Today George Bush denied the troops the funding (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070502/ts_nm/iraq_bush_veto_dc_9)they need to continue the occupation of Iraq.

IMO, congress should just wash their hands of this. They approved the funding and the President denied it. The congress has no obligation to present the President any more funding bills. If they simply walk away from funding then the troops will have to start coming home at the end of June.

Refusing to present another funding bill would pressure the President to start offering concessions and force him to change his strategy, which is the ultimate goal.

How can he deny them funding on one hand and and say they have to stay on the other?

How can he deny them funding on one hand and and say they have to stay on the other?

He is actually arrogant enough to believe that he can get what he wants with no strings attached if he just stomps his feet and demands it.

Perhaps he will try holding his breath too. :)

Today George Bush denied the troops the funding (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070502/ts_nm/iraq_bush_veto_dc_9)they need to continue the occupation of Iraq.
Gee, I could swear there were more details to this story.

[QUOTE=dharmabum]Today George Bush denied the troops the funding (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070502/ts_nm/iraq_bush_veto_dc_9)they need to continue the occupation of Iraq.


Wronged ... Thar partisan hack boy.
The Pres,saw fit to NOT sign onto a short term fix of funds.
The Liberal Dimocrats want out of Iraq.The quicker the better.
The Troops aren't finished.
For the Pres to sign a bill that acknowledges a Withdrawal of
troops in 6 months time is highly offensive to anyone not
befitting a Looney bin or suitable equivalent quartermaster,gone
Wild.

He denied the bill because it sets a deadline for withdrawl, which everyone knows he does not want.

I doubt if there are more than a handful of Democrats with the stones to not send up another funding bill. They can't allow themselves to be seen as 'cutting off the troops' so they will pass a bill without a time-line and the President will sign it. There will be no end to this war whilst Bush remains in office and Democrats lack the courage to stand up to him.

He denied the bill because it sets a deadline for withdrawl, which everyone knows he does not want.

Yes, but the overriding fact is that Congress approved the funding and the President denied it to the troops.

Congress should just walk away and let it stand where it is, the President denying the troops the funding.

He denied the bill because it sets a deadline for withdrawl, which everyone knows he does not want.

" he " does not want.?
I don't want it.Or nearly any true American,willing to
see the light of day.
This whole knucklehead peacenik Idea'r to telegraph
motives and strategy to Terrorist is not even absurd.
It's other-Worldly.
Dimocrats are just Lucy-goosey out of their mind.
I juts as soon,take advice from some wise-looking
Stork,seen overhead,on a clear day,looking for a place to
quietly Cop some throw-away diapers.
The better to serve the needs of any pesky Democrats
he may seek the employ of.

Yes, but the overriding fact is that Congress approved the funding and the President denied it to the troops.

Congress should just walk away and let it stand where it is, the President denying the troops the funding.

dharma, I'm on your side most of the time. But you are clearly "spinning" this issue. Bush vetoed it because he does not want a deadline for withdrawl. And believe me, I think Bush is wrong on BOTH fronts - funds and withdrawl.

But you are just "spinning" here. I thought these boards were for debate without the SPIN.

Seems to leave the troops in a bit of a bind too...

Today George Bush denied the troops the funding (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070502/ts_nm/iraq_bush_veto_dc_9)they need to continue the occupation of Iraq.

IMO, congress should just wash their hands of this. They approved the funding and the President denied it. The congress has no obligation to present the President any more funding bills. If they simply walk away from funding then the troops will have to start coming home at the end of June.

Refusing to present another funding bill would pressure the President to start offering concessions and force him to change his strategy, which is the ultimate goal.

The bill also contains more funding for Katrina victums?. Democrats will never let that die, and I'm sure there is more funding, attached to that bill, they don't dare let go. When they loaded all the extra things on, they put as much pressure on themselves, as they did on the President.

He is actually arrogant enough to believe that he can get what he wants with no strings attached if he just stomps his feet and demands it.

Perhaps he will try holding his breath too. Ummm...Because Obama has already sold out and said he would send through a bill without the pull-out provision if Bush vetoed this one. In fact he not only propsed to fund the occupation but also used BushCo's defeatist, propaganda-laced arguments to do such. In my opinion you have far to much faith in democrats as an actual opposition. Lets not forget that Durbin and other democrats said nothing of the fact that they knew the 'intelligence' on Iraq we're lies BEFORE THE WAR, yet did nothing to expose such.
+++++++++++++++++++

Obama Says Congress Will Fund Iraq War

...``I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground,'' said Obama. ``I do think a majority of the Senate has now expressed the belief that we need to change course in Iraq."...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6524902,00.html

Yes, but the overriding fact is that Congress approved the funding and the President denied it to the troops.

Congress should just walk away and let it stand where it is, the President denying the troops the funding.

You make it sound as if the President doesnt support the troops, nor does he want the troops to be funded. Seriously, your making me dizzy.

He vetoed because in the bill it sets a pull out date, the fact that the funding was part of that bill is not why he vetoed, which is what your making it sound like.

This is kinda like that thread a while back you made saying that some 11 year old kids were going to grow up to be republicans cause they beat up a homeless veteran.

dharma.. to quote the ghetto black community.. is "ridin on spinnas"

You make it sound as if the President doesnt support the troops, nor does he want the troops to be funded. Seriously, your making me dizzy. he;s doing it on purpose to make a point. Its like saying Democrats want the terrorists to win or If we pull out of Iraq they will follow us home. Its flawed logic that ignores actual cause and effect for propagandas sake. Many partisan hacks repeat these lies, even some people here do.

The democrats regained congress because of Iraq. They have an obligation to further the mandate given by the people. The majority of Americans want out, but the vast majority of Americans do not want to see the troops funding cut. Here in lies the political tightrope walk.

A deadline is the right thing to do. Bush will never do it, he is banking that the pressure to fund the troops will allow him to win. I think he will win, but I also think the American people win are not stupid enough to think the dems do not support the troops.

he;s doing it on purpose to make a point. Its like saying Democrats want the terrorists to win or If we pull out of Iraq they will follow us home. Its flawed logic that ignores actual cause and effect for propagandas sake. Many partisan hacks repeat these lies, even some people here do.

You suffer amentia.Silly stupid,at best.
Is it normal for a Patriot to spend so much time,defending a
Terrorist's agenda,but not our own.
There can be NO denial,that The New Democrat Party rarely is
heard complimenting what good our troops DO in Iraq.They also
seldom find fault with the Terrorists.
What is a sane person to glean,from this phenonmena.?
That's Democrats are invested in defeat.
Helping make the Terrorists case for Victory.
Helping to erase all the blood,sweat and tears are Troops sacrificed
in Vain,if we pull out w/o a Victory.
I feel,if Democrats we're on board from the beginning,and
fervently supporting and cheering on our Brave men & Women,then
a vicious blow to the will og Terrorists would have been struck.
Half the battle in Iraq,is denyinh the Terrorist' a propaganda tool
and optimistic view of their ends.
Democrats are willfully engaged in making it MUCH easier for Terrorists
to wage daily battles and finishing their dastardliness.
As far as Maher,He woodn't make a good - Onionhead - chief
bottle washer,to save his pansy arse from the frontline.
THE Only enlistment he ever sought was the fastest route into
Canada as a draft-dodger.If there was conscription,as in My day.

This is kinda like that thread a while back you made saying that some 11 year old kids were going to grow up to be republicans cause they beat up a homeless veteran.

I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth.

I said that I "wouldn't be suprised if they grew up to be Republicans"

he;s doing it on purpose to make a point. Its like saying Democrats want the terrorists to win or If we pull out of Iraq they will follow us home. Its flawed logic that ignores actual cause and effect for propagandas sake. Many partisan hacks repeat these lies, even some people here do.

Precisely. You understand what nobody else seems to.

The title of this thread is one of the most dishonest and misleading ever posted in Allforus. Trust Dharmabum to be the one who posted it. This is twisted logic even for Dharmabum, someone who can declare white to be black and who never sees a shade of grey.

Dharm is not being honest!

Bush wants to fund the troops. He does not want to set a date to cut and run. He does not want all the other pork included in the bill.


How can he deny them funding on one hand and and say they have to stay on the other?

Yes, but the overriding fact is that Congress approved the funding and the President denied it to the troops.

Congress should just walk away and let it stand where it is, the President denying the troops the funding.

Diarrhea head just took the crown for biggest partisan hack in the history of allforums. "president bush denied funding for the troops!" STFU you dipshit, you know why he did it. God what a waste of bandwidth your stupid ass is, go back to democrats . com and kiss someone's democrat ass for more talking points that are not so obviously designed for the stupid democrats like you to be able to regurgitate. I nominate this for most partisan, one sided post of all time. Not even trying to be sublte about it, just blatently coming out with one side of the story with no shame.

Bush wants to fund the troops.

You are not being honest.

Bush had the opprotunity to fund the troops but he chose not to.

The pullout date in this bill was non-binding. Now congress is going to start sending him bills with binding language.

Diarrhea head just took the crown for biggest partisan hack in the history of allforums. "president bush denied funding for the troops!" STFU you dipshit, you know why he did it. God what a waste of bandwidth your stupid ass is, go back to democrats . com and kiss someone's democrat ass for more talking points that are not so obviously designed for the stupid democrats like you to be able to regurgitate. I nominate this for most partisan, one sided post of all time. Not even trying to be sublte about it, just blatently coming out with one side of the story with no shame.

Dear Mods,

If warrior deserved a ban for bad language and attacking other posters, then this poster DEFINATELY deserves a ban!

STFU fascist. If you dont like it put me on ignore, stop running to the mods like a little b*tch

Seriously Mods. This guy is not the kind of person you want representing your boards, especially if you might have children reading, which we know we do.

seriously, STFU. you use profanity as much or more then I do on here. the only time I use it is when I encounter extreme stupidity like this thread.

seriously, STFU.

Thats never going to happen, so you can quit dreaming.

The title of this thread is one of the most dishonest and misleading ever posted in Allforus. Trust Dharmabum to be the one who posted it. This is twisted logic even for Dharmabum, someone who can declare white to be black and who never sees a shade of grey.


http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=23945

Do I win the intellectual dishonesty award yet?

no, your post was clearly meant to poke fun, his was a dead serious, pathetic attempt to score a few politica points

no, your post was clearly meant to poke fun, his was a dead serious, pathetic attempt to score a few politica points

You seriously need to lighten up.

Who am I going to score "politica points" with on here?

What prizes do I get? How many points do I need? How many points did I get, for that matter?

only you can answer those questions. All I can do is see this post for what it was. Unless you are now saying it was a joke?

I am saying that you need to lighten up. Not everything is "dead serious".

The President and the rightwing media has, for weeks, been using the same kind of language I did, saying the Democrats are "denying our troops the funding they need" when the fact is that the Congress PASSED the funding.

But I can't find a single post from you calling the President or Fox, etc. out for doing exactly what you just complained about me doing.

the president said he would not sign anything that had a timetable for withdraw on it, yet they sent one up with a timetable in it regardless. You ask any 5th grader who was being the bigger brat and they will all point to the democrats.

the president said he would not sign anything that had a timetable for withdraw on it, yet they sent one up with a timetable in it regardless. You ask any 5th grader who was being the bigger brat and they will all point to the democrats.

I just asked a 5th grader (my coworker's kid) and he assured me that the President is a "bully" and that "Congress should stand up to him".

Dharmabum,


It seems that in addition to being a partisan hack you are a whiner.

"Please Mr. Moderator, ban Trav. He hurt my feelings. Grow up. If you post crap like you so often do you have to expect a strong negative reaction. You're 34 and you act like you're 4.

I just asked a 5th grader (my coworker's kid) and he assured me that the President is a "bully" and that "Congress should stand up to him".

of course, I should have know you would miraculously have just the right person at hand and they happen to agree with you, what a surprise. :rolleyes:
just all your other imaginary friends who happen to surface at just the right moment. The soldier. The cop, the aikido instructor, the old Vietnam vet buddy, and now the 5th grader who happened to be right there when I mentioned a 5th grader in one of my posts, and happened to say the exact opposite of what I said a 5th grader would say. How convenient.

No "at hand", but a mere phone call away.

I find it difficult to believe that you don't know anybody.

Frogger,

You should have been banned along with Warrior.

You are far worse than she ever was.

I predict Frogger's next response will be another attack on me.

Awwwwww!

I called you a whiner so you are going to whine. How typical.

Just what should I be banned for, pointing out how you are acting, making you feel bad, telling it how it is?

Trav called you a name and you went whining to the moderators. I pointed it out and now you are whining some more. Why don't you grow up and stop acting like a little cry baby? Maybe you should look for a Romper Room site somewhere where teacher makes all the kids play nice and you can post your partisan stuff without fear of being called on it. You're a grown man. Act like it.

And once again, I nailed it.

Frogger, you are too predictable.

Just what should I be banned for

Being a foul-mouthed jerk who attacks other posters for no reason.

Dharm, Dharm, Dharm,

Please explain what Frogger did wrong. As far as I can see, if you act like a

partisan hack, you should be called a partisan hack.

Frogger is not out of line.

You need to admit that your title is dishonest. The bill was stuffed with pork, and a timetable for cutting and running.

The president said he would not sign such a bill. He should not sign such a bill.

It is the Democrats who are stalling. Now the troops will not get the funding they need for a while.

It is not the presidents fault, it is the Democrats fault. It has been explained to you in simple terms. Even you should

be able to understand it.



Frogger,

You should have been banned along with Warrior.

You are far worse than she ever was.

I attacked you for a very good reason. You posted a thread with a title that was a piece of partisan crap. If you want to get away with stuff like that unchallenged maybe you should go to MoveOn.Org.

It seems you are not emotionally strong enough for the rough and tumble of a chat site. You want to be able to post whatever you want and not be called on it. It doesn't work that way. You post something as obviously one sided as your thread about Bush wanting to defund the troops and you are going to be hung out to dry.

I suggest that if you want to continue posting such nonsense you grow a thicker skin.

I say we ban EVERYONE! Hooray! It's the Nuclear Apocalypse for World Peace approach to forum harmony.

I attacked you...

Thats the point. That is all you ever do, attack people you disagree with.

It is obvious you are not emotionally or intellectually strong enough to disagree without attacking someone.

If you can't find a way to respond to someone you disagree with without attacking them that is your problem.

Your inability to refrain from attacking everyone you disagree with should not be dumped on every other user of these boards.

Frogger, the fact is, you deserve to be banned just as much as Warrior did, but I know you won't be because you are friends with the Moderators on here.

Dharma, you attack people too. And I think your reasons are just as legitimate as Frogger's, and neither of you deserve to be banned.

Dharma, you attack people too. And I think your reasons are just as legitimate as Frogger's, and neither of you deserve to be banned.

I don't think Frogger's reasons were legitimate. I purposely did the same thing to Decka and he immediately whined to the moderators. I was "warned" within only a few posts of starting to call Decka a "dumbass" but Frogger continued to call Warrior a "dumbass" for days.

And I am sure you saw his response to the Mods asking him to tone it down.

When I was asked to tone it down I took a break for a few days.

Frogger should consider doing the same thing since I know he won't get the ban he deserves.

The only thing i know is that dharma's thread title was absolutely dishonest...

whether he deserves to get lit up with flaming is up to everyone else.. but he deserves some ridicule for being so completely out of tune with reality.

Hey dharma.. I'll make a proposition for you...

Sign a bill that says you will ban raping and molesting little kids, oh and by the way the bill also includes you having to eat balls of dung rolled up by a dung-beetle while being jabbed up your rear exit with a broken broom stick.

No doubt you'd DENY that bill, because you don't want to eat poop and get plastered by a broom stick..

BUT.. i would report it that YOU don't want to help little kids, and you support racists and molesters..

that's basically what you did.

The only thing i know is that dharma's thread title was absolutely dishonest...

Nothing dishonest about it.

Bush had the chance to fund the troops and he chose not to for political reasons.

Congress did their duty to fund the troops and the President chose to deny the troops their funding.

Those are all facts.

Bush's reasons are stupid. The language in this bill was NON-BINDING but the President denied the troops their funding anyway.

They pretend to want to put an end to the Iraq mess but don't actually do it ... letting Bush stubbornly plow headlong into the 70% of americans that dissent, dragging the republican congresspeople and senators right along so they too can lose their seats in the '08 elections, same as the '06 elections.

What are we talking here? A 60-dem, 38-rep, 2-Ind senate and a 300+ dem, 200- rep house? With those numbers, the republicans might as well stay home and not even report for work in the morning.

Bring em on.

I don't much care what dharmabum intended with his thread title. My concern is that the military is going to suffer if this shit doesn't get resolved soon. What is a game of politics in Washington could be life or death for someone on the battlefield.

I don't much care what dharmabum intended with his thread title. My concern is that the military is going to suffer if this shit doesn't get resolved soon. What is a game of politics in Washington could be life or death for someone on the battlefield.

If congress cuts the funding then the troops come home. The only harm is making them stay where they are in the middle of a civil war.

If congress cuts the funding then the troops come home. The only harm is making them stay where they are in the middle of a civil war.
The President isn't simply going to fold. He's going to do all the political maneuvering that he can to get the funds for the war. And Congress will do all they can to deny him those funds. In the meantime, the guys sitting in the middle of the Sandbox are going to get screwed.

CORRECTION: Congress won't do all they can to deny the funds, but rather all they can to get the President to agree to a deadline that's tied in with the funds.

Congress should simply deny the funds. If Bush wants the funds he has to play ball.

If the troops are forced to stay in Iraq with no funds that is the Commander in Chief's call and his responsibility. He SHOULD be pulling them out since he can't get any more money. Congress controls the purse strings. The President does not have any alternate source of funding.

Take a look at some of the "pork" attached to this bill in both the house and senate.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/20070330_opchart.pdf

The bill needs to be vetoed, Congress should vote to de-fund the war if that's their concensus - that is their only "job" in this matter. Don't play games with political bribery and other assorted bullshit. Congress funds the military, the executive branch controls the troups.... end of story.

Both sides in this massive circle jerk of publicity and politics should (but will not) be ashamed of themselves.

"playing politics" is the job of politicians.

I think Congress is playing this well so far, but I sincerely hope they do not fall for Bush's bluff while they are holding all the cards.

Take a look at some of the "pork" attached to this bill in both the house and senate.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/20070330_opchart.pdf


I have no problem with most of that, especially the larger ones.

"Low income home energy assistance"
"Education grants for rural areas"
"TSA purchase of an explosion detection system"
"Influenza pandemic preparation"
"Public houseing agencies"

I have no problem with any of those.

They are forcing Bush to approve all these important points in order to get the money to continue his war that isn't a war.

I think they are playing this very smart.

What amazes me are the people that think that this is a "normal" political issue. Pork has not been historically used in a war funding budget bill. All I am saying is that both sides here are just as full of shit as the other. I don't hold one or the other responsible.... they are BOTH responsible.

Of course, in our current society... we can't accept personal responsibility for our actions, I guess we should expect the same from the pandering, publicity hogs that we elect to office.

"playing politics" is the job of politicians.

I think Congress is playing this well so far, but I sincerely hope they do not fall for Bush's bluff while they are holding all the cards.


I'm afraid that they hold a dead mans hand. They do not have enough votes to override the veto.

Therefore this is just an exercise in political masturbation.

Bottom line -
Either keep the troops there and give them the funds they need, or cut the funds and get them the hell out. Save the political chess for something else.

I'm afraid that they hold a dead mans hand. They do not have enough votes to override the veto.

That doesn't really matter. They hold the purse strings. If Congress keeps passing the funds and Bush keeps vetoing it, who is really keeping the money from the troops?

Therefore this is just an exercise in political masturbation.

That is not a pleasant image where politicians are concerned.

Bottom line -
Either keep the troops there and give them the funds they need, or cut the funds and get them the hell out. Save the political chess for something else.
Well said, Jester.

Bottom line -
Either keep the troops there and give them the funds they need, or cut the funds and get them the hell out. Save the political chess for something else.

I disagree. Congress is playing this very smart.

Republicans wish they would just cut the funding so they can attack the Democrats for "not supporting the troops" :rolleyes:

The Dems are too smart for that.

That doesn't really matter. They hold the purse strings. If Congress keeps passing the funds and Bush keeps vetoing it, who is really keeping the money from the troops?

They BOTH are... and that is exactly my point.

They BOTH are... and that is exactly my point.

Well, if the funding doesn't get approved by this summer the troops will start coming home. That will make many Dems happy. Speaking as someone who lost one friend in Iraq and has two more on their way back there right now, I wouldn't be all that broken up myself.

They aren't going to get stuck there with no funding unless their commander in chief forces them to.

But that is entirely on him if he chooses to do that.

And spoken by a parent of a son that is currently in the military. This is no way to "play" with this issue.

I'm not looking for yours or anyone else's opinion on this matter. I'm just stating a fact that this is bullshit and is the wrong way to resolve it. If you think the Democrats or the Republicans are "smart" or "wiley" on this situation, then I feel sorry for you.

At the rate it's going, if either side "wins", we lose.

Those are not all the facts, and you are not being honest.


Nothing dishonest about it.

Bush had the chance to fund the troops and he chose not to for political reasons.

Congress did their duty to fund the troops and the President chose to deny the troops their funding.

Those are all facts.

Bush's reasons are stupid. The language in this bill was NON-BINDING but the President denied the troops their funding anyway.

I disagree. Congress is playing this very smart.

Republicans wish they would just cut the funding so they can attack the Democrats for "not supporting the troops" :rolleyes:

The Dems are too smart for that.
Read this:
Pentagon says funding fight affecting war effort
(http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/02/war.funding/index.html)
The longer the standoff between the President and Congress, the worse it's going to get. There are times to "play it smart" and use political prowess to gain political victory... but this is NOT one of those times.

America is quickly growing sick of Iraq, the loss of life on both sides and the cost to the tax payers.

We saw this before, in the late 60's and early 70's in Viet Nam and particularily right after TET.

Bush can't hang on much longer and he knows it.

Well I guess he could but he will ruin the republican party for generations in doing so ... that is, what's left of the republican party.

And spoken by a parent of a son that is currently in the military. This is no way to "play" with this issue.

I'm not looking for yours or anyone else's opinion on this matter. I'm just stating a fact that this is bullshit and is the wrong way to resolve it. If you think the Democrats or the Republicans are "smart" or "wiley" on this situation, then I feel sorry for you.

At the rate it's going, if either side "wins", we lose.

Actually you stated your opinion, not a fact.

Read this:
Pentagon says funding fight affecting war effort
(http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/02/war.funding/index.html)
The longer the standoff between the President and Congress, the worse it's going to get. There are times to "play it smart" and use political prowess to gain political victory... but this is NOT one of those times.

I am honestly not that fussed because in my opinion there is no "war".

Why would I care about the "War effort" when I don't believe there is any war?

The "War" ended years ago when we took out saddam's regime.

It has been an occupation ever since then, not a war. The refusal to recognize that fact remains one of our "leader's" biggest failures, as the Iraq Study Group pointed out.

Those are not all the facts, and you are not being honest.


Sisko that response is the intellectual equivelent of "nuh uh".

Come on! You can do better than that.

Sisko that response is the intellectual equivelent of "nuh uh".

Come on! You can do better than that.

Bush had the chance to fund the troops and he chose not to for political reasons.

Congress did their duty to fund the troops and the President chose to deny the troops their funding.

Those are all facts.

Bush's reasons are stupid. The language in this bill was NON-BINDING but the President denied the troops their funding anyway.


Here, Ill try:

1) Yes he had the chance to fund the troops, he also had the chance to set a pull out date, and agree to tons of other crap in the bill that he doesn't want.

2) Congress did their duty and passed a bill they knew for a fact the President would not agree to.

3) Those are all statements that you have twisted worst than Michel Moore and Ann Coulter combined could ever do.

4) Bushs reasons are stupid according to you. He disagreed with what the bill put forth (mostly the pull out, but the pork as well.) The political wrangling is Washington is going to end up getting soldiers killed.

You saying Bush denied the troops their funding totally ignores the reason he didn't pass the bill.

Its a kin to this situation:
All the officers in the unit passed a rule saying that steak and lobster will be served in the chow hall every night for dinner, but, your required to pay $100 every time you eat it, and you have to do 1000 push ups after your done.
All the enlisted in the unit vote no. So it goes back to the officers. Then Dharma comes along and says "Oh my God, you didn't vote for steak and lobster every night for dinner? Silly you."

Here, Ill try:

1) Yes he had the chance to fund the troops, he also had the chance to set a pull out date, and agree to tons of other crap in the bill that he doesn't want.

2) Congress did their duty and passed a bill they knew for a fact the President would not agree to.

Contrary to his own arrogant beliefs, the President does not have the power to dictate to Congress what laws they will send to him. He either signs them or vetos them. Thats it.
If he chooses to veto the bill and that has the consequence that the troops don't get the funding they need to continue the occupation, that is HIS call and his responsibility!

It is not the fault of the Congress for not falling on their knees and obeying the dictates of the President. Congress does not serve the President. They have no obligation to do whatever he wants. They have an obligation to do what is best for their constituents, which is what all that "pork" is about. The President's business be damned, they are there to do the People's business!


3) Those are all statements that you have twisted worst than Michel Moore and Ann Coulter combined could ever do.

4) Bushs reasons are stupid according to you. He disagreed with what the bill put forth (mostly the pull out, but the pork as well.) The political wrangling is Washington is going to end up getting soldiers killed.

You saying Bush denied the troops their funding totally ignores the reason he didn't pass the bill.


I have not "twisted" anything.

If the President vetos the funding, that is his responsibility.

I don't give a damn what his excuse is for vetoing it, the fact remains he denied the funding for the troops.

It is twisting the facts to claim that this is Congress' fault.

Contrary to his own arrogant beliefs, the President does not have the power to dictate to Congress what laws they will send to him.

Contrary to your own arrogance in making up statements and assigning them to others, Phyrex never said the President has the power to dictate to Congress what laws they will send to him. You are simply creating a strawman.

I don't place the blame on either. I am fully aware that Congress does not serve the President and vice versa. It is both of their responsibilities to come to terms with something that everyone can agree to. It is both of their responsibilities to serve the people, including the troops. However, Congress sent something to the Presidents desk they knew he was going to veto. He has stated explicitly from the beginning that he will not except a pull out date. Now, if it were to come down to it and the troops were left high and dry out there I'm sure that someone would budge and get the troops the funding they needed. However, at this point all I see is the President and Congress going back and forth until something like the troops being left high and dry actually happens.

The statement you continue to make that the President denied the troops funding is true, but its only one piece of the larger puzzle, and is misleading.

Actually you stated your opinion, not a fact.

If you want to be a stickler on the semantics of my statement, then no... it is not a fact.

If I was to say that dog shit is not fit for human consumption, it is not really a fact. Some contrarian ass could always cook it up with onions or brown gravy and sit down and eat it to prove that point.

What is being done in Washington on this is shameful. Both the President and Congress are playing stupid games that are affecting things much more important than their own political posturing and re-election campaigns. I have grown very weary of this. We, the citizens, need to let our elected representatives know these actions are not acceptable (if we can tear ourselves away from American Idol and Survivor-Gilligan's Island long enough).

By the way, do you prefer onions or brown gravy?

Old Phart,

They may both be playing games but in this case it is better if the President wins the game. You shouldn't set a timetable for when you will stop fighting. That is simply insanity.

I am honestly not that fussed because in my opinion there is no "war".

Why would I care about the "War effort" when I don't believe there is any war?

The "War" ended years ago when we took out saddam's regime.

It has been an occupation ever since then, not a war. The refusal to recognize that fact remains one of our "leader's" biggest failures, as the Iraq Study Group pointed out.Call it whatever you want, but my point stands. The executive and legislative branches are playing politics with people's lives.

Old Phart,

I am in complete agreement with you on this. The president and congress need to come to an agreement, a compromise. Playing political games with our soldiers lives is bull.

Dharm,

You are the most dishonest person on these boards.

Read this, you might learn somthing.


What amazes me are the people that think that this is a "normal" political issue. Pork has not been historically used in a war funding budget bill. All I am saying is that both sides here are just as full of shit as the other. I don't hold one or the other responsible.... they are BOTH responsible.

Of course, in our current society... we can't accept personal responsibility for our actions, I guess we should expect the same from the pandering, publicity hogs that we elect to office.

The statement you continue to make that the President denied the troops funding is true,

Thank you for at least admitting that. It is more than most have done.


but its only one piece of the larger puzzle, and is misleading.

I disagree. In my opinion, that is the frame the Democrats should be putting out because the Republians are doing their best to claim the opposite frame, that this is all Congress' fault for not giving the President only exactly what he wants. I turned on Fox for about 10 seconds this morning and saw someone doing it already, "Why doesn't Congress support the troops?"

When the media does it, THAT is misleading.

Call it whatever you want, but my point stands. The executive and legislative branches are playing politics with people's lives.

And my point also stands. "Playing politics" is their job.

The troops volunteered. They knew what they were getting into.

What is being done in Washington on this is shameful. Both the President and Congress are playing stupid games that are affecting things much more important than their own political posturing and re-election campaigns. I have grown very weary of this. We, the citizens, need to let our elected representatives know these actions are not acceptable (if we can tear ourselves away from American Idol and Survivor-Gilligan's Island long enough).


I call my Congressman and Senators regularly to tell them to keep up the good work, keep trying to end the "war" and to keep holding these assholes accountable.

What exactly is more important than politicial posturing? The troops? The troops are in no danger unless the commander in chief puts them there. Thats his call.

Old Phart,

I am in complete agreement with you on this. The president and congress need to come to an agreement, a compromise. Playing political games with our soldiers lives is bull.

"Politicial Games" is precisely how they come to a compromise. This is how this kind of thing has always worked.

If we set a timetable, we are proving to Al-Qaeda that we are cowards.

Our pals from Iran and N. Korea will then know that they can push us around.

That is the problem with alot of liberals. They don't think 2 steps ahead.




Old Phart,

They may both be playing games but in this case it is better if the President wins the game. You shouldn't set a timetable for when you will stop fighting. That is simply insanity.

That is the problem with alot of liberals. They don't think 2 steps ahead.

Like BushCo did when planning their brilliant invasion of Iraq? :rolleyes:

What is being done in Washington on this is shameful. Both the President and Congress are playing stupid games that are affecting things much more important than their own political posturing and re-election campaigns. I have grown very weary of this. We, the citizens, need to let our elected representatives know these actions are not acceptable (if we can tear ourselves away from American Idol and Survivor-Gilligan's Island long enough).


I couldn't agree more. Politicians get away with this kind of thing all the time because we as a society care more about the most ridiculous things, that are really meaningless. I'm tired of Washington and I'm even more tired of American Idol.

And my point also stands. "Playing politics" is their job.

The troops volunteered. They knew what they were getting into.Yeah, who cares if they get shot or blown up because Washington couldn't get its act together? Afterall, they volunteered. What's important is that politicians keep playing their little chess game so that we can discuss it on AllForums.

Do me a favor and stop pretending you care so much about the troops in Iraq, because you obviously don't give a rat's ass about them.

I will take it a step further. My brother is in the military and stationed over in Iraq, I want him home and safe. I could give a rats ass about the Iraqi people at this point. I'm tired of worrying about him and the rest. I'm tired of his life or death being decoded by inept uncaring people who would put him in harms way to protect people who appreciate it enough to blow up their own children or worse, plan to disregard their own internal issues for 2 months because they want a vacation.

I say the hell with Iraq. Forget it and bring ALL our soldiers home. All these war funds could fix so many more issues here in America. That's where I care about.

I don't give a damn what his excuse is for vetoing it, the fact remains he denied the funding for the troops.



I am sure if you keep saying that loud enough and long enough somone is bound to start believing it.

I am sure if you keep saying that loud enough and long enough somone is bound to start believing it.

I agree! That is exactly what I am going to do. And you are right, people definately are starting to come around.

First I would like to thank your brother for his fighting for you and I.

Seccond, I want to make it very very clear that if we bring the troops home

too early, we will be fighting the terrorists in our streets.

How does your brother feel? Does he want to cut and run?


I will take it a step further. My brother is in the military and stationed over in Iraq, I want him home and safe. I could give a rats ass about the Iraqi people at this point. I'm tired of worrying about him and the rest. I'm tired of his life or death being decoded by inept uncaring people who would put him in harms way to protect people who appreciate it enough to blow up their own children or worse, plan to disregard their own internal issues for 2 months because they want a vacation.

I say the hell with Iraq. Forget it and bring ALL our soldiers home. All these war funds could fix so many more issues here in America. That's where I care about.

I want to make it very very clear that if we bring the troops home

too early, we will be fighting the terrorists in our streets.That fight would last about ten seconds.

Bring 'em on.

Seccond, I want to make it very very clear that if we bring the troops home

too early, we will be fighting the terrorists in our streets.

That is completely ridiculous.

It isn't ridiculous, Dharmabum. If we cut and run, and make no mistake, that is what the Democrats are proposing, we will show the terrorists that we do not have the resolve necessary to prosecute the war against them.

It isn't ridiculous, Dharmabum. If we cut and run, and make no mistake, that is what the Democrats are proposing, we will show the terrorists that we do not have the resolve necessary to prosecute the war against them.

Darn those Dems for politicizing this war. :rolleyes: