Obama explains why he keeps voting to fund the war

RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
edited March 2008 in A Moving Train
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.

http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134

Comments

  • Why did I fall for that? I was so eager to see what he said! Then I click on the link and it blasts this loud-ass music mixed with what sounds like 2 old people fucking.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Hint..Obama is on the left...his supporters are represented by the other guy...

    :D

    2 old ppl f-ing ROFL....
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • gabersgabers Posts: 2,787
    Why did I fall for that? I was so eager to see what he said! Then I click on the link and it blasts this loud-ass music mixed with what sounds like 2 old people fucking.

    LOL!!

    Nice to see some light humor in the train every once in a while. Every time I've tried to make jokes they've gone over light a fart in church.
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    i'll give ya a hint why, look at my sig ;)
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • chikevinchikevin Posts: 421
    gabers wrote:
    Every time I've tried to make jokes they've gone over light a fart in church.
    that's b/c you need to 'one cheek sneak 'em', now that's just damn funny.

    by the by...i didn't watch the link. so, whatever...
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    he said this quite plainly... and i agree to a great extent


    we have to leave as carefully as we recklessly got out... and that he would not cut off funds while 150,000 soldiers are in harms way and force a choatic and sloppy withdraw... and he has voted every time to include a timetable for withdraw...

    the withdraw needs to be planned, not forced... there is a right way and a wrong way to do this... he prefers to do it the right way


    face it folks, you cannot end the war until Bush or McCain are out of there... the president has veto power my friends, and he has used it, and they dont have 65 votes to beat it
  • cornnifercornnifer Posts: 2,130
    To me it seems very responsible to disagree with the war, seek to end it, while at the same time not leaving the kids that are there dying hanging out to dry with no funds or supplies. Do any of you think that if funds were cut off Bush would have ended the war and brought these kids home? Cutting funds would only be a vote to kill our kids even faster. Try using your brain.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • cornnifer wrote:
    To me it seems very responsible to disagree with the war, seek to end it, while at the same time not leaving the kids that are there dying hanging out to dry with no funds or supplies. Do any of you think that if funds were cut off Bush would have ended the war and brought these kids home? Cutting funds would only be a vote to kill our kids even faster. Try using your brain.

    I forgot that more is the new less. Onwards to FINAL PERMANENT VICTORY in Iraq! WOO!

    Then the US can get out (haha?) and watch them all go about having their civil war as everything slides down the shitter far worse than before...

    Just keep throwing money at it!!!

    *cough* wealth transfer...

    brain what's that?
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • my2hands wrote:
    he said this quite plainly... and i agree to a great extent


    we have to leave as carefully as we recklessly got out... and that he would not cut off funds while 150,000 soldiers are in harms way and force a choatic and sloppy withdraw... and he has voted every time to include a timetable for withdraw...

    the withdraw needs to be planned, not forced... there is a right way and a wrong way to do this... he prefers to do it the right way


    face it folks, you cannot end the war until Bush or McCain are out of there... the president has veto power my friends, and he has used it, and they dont have 65 votes to beat it


    'Bring em home' now fades out to whatever Obama is saying at the moment which is nothing more than stalling while he continues his well rehearsed double speak routine to the crowds of fanatics. What would be the problem with pushing this Admin to end the war now and finally start a withdrawl? No, the better idea is to keep pouring more and more money into the war while saying how dumb it is and how you're soo against it. What a fucking crock of shit!

    Free passes all over this place :rolleyes:
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Obama feeds the War machine because

    Obama = CFR
    PEARL JAM~Lubbock, TX. 10~18~00
    PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
    INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
    INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
    Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
    INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
    Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
  • JD SalJD Sal Posts: 790
    'Bring em home' now fades out to whatever Obama is saying at the moment which is nothing more than stalling while he continues his well rehearsed double speak routine to the crowds of fanatics. What would be the problem with pushing this Admin to end the war now and finally start a withdrawl? No, the better idea is to keep pouring more and more money into the war while saying how dumb it is and how you're soo against it. What a fucking crock of shit!

    Free passes all over this place :rolleyes:

    *sigh* We tackled this in another thread, but here goes:

    The democrats tried passing legislation multiple times that had a timetable for withdraw, and every time there was a fillibuster and a veto. So, when the funds run out for the war, and you can't get anything passed with a timetable, what do you do? You vote to not fund the war? If Obama did this, sadly, I think most of yall would still be posting here crucifying him, but for leaving the soldiers on the battlefield in the middle of a war with nothing.

    You can't just cut funds like that without a detailed strategy for how to get the fuck out. It's going to take at least a year to get all of our troops and equipment out of Iraq, and that would be with continued funding and a comprehensive plan for withdraw. What do you think would happen if Congress just abruptly cut funds without a plan? It's just not that easy. Please, give this some serious thought.

    Instead, you fund the war for a brief time and try to tweak the legislation to garner enough votes to override a veto, which ain't gonna happen with the republicans. Blame them, not Obama.

    I'm open to hearing Obama criticism, but this is just plain silly to keep condemning him for funding the war when all other measures failed, without considering the complexities of the entire situation.
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"
  • JD Sal wrote:
    *sigh* We tackled this in another thread, but here goes:

    The democrats tried passing legislation multiple times that had a timetable for withdraw, and every time there was a fillibuster and a veto. So, when the funds run out for the war, and you can't get anything passed with a timetable, what do you do? You vote to not fund the war? If Obama did this, sadly, I think most of yall would still be posting here crucifying him, but for leaving the soldiers on the battlefield in the middle of a war with nothing.

    You can't just cut funds like that without a detailed strategy for how to get the fuck out. It's going to take at least a year to get all of our troops and equipment out of Iraq, and that would be with continued funding and a comprehensive plan for withdraw. What do you think would happen if Congress just abruptly cut funds without a plan? It's just not that easy. Please, give this some serious thought.

    Instead, you fund the war for a brief time and try to tweak the legislation to garner enough votes to override a veto, which ain't gonna happen with the republicans. Blame them, not Obama.

    I'm open to hearing Obama criticism, but this is just plain silly to keep condemning him for funding the war when all other measures failed, without considering the complexities of the entire situation.


    If you're all content and wanna tell me you think the Democratic party and it's outspoken leaders especially, have did everything they could to end this war and bring the troops home as soon as possible...then I guess we can do nothing but disagree. We got in there quick enough, our presence isn't helping matters and more of our young people and Iraqi civilians are dying everyday....we can get back out as soon as our pathetic representatives in congress pushed for it to end. A decision could be made as quick as tomorrow to pull out and then the process can begin but that's not what the Democratic party is focused on. They are focused on gaining power while ignoring the demands of the people and the all dying people on the other side of the globe. Take your time guys...it's not you or your family's ass on the line.

    Here's a little cute cartoon for ya :)
    http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/Fish_HalfWay3.jpg
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Kinda makes me wonder why Ron Paul gets the most support from the troops, and he had never once voted to fund the war...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • JD SalJD Sal Posts: 790
    Kinda makes me wonder why Ron Paul gets the most support from the troops, and he had never once voted to fund the war...

    Actually, Ron Paul and Obama have received the majority of support from the troops.
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    JD Sal wrote:
    *sigh* We tackled this in another thread, but here goes:

    The democrats tried passing legislation multiple times that had a timetable for withdraw, and every time there was a fillibuster and a veto. So, when the funds run out for the war, and you can't get anything passed with a timetable, what do you do? You vote to not fund the war? If Obama did this, sadly, I think most of yall would still be posting here crucifying him, but for leaving the soldiers on the battlefield in the middle of a war with nothing.

    You can't just cut funds like that without a detailed strategy for how to get the fuck out. It's going to take at least a year to get all of our troops and equipment out of Iraq, and that would be with continued funding and a comprehensive plan for withdraw. What do you think would happen if Congress just abruptly cut funds without a plan? It's just not that easy. Please, give this some serious thought.

    Instead, you fund the war for a brief time and try to tweak the legislation to garner enough votes to override a veto, which ain't gonna happen with the republicans. Blame them, not Obama.

    I'm open to hearing Obama criticism, but this is just plain silly to keep condemning him for funding the war when all other measures failed, without considering the complexities of the entire situation.


    there's my boy!

    see you at MSG...
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117

    Free passes all over this place :rolleyes:

    i prefer to call it the unfortunate reality
  • Yay! The Democrats have been doing a bang up job! Hats off to those guys, really!
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • my2hands wrote:
    i prefer to call it the unfortunate reality

    We make our own reality...don't let other call the shots for you. You have to stand up for what you believe in or adopt what they believe in.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • JD SalJD Sal Posts: 790
    If you're all content and wanna tell me you think the Democratic party and it's outspoken leaders especially, have did everything they could to end this war and bring the troops home as soon as possible...then I guess we can do nothing but disagree. We got in there quick enough, our presence isn't helping matters and more of our young people and Iraqi civilians are dying everyday....we can get back out as soon as our pathetic representatives in congress pushed for it to end. A decision could be made as quick as tomorrow to pull out and then the process can begin but that's not what the Democratic party is focused on. They are focused on gaining power while ignoring the demands of the people and the all dying people on the other side of the globe. Take your time guys...it's not you or your family's ass on the line.

    Here's a little cute cartoon for ya :)
    http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/Fish_HalfWay3.jpg

    This shouldn't be that difficult to understand, but cutting funds in the middle of this war is not an option. Which is why the Obama haters are showing their true bias here. There's no objectivity at all, since you all can seemingly understand how unrealistic this is.

    For example, let's say that legislation with a timetable for withdraw was appoved. The troops wouldn't start coming home tomorrow. It may be within 6-9 months, etc. There would have to be a comprehensive plan for an exit strategy, right? During that 6-9 months, the war would still be funded.

    So yall are criticizing Obama for voting to fund the war when all other legislation with a timetable was vetoed. What is the other option? Do you understand what would happen if the funds were just cut? Within days or weeks, there would be no money, and what would happen? Has anyone thought about this? The troops wouldn't just come home tomorrow because the funding stopped. It takes time to bring them, the equipment, the contractors, etc home. There are more contractors there right now than troops. How do you stay in Iraq with out funding?

    Now, I'm not agreeing that the Dems did everything possible to end this war. But they tried. The republicans fillibuster everything with a timetable because they can't break party lines. It's patriotic to do what's best for your country, not what's best for the party.

    The blame for continuing this war lies with Bush and the republicans. Had a few more crossed the line and voted to pass legislation with a timetable, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Oh wait, you all would probably be condemning Obama for voting for the legislation with a timetable? How dare he fund the war for another 6-9 months? :rolleyes:

    Just be realistic and objective with your criticism. If you want to say the Dems and/or Obama could have done more, fine. Please provide examples of what could have been done. But be realistic and objective, since simply cutting funds is clearly not a viable option.
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"
  • JD SalJD Sal Posts: 790
    my2hands wrote:
    there's my boy!

    see you at MSG...

    You got that straight!
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"
  • JD Sal wrote:
    Actually, Ron Paul and Obama have received the majority of support from the troops.


    They both talk about peace as a solution...one has a long track record of such sentiment for 30 years...the other has yet to be seen.

    It's all there is left at this point...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • JD Sal wrote:
    This shouldn't be that difficult to understand, but cutting funds in the middle of this war is not an option. Which is why the Obama haters are showing their true bias here. There's no objectivity at all, since you all can seemingly understand how unrealistic this is.

    For example, let's say that legislation with a timetable for withdraw was appoved. The troops wouldn't start coming home tomorrow. It may be within 6-9 months, etc. There would have to be a comprehensive plan for an exit strategy, right? During that 6-9 months, the war would still be funded.

    So yall are criticizing Obama for voting to fund the war when all other legislation with a timetable was vetoed. What is the other option? Do you understand what would happen if the funds were just cut? Within days or weeks, there would be no money, and what would happen? Has anyone thought about this? The troops wouldn't just come home tomorrow because the funding stopped. It takes time to bring them, the equipment, the contractors, etc home. There are more contractors there right now than troops. How do you stay in Iraq with out funding?

    Now, I'm not agreeing that the Dems did everything possible to end this war. But they tried. The republicans fillibuster everything with a timetable because they can't break party lines. It's patriotic to do what's best for your country, not what's best for the party.

    The blame for continuing this war lies with Bush and the republicans. Had a few more crossed the line and voted to pass legislation with a timetable, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Oh wait, you all would probably be condemning Obama for voting for the legislation with a timetable? How dare he fund the war for another 6-9 months? :rolleyes:

    Just be realistic and objective with your criticism. If you want to say the Dems and/or Obama could have done more, fine. Please provide examples of what could have been done. But be realistic and objective, since simply cutting funds is clearly not a viable option.


    There have been brave dems who pushed to stop the funding and force bush's hand. The blame would lay on bush then and he would have to make the call. You can't just keep giving in and getting no where. Bush couldn't keep the troops over there with no funding...there would be no point and his ass really would get impeached. Dems are too afraid to stand their ground. I posted plenty of links with opinions like mine and still believe it could be done.


    You said it yourself:

    'How do you stay in Iraq with out funding?'

    You don't. Exactly! You force Bush's hand and he has to do what's right...all eyes would be on him. Then you can pas funding for withdrawl measures.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • "It’s the phoniest of arguments to say that a cut-off of funds will leave troops stranded out in the fields. There’s always money in the pipeline to pay for an orderly withdrawal." ~ Dennis Kucinich

    Rep. Dennis Kucinich: Cut Off Iraq War Funding

    Posted on Nov 16, 2006
    By Joshua Scheer

    In an interview with Truthdig contributor Joshua Scheer,* Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) reacts to Rep. John Murtha’s failed bid for House majority leader, and explains why cutting off funding for the Iraq war is the only way to truly protect American troops.

    Edited Transcript:



    TRUTHDIG: With [Steny] Hoyer being named majority leader, what does that mean for the party and for the war in Iraq?

    KUCINICH: The Democrats made their choice, and we’re united behind Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and our entire leadership team, and we’re going to do everything we can to fulfill the hopes of the American people for a new direction in Iraq, and I am going to do my part to keep the debate going.

    TRUTHDIG: Do you think Murtha’s ethics were the reason he got beaten by Hoyer for majority leader?

    KUCINICH: No, I think it really speaks to the success that Steny Hoyer had in building up relationships in the last Congress.

    It’s the phoniest of arguments to say that a cut-off of funds will leave troops stranded out in the fields. There’s always money in the pipeline to pay for an orderly withdrawal.





    TRUTHDIG: But he’s a supporter of not pulling out and staying the course, right?

    KUCINICH: I think it’s important to get his point of view as to how he would characterize his position. But, you know, with the American people having voted very clearly for a new direction in Iraq, I think every person who’s in the leadership must be mindful that the Democratic agenda must be responsive to the people.

    TRUTHDIG: I was just reading up on your [Nov. 15] appearance on Democracy Now!, in which you talked about cutting off the funds to Iraq as being the only way to make any progress there. Do you want to comment on that?

    KUCINICH: Today, it was announced that 2,000 more Marines are being sent to Anbar province—a place which was already declared “lost” for the purposes of military occupation. Why are we sacrificing our young men and women? Why are we keeping them in an impossible situation? Why are we stoking a civil war with our continued presence? We have to take a new direction in Iraq, and that direction is out.

    Now, there are many plans out there. The people talking about phased redeployment, the president as the commander in chief ultimately has the authority to determine the placement of troops. Congress’ real authority, and Congress’ constitutional [mandate] as a co-equal branch of government, requires that it be heard from, and I believe that Congress must exercise its authority to protect the troops by bringing them home. And the only way we can do that effectively is to vote against supplemental appropriations—which has kept the war going, or to vote against appropriation bills which fund the war. That’s Congress’ ultimate power—the power of the purse.

    If we truly care about our troops, we’ll get them out. It’s the phoniest argument to say that a cut-off of funds will leave troops stranded in the field. There’s always money in the pipeline to pay for an orderly withdrawal. But those who favor continuing the war or escalating the war are using the troops as a tool to further policies that are against the interests of the troops, against the interests of [the] American people, and against the interests of peace in the world.

    TRUTHDIG: What are the plans with Iran, now that the Democrats have control of Congress?

    KUCINICH: I think the Democratic control of Congress makes it more difficult for the president to pursue a policy which leads to military conflict with Iran. This president would have to come to Congress for approval for any action, and if he decides to take action without the support of Congress, I think he would find himself at a serious constitutional disadvantage. I do not believe that the administration has made a case for any type of attack on Iran. As a matter of fact, it’s urgent that we engage Iran in diplomacy. It’s urgent that we bring both Iran and Syria to the negotiating table—not only for the purposes of resolving issues with respect to those countries, but for the purposes of setting the stage for a broader peace agreement in the entire region, including peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. We need a whole new approach, which is based on a belief, a confidence that we can use what Franklin Roosevelt called the science of human relations—diplomacy—to resolve our differences. We must reject this administration’s all-too-easy recourse towards military power and consequent rejection of diplomacy.

    TRUTHDIG: Basically, that’s what Tony Blair was saying a few days ago, that you have to reach out to Iran and Syria. Do you think Bush will go along with that? I know he’s a lame duck ...

    KUCINICH: There are many world leaders who are aware of the failed policies of this administration. And even Tony Blair understands that a new direction must be taken if we’re to avoid another war. War with Iran is not inevitable. But we need to talk to the Iranian government, just as we need to open up discussions with the Syrian government. This is the time to do it. You know, There’s a new Congress. The American people voted for a new direction. Let’s take a new direction. Let’s try diplomacy.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • JD SalJD Sal Posts: 790
    There have been brave dems who pushed to stop the funding and force bush's hand. The blame would lay on bush then and he would have to make the call. You can't just keep giving in and getting no where. Bush couldn't keep the troops over there with no funding...there would be no point and his ass really would get impeached. Dems are too afraid to stand their ground. I posted plenty of links with opinions like mine and still believe it could be done.


    You said it yourself:

    'How do you stay in Iraq with out funding?'

    You don't. Exactly! You force Bush's hand and he has to do what's right...all eyes would be on him. Then you can pas funding for withdrawl measures.

    I've said before that Dems like Senator Claire Mccaskill have pointed out that it's not as simple as cutting funds because Bush would just cut other programs in order to fund the war. You say "..all eyes on Bush" like he actually cares about public opinion. You have it backwards. The republican spin machine would tear apart the Dems for 'cutting funds' and leaving the troops on the battlefield. You're making it out to be a very simple solution, and it's obviously not considering all the partisan politics in play.

    And you pass legislation first with a timetable, then the funds are eventually cut. Just face it, no matter how much we both agree that the war should have already ended, it's just not going to happen under the current administration. Bush and the repubs get the majority of the blame. I don't think that's debatable.
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"
  • JD SalJD Sal Posts: 790
    "It’s the phoniest of arguments to say that a cut-off of funds will leave troops stranded out in the fields. There’s always money in the pipeline to pay for an orderly withdrawal." ~ Dennis Kucinich

    Sure, you can cut other programs and reallocate money, but seriously, if the Dems can't get enough votes to override a veto for legislation that funds the war but has a timetable for withdraw, then how are they going to get enough votes to override a veto for cutting the funds?

    It's just not that simple.
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"
  • JD Sal wrote:
    I've said before that Dems like Senator Claire Mccaskill have pointed out that it's not as simple as cutting funds because Bush would just cut other programs in order to fund the war. You say "..all eyes on Bush" like he actually cares about public opinion. You have it backwards. The republican spin machine would tear apart the Dems for 'cutting funds' and leaving the troops on the battlefield. You're making it out to be a very simple solution, and it's obviously not considering all the partisan politics in play.

    And you pass legislation first with a timetable, then the funds are eventually cut. Just face it, no matter how much we both agree that the war should have already ended, it's just not going to happen under the current administration. Bush and the repubs get the majority of the blame. I don't think that's debatable.

    This is ridiculous! The Dems would have Americans on their side. Two thirds are saying now that this war wasn't worth fighting.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • apparently there are plenty of other people out there including some Dems and a few Reps who think we could cut funding and bring the troops home with funds allocated for just that. But it take people who stand behind their principles and don't just fold to get it done. Or you could just keep giving in and keep giving Bush his blank checks....we know how well that's been working out. To act like there's only one way to handle this and that's your way is short sighted and close minded.

    http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=198331

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17495023
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010207A.shtml

    Iraq War Lie Detector Test
    By Dean Baker
    t r u t h o u t | Columnist

    Tuesday 02 January 2007

    There has been no shortage of deceptions surrounding the prosecution of the Iraq War, beginning with the original justification - Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, supporters of the war continue to use deception to advance their agenda. The latest lie is that Congress doesn't have the ability to end the war, because if they cut off funding they would jeopardize the safety of our troops.

    I will explain in a moment why this is completely untrue, but I first want to call attention to the "hide behind the troops" mode of argument. From the beginning, supporters of the war have regularly insisted that they support our troops, implying that opponents of President Bush's agenda want to see our troops harmed.

    The argument over the conduct of the war is with President Bush, his advisors and his supporters in Congress. It is not an argument against the troops. It is an incredible act of cowardice for anyone to try to justify pursuing the war as somehow based on supporting our troops. It has absolutely nothing to do with supporting our troops. The troops are doing what President Bush ordered them to do - they are not the ones who decided to go to war in Iraq. If supporters of the war felt that they had an honest case, they would not feel the need to hide behind the troops to push their agenda.

    [/b]The latest version of the "hide behind the troops" mode of argument is to claim that Congress lacks the ability to end the war. The story goes that President Bush is commander in chief of the armed forces, and that if he does not want to end the war, then Congress cannot force his hand. According to this argument, if Congress were to use its control of the budget to restrict funding, it would jeopardize our troops stationed in Iraq by denying them the supplies and ammunition needed to defend themselves.

    This argument is garbage. Congress has the authority to require the top military commanders in Iraq to produce a plan for safely withdrawing our troops from the country. It can also require these commanders to give their best estimate of the cost of this plan. It can then appropriate this money, specifying that the funds be used for the withdrawal plan designed by the military.

    President Bush would then have the funding required to safely withdraw our troops from Iraq. He would not have the money to continue his war. If he chose to defy Congress by misusing the funds (and thereby jeopardizing the lives of our troops), then the law provides a simple and obvious remedy: Impeachment. While it is possible that Bush would choose to violate the law, jeopardizing both the lives of our troops and his presidency, it is reasonable to assume that he would comply with the law and not exceed his authority as president.

    Reasonable arguments could be made that this sort of decisive measure from Congress is not desirable. It could be argued that allowing President Bush more discretion in the conduct of the war would be the better route. But it is important to understand that Congress does have the authority to shut down the war without abandoning our troops. If Congress does not pursue this option, then it is because it has chosen not to. President Bush cannot continue to wage a war in Iraq if Congress is really determined to stop him.

    Congress should have a real debate over how best to bring the war to an end. And, the supporters of the war should not be allowed to hide behind our troops.




    This argument says the same thing I was saying earlier. Force Bush's hand. And then produce a plan for withdrawal with proper funding included to bring the troops home safely and NOT continue funding the war. Bush would then have to comply or face running a renegade presidency that has Congress against him AND two-thirds of the american public who want troops home now. Impeachment would be the only next step if he declined and would be perfectly reasonable to do with Bush disregarding the demands of the people and the congress. That would be absolutely ridiculous to let him get by with that kind of behavior and do nothing. Hell so many of us have already been calling for his impeachment, he has a 21% approval rating!!!! If he's not impeachable, I don't know who would be ever. All it would take is some backbone for once and the will/political courage it takes to get the job done.


    Now you may not agree with this plan but it is most definitely reasonable. And in view of the thousands of lives being lost for nothing, I think it is a crime not to be supporting something like this.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
Sign In or Register to comment.