White House hangs veto over pullout plan

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Mar 8, 2007.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #1
    Examiner

    Frustrating, isn't it? Aside from Dubya threatening the veto, the Senate isn't on the same page as the House, and the same is true for liberal and moderate Democrats.

    I do agree with tying a withdrawal deadline to funding for the war, though. If Bush vetoes it, he'll be the one who has to explain it to the troops, their families, and the rest of the country.
     
  2. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #2
    So how many of the Republicans would we have to get to vote for it to overturn Bush's veto?
     
  3. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #3
    I hope they try anyway. Makes them look good, finally standing up for what the 70% minority of the country has been calling for. They're going to get criticized for not supporting the troops anyway, though I notice those calls have quieted down recently with the Walter Reed scandal and all. Let him veto and the Republicans stand in the way. More fuel for the fire.
     
  4. Agathon macrumors 6502a

    Agathon

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    #4
    You know, in the mid seventies, when you guys still had a functional government and political system, Bush would have been impeached long ago.

    How low democracy has sunk....
     
  5. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #5
    Saw a guy on Countdown who put it very succinctly. I'm paraphrasing, but what he said was, "Some Democrats are afraid that legislating an end to the war will look like they are 'not supporting the troops'. Hello! The Democrats were resoundingly elected in November so that they could end the war. What do some of them need, a big flashing neon sign that says it's okay?"

    How sadly, pathetically true.
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    Too many. 15 in the Senate IIRC. And considering the Democrats can't even attract the 9 Senators it takes to bring non-binding resolutions condemning the troop increase that's opposed by a majority of Americans.

    Of course, the "obstructionist" label could prove problematic for the fairly high number of GOP Senators who are up for re-election in '08. Unless this war turns a corner between now and summer '08, any Senator tied too closely to Bush and his reckless war policies will pay a price. Democrats may even be able to avenge the loss of Daschele by ousting McConnell if McConnell isn't careful about how he balances his dual roles as leader of the Senate and representative of his constituency.

    "Obstructionist" was used pretty successfully by the GOP in recent years, and it could be a compelling reason to put more Democrats in power if the GOP isn't careful now. "You want the war to end? We need 9 more Democratic Senators!" Those will be the ads.
     
  7. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #7
    Why is wanting to keep the troops alive by bringing them home called not supporting them by the republicans, IMO it's the best way to support them, instead of having them sitting in Iraq getting killed.
     
  8. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #8
    Sad, but true :(


    Nowadays, you can be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, but god forbid you should ever get a BJ from your intern :rolleyes:
     
  9. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #9
    As much as I disagreed with the war in Iraq and as much as I hate to say it I agree with Bush Veto. I do not think the US should pull out until after we clean up the mess we help make. Pulling out 2 soon is just going to lead to a lot more civil unrest and it would not surprise me if a civil war broke out in the country after that and that would just lead to another person like Sadaim taking power. Lets face facts some one like Sadaim would just get to much military backing from other terrorist and several other countries. The US hands would be tied because our congress is a bunch of idiots. i really do not want to see this veto get over turned because it was the right move to make vetoing that bill because the US should not pull out until after they clean up there mess. They put a huge power void in Iraq and currently the US is the only filling in that power void and it has to be a slow transition for Iraq to take back full control.
     
  10. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #10
    1. We've been trying to clean up that mess, and are failing miserably. The fact of the matter, is that we cannot control Iraq and make it stable. Not now. Not in 2 years. Not ever. How many more soldiers need to get killed before Bush realizes this?

    2. A civil war broke out a long time ago. All we're doing is adding fuel to the fire.

    3. So what if someone like Saddam gets into power? It's not our problem. If thats how they want to live, let them. If the Iraqis don't want another dictator, then they need to use their own resources and put their own lives on the line to prevent another dictator. Besides, the Iraqis are no better off now than they were under Saddam, in fact, they're probably worse off.
     
  11. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #11
    Jimmah Carter and Tip O'Neal were a functional government? Bleh!
     
  12. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #12

    So whats the plan? Leave? If we left now wouldnt it get worse? Its pointless to talk about pre-war Iraq because you'll just end up where you started. Someone has got to come up a way to deal with situation and minimize the damage.
     
  13. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #13
    The Dems haven't even worked out the pullout plan for Korea yet.
     
  14. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #14
    Yes, leave. Let it get worse, I could care less. If they want freedom, then they need to fight their own damn war.
     
  15. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    If only we could end up where we started.
     
  16. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #16
    That would take a million troops. It's financially, politically and logistically unfeasible.

    There is no solution.
     
  17. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #17
    True that. And that's the big question. How does one do that?

    1) serious military solution. The US Army's manual on counterinsurgency recommends at least 20-25 counterinsurgents for every 1000 people in the country. http://usacac.army.mil/cac/repository/materials/coin-fm3-24.pdfFor Iraq, that would mean 535, 600 to 669,500 troops. It's pretty damning that our own military understands that this is a no-win situation.

    2) recognize that we're not in a position to dictate. Make consessions, draw in players from the region. Put options on the table. Make clear that the status quo helps no one.

    3) muddle on through, as in the last 4 years, letting the situation get worse and worse.
     
  18. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #18
    Tying this withdrawal to the supplemental is the smartest thing the Democrats have done yet. This will get through the House, and after a conference committee puts it into the final bill it will be on the backs of GOP Senators who are up for reelection to stop it. What are they to do? Filibuster the supplemental funds our troops need? If not, then unless every GOP Senator holds with Bush on the war, then this gets to Bush's desk for a veto and every person in this country knows who is the sole person responsible for continuing to place our troops in the shooting gallery that is the present day Iraq. I have no illusions that Bush will not veto the bill, but he will then have vetoed the funding as well as the rejected the plan for withdrawal. It puts the pressure on ending the war squarely where it has to be.
     
  19. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #19
    The only way to minimize the damage is to pull out now, or else there will just be more of our troops sitting and dying for no reason. If we pull out then the Iraqis can just fight it out, and the country would stabilize much faster than if we stay there to fuel the civil war that is already going on.
     
  20. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #20
    Okay, first White House hack Dan Bartlett says "It would unnecessarily handcuff our generals on the ground..." which is crap. It would actually give them a mission. I'm sure they'd rather give the orders "Prepare to leave" than the current orders, which are "Go outside and get shot at."

    Second, the Senate leadership, for lack of a better term, needs to grow a pair. Reid says in the article "we can't stay there forever" and then introduces legislation that what? Allows us to stay there forever. I don't care how you mince it, the Senate plan will enable Bush to keep us there until after he's out of office.

    Hey, maybe that's his plan? With the army in the ME it becomes easier for his private-contractor troops to "keep the peace" when he declares martial law in October of '08? The only military force capable of fighting off the power grab will be demoralized, exhausted and 12,000 miles away.

    Third, whenver a epublican says "I support the troops" always end with "getting shot at".

    I don't see what so hard about saying "I support the troops 100% and will vote for every dollar needed to bring them home. I do not support the war at all and will not vote for one dollar to continue the President's mad escapade."

    If Bush was smart he'd let the Democrats pull out the troops. If everything went well he could leave office and take credit for what a great job he did. If it all goes to pot he can say it's the Dem's fault. It's a win-win to let them leave.
     
  21. Motley macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    #21
    Fortunately, in Korea our troops and a large number of civilians aren't being killed every day due to our poor planning.
     
  22. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #22
    Bingo, they make a 100% mess out of it then want to blame the other guys for leaving? The blame is with the ones who took us into this, blame all those draft dodging SOBs who wouldnt fight when it was their chance yet made this mess by choice. 1 Party was in charge, not 2. Bush & Cheney and all those republican cowards. There is nothing in Iraq to win, and its not worth 1 American for some oil period. Its time for new energy and high mpg auto's. The mideast and can keep their oil & sand we dont need it.
     
  23. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #23
    and this is an example of a thread where people do not look back at history. US did the pull out during the gulf war and well that plan backfired. So we know pulling out is more than likely going to mean another dictator.

    Saying Iraqis should fight there own war goes against US ideals because we have a damn good idea the side that will win will not be the one we want in power. They are being funded by terrorist.

    Also Terrorist are there because it is an easy target and you have other countries in the area that are waiting for the US to pull out so they can move in and take over. I believe Bush stated back 4 years ago that this was going to be a very long process and in 10 years or more.

    Looking at history it dating back to World wars and hell even farther start looking at times when there was a huge power void made and look at the results. Normally a dictory or a war lord moved in and took over. For the US to pull out they need to do it slowly as in a few years and slowly move the power over the Iraq. We do not want to leave a gaping power void. But hey expecting American people to look at history just plan dumb. As a people American only give a damn about here and now which means they do not learn from history and well screw things up in the long run.
     
  24. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #24
    What ever happened to the concept of let the people on the ground fight the war. It seems that CNN and Congress have more power then the generals. I guarantee if the media was left in the dark most of the time the enemy would not know the plan and we would of had this thing over with by now.

    The problem is everyone thinks they have the right to decide how the war is going to go. If every person was in charge of a baseball team the team would never win. Let one person and one person only draw up the game plan.

    If I remember correctly part of War is not tipping your hand to the enemy. When the media reports the next move guess what the enemy can be a step ahead.

    Can you imagine if we had cable news on the ground during WWII.
     
  25. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #25
    You can go ahead and believe it, but that doesn't make it true. I'll give you a million dollars if you can find that quote. It's recent history, but perhaps you'll learn something from the exercise.
     

Share This Page