television
and the vice President played sax on television,

For the uninteresting dullards that politics usually attracts, a firm handshake and a pretended interest in everything a concerned citizen could be interested in, is all that's needed. Bill Clinton pulled that off better than most, and that was what led to all the lofty descriptions.