House votes to pull out troops by fall 2008, despite veto threat

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Mar 23, 2007.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #1
    Yes! Just came across the "Developing Story" headline at CNN. No details yet.

    Edit: new details from CBS:

    CBS News (my bold)

    That last is what's going to make this interesting.
     
  2. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
  3. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #3
    Doesnt congress have the power to overturn a veto?

    Checks n balances....?


    Congress passes something ----> pres vetoes ----> Congress says, oh well and passes it anyway
     
  4. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #4
    Overturning a veto requires a 2/3s majority vote in both houses if I recall correctly.
     
  5. Teh Don Ditty macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #5
    You would be correct. That 2/3s is not going to come easy or at all. (pun not intended)
     
  6. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #6
    There are a few factors in play:

    This has passed the House but not yet the Senate.

    It would require a 2/3 majority of both chambers to overturn the veto -- not possible given today's vote tally.

    But still, Bush would have to ask for the money all over again. And if the Democrats dig in and introduce another bill like this one, it'll be a staring contest to see who blinks first. Both sides will accuse the other of keeping money from the troops. IMO, the Dems would have Bush at a disadvantage if he wants to continue the war.
     
  7. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #7
    If Iraq doesn't stabilise by Sep 2008, Bush's veto will be overturned. The presence of American troops in Iraq is part of the problem. Although they'll be bloodshed aplenty if Americans leave, they'll still be bloodshed aplenty if they stay. The only difference is one of those options doesn't involve throwing American lives and money into an attempt to rescue Bush's legacy. The people know this already. The politicians will listen as elections get closer.

    Partition Iraq into three states over the next year, then start a withdraw.
     
  8. Teh Don Ditty macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #8
    Ahhh partitioning Iraq to back how it used to be... makes sense to me.
     
  9. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #9
    The point being that "the buck doesnt stop" at Bush.

    he is not the end-all for Congress, they are themselves higher than Bush, but only if they stand together of course.

    Bush seems to think he IS king.
     
  10. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #10
    Iraq's never been a stable unified country in the way Iran has. It's an artificial state constructed by the British and French and only has less than 100 years of shared history. That was fine before the factional fighting began, but now the union of those sects and ethnic groups has broken down once and for all. As with Yugoslavia, the only way forward as I see it is to give the three groups their own nation state.
     
  11. Teh Don Ditty macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #11
    I agree completely. You nailed it perfectly. (pun intended)
     
  12. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #12
    It may surprise many here, but I've been a fan of implementing a three state, federalist approach to Iraq from the beginning. How Bush bent to the whims of Turkey just to placate them about the Kurds is beyond me.

    Just as an example, could you imagine the mess if California, Arizona and Nevada were forced to form a single state and agree to the laws that would apply to them all?
     
  13. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #13
    GIVE?

    Cant they do it themselves?

    More meddling can only cause more problems.

    Though I doubt they CAN do it themselves....sigh.
     
  14. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #14
    I suppose give is the wrong word. What I meant was stop obstructing it from happening anyway.
     
  15. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #15
    It's ironic that one of the few ideas (dividing Iraq into separate states) that unites both sides in this forum is rejected by 86% of Iraqis in the recent BBC poll - LINK
     
  16. Teh Don Ditty macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #16
    Quickly reading that I've noticed. The Iraqi's think everything has gotten worse from 2005 till now.
     
  17. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #17
    this measure will almost certainly not pass in the senate. but that doesn't mean today's vote was not important.

    it accomplished these things:

    1. pelosi demonstrated that she can form a majority coalition in ending the war
    2. the house dems demonstrated that they understand the meaning of their fall victory
    3. bush (too soon, imo) threatened veto, demonstrating that he's not interested in ending this war nor abiding by measures to protect the troops, train them well, give them rest, or even think about the reconstruction of NOLA
    4. sets the tone for future war funding requests

    this bill will not reach bush's desk, but the vote was important nonetheless.
     
  18. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #18
    How? By adding billions to the bill buying votes, thats how.

     
  19. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #19
    I wonder where she learned that tactic...
     
  20. Kalns macrumors regular

    Kalns

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
  21. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    Why are you resorting to a personal attack on Pelosi? Not very Christ-like if you ask me...
     
  22. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #22
    Loved Bush's veto threat. He looks pissed. He does apparently get the game that's being played -- no deadline, no funding -- but he vows he will not be the one to blink first.

    We'll see. ABC says it'll be only a matter of weeks before the Pentagon has to start cutting back. Wonder how Bush will feel then if this is still a standoff, and he realizes the public isn't backing him on this. He'll be the one who looks like he's keeping funding from the troops.

    I just hope the Dems stick by their guns. AFAIK, there's very little downside for them on this issue.

    Almost not worth waiting that long, though -- a few months later, a Democrat will be president, and he or she can stop the war quickly.

    I do agree with your assessment of how Iraq should be divided, though.

    Okay, a small amount was pure pork, but there was also stuff in there for military health care and Katrina relief. To me, that's not pork. And what was pork, by the standards of Republican pork spending, is very, very mild.

    BTW, Dick Cheney's snarl scares big kids. ;)
     
  23. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #23
    Because he's got nothing else. Liberals are bad, all there is to it. They want to do things like promote peace, help the poor, the elderly, the children, the sick, and don't mind using tax money from the upper classes to do it. Obviously, completely the opposite of what Jesus taught. But they also want religious freedom, a woman to have the right to abortions, the right to die, and homosexuals to have the same rights as heterosexuals. Add that to the fact that she's trying to stop people getting killed in a failed war that had nothing to do with who actually attacked us, and she's obviously evil.

    Obviously I'm being simplistic, but I still think it's hypocritical for people to claim to be religious, then support those who can talk about it, but do nothing about it. As I've said, read David Kuo's book. There are real issues that Jesus spoke of that Republicans either ignore of are actually against. And the few things that actually might be considered religious, as i mentioned above, most of which didn't seem like as big of a deal to Jesus, are all talk.

    That being said, her smile is creepy though, and I hate it when they have to use pork barrel riders to get bills passed, but that's how it works I guess. :rolleyes:

    On topic:

    The reason they can't partition though, as much as it would be a good idea, is because of how they split it up. Who gets the parts with the oil and the profits from it? How do we stop countries like Iran from funding the sections that are similar against those that are not? How do we route people properly? It's a good idea on paper, but there are logistical problems. Truth is, no one knows the answer. There is no answer. The people in charge have screwed things up so bad, the only thing we have left to do is to complain. They blew it, we're screwed.
     
  24. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #24
    Uncalled for.
     
  25. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #25
    In my opinion Bush should sign the bill, pork or not.
     

Share This Page