218-208 ! Bring Em Home!

[wayne]

Thank you voters!

Will it survive a veto?

Is it non binding?

Will it make a difference or just letting the 4th Riech know were done?

[Dechristo]

The bill passed the House by a vote of 218-208. Nine Democrats voted against the bill and two Republicans voted for it.

 

It won't stick. Bush will veto it.

[ashw_justin]

I wish that this message wasn't mired in politics like the carefully calculated political maneuver it is--but I guess that's what you get in a two party system.

 

Isn't it a little late to be saying no to the 'war?' I hold two branches of runaway government and two self-interested parties responsible for this resounding 'fuck you' to the American people, the Iraqi people, and the rest of the world. They should have done something about this four years ago when it would have actually meant something.

 

IMO these spineless 'democrats' are unfit to represent the people that they should have been listening to all along, i.e. the people that vote for them. It's not as bad as illegally murdering defenseless countries on knowingly false pretenses, but it's still unforgivable. God help us adopt some kind of runoff voting system so we can send all of these misanthropes packing.

[EWolfe]

Veto, or not, there's a clear message being sent here.

 

Kudos for that.

[ashw_justin]

"Republicans said setting a timetable on the war would hand a victory to terrorists."

 

1. The 'war' is already over. Your war was on Iraq, and you won, beating the shit out of a pitiful little country. Now get the fuck out, and pray that the UN can clean up your mess instead of Iran. (ps. You can't have a 'war' with terrorists. Call them guerillas or something, then maybe you can have a 'war.')

 

2. People fighting for power amidst anarchy is not 'terrorism,' at least not in the Bushite sense. If you didn't expect people to be rampantly killing each other to fill the void of power you left in Iraq (who saw that one coming), then you shouldn't have fucking destroyed their government. How many people killed each other in our civil war? Were they all 'terrorists?'

 

Even now, after we have seen that this propaganda is complete bullshit, the administration still refuses to acknowledge what true reasons there are for occupying Iraq. Just tell us, please, why it was so important to occupy Iraq. Don't sweet talk us anymore. Was it for oil? Do we need more military bases there? Are you worried about controlling the most important region in the world for the next 100 years? Had we not threatened Iran enough yet? Did you need a route and more reasons to invade Iran? Are we defending Israel somehow?

 

Just be honest. We'll try to understand how you're helping us. Or are you seriously risking the lives of over 100,000 of our troops (and 25 million Iraqis) simply because you want to 'spread democracy' to Iraq? Because honestly, that's the fucking stupidest excuse I can think of for violently destroying a country (and our global reputation), and not to mention the most obvious failure of this whole situation.

[jordop]

Executive veto powers=tyranny

[ken4ord]

Let me first start by saying, I thought it was the stupidest idea to attack Iraq in the name of war on terrorism and that there was WMD. The main weapon was Sadam and most of the terrorism was inflicted upon the Iraqi people and neighboring countries, not the US. At this point I am glad he is no longer able to do the shit that he was doing to "his" people and neighbors.

 

Now let me say to pull out right now would be a disservice to us, to the Iraqi people and to the rest of the world. If we leave right now we are basically leaving a country unprotected to civil war, corruption, which would probably leave it as a perfect breeding ground for terrorist group. We need to see this out until there is more stability before leaving or else we leaving it worse than when we began. As for our troops dying in the line of fire, yeah that sucks, but nobody forced individuals to enlist. Our soldiers enlisted (for Gawd knows what reason) and hopefully knew that being a soldier is not a free ride and there is a chance they could see frontline somewhere in the world and possibly die. You can't expect that you can go to war without deaths, that is fucking rediculus. Hell I am surprised with the low number of US soldier deaths to be honest, I thought for sure that there would be more, I couldn't imagine Iraq being an easy place to fight.

[high_on_rock]

Ken4ord, I think though that we are the wrong people to try to bring stability to the region. We need to step out and pass "our problem" to Iran, Saudi, Kuwait, and the other middle east countries. Let the muslems come up with a solution of how to "fix" the problem that we created. The last thing that those other countries want is a completely disfunctional and hostle government in Iraq. Let the Muslems dictate the solution.

[Dechristo]

Let the Muslems dictate the solution.

 

Which muslims?

 

Most times the competing sects are worse than Christians in killing each other for being heretics.

[EWolfe]

Excuse me. Would you quit with the smoking Jesus Avatar?

 

The smoking/savior thing is hard on us trying to quit.

 

Thanks in advance!

 

:wave:Erik

 

p.s. drink OK

Edited April 26, 2007 by MisterE

[Dechristo]

nobody fucks with da Jesus!

 

 

{qualification: excepting mods and admins, of course)

[ken4ord]

Ken4ord, I think though that we are the wrong people to try to bring stability to the region. We need to step out and pass "our problem" to Iran, Saudi, Kuwait, and the other middle east countries. Let the muslems come up with a solution of how to "fix" the problem that we created. The last thing that those other countries want is a completely disfunctional and hostle government in Iraq. Let the Muslems dictate the solution.

 

Agreed, but we probably shouldn't do that until these other countries are stepping up and willing to take that on. So far I have not heard of anybody volunteering to do that.

[drater]

As for our troops dying in the line of fire, yeah that sucks, but nobody forced individuals to enlist. Our soldiers enlisted (for Gawd knows what reason) and hopefully knew that being a soldier is not a free ride and there is a chance they could see frontline somewhere in the world and possibly die.

 

The recruiting booths they're sticking in area high schools designed to suck up the bottom students in danger of not graduating or dropping out doesn't sit well with me though.

 

I'm sure they're being completely honest and upfront with these intellectual marvels however.

[ZimZam]

Truman saw that Korea was a no win situation. Nixon eventually figured it out the same in Vietnam, and Reagan extricated the Marines from Beirut. Why can't the current Poobah figure it the fuck out? Perhaps he has information that we aren't qualified to hear. Like maybe the Grand Ali Sistani is now looking for uranus.

[ivan]

Executive veto powers=tyranny

then why did the tyrant-fearing founders put it in article 2 then?

[high_on_rock]

My belief is that if we told Iraq’s neighbors that we are going to pull out in two months, that they would put together a solution. All of the different factions are also represented in the neighboring countries, and that would be their political voice. Is this a perfect solution, heck no; but they understand the underlying problems and issues far better than the self interested Christians currently over there violating local law and custom. Even if we don’t see this as a Christian/Muslim dispute, they do. Get the Christians out of the Muslim politics.

[foraker]

Executive veto powers=tyranny

then why did the tyrant-fearing founders put it in article 2 then?

 

Is this going to be on the final, Mr Ivan?

[tvashtarkatena]

Excuse me. Would you quit with the smoking Jesus Avatar?

 

The smoking/savior thing is hard on us trying to quit.

 

Thanks in advance!

 

:wave:Erik

 

p.s. drink OK

 

 

[foraker]

 

Well, now. Who's a good little Satan's Helper? Hmmm?

[tvashtarkatena]

Since the situation in both Afghanistan and Iraq has continued to deteriorate despite our presence, I would say our presence is either a neutral or negative factor, not a positive one. Either argues for an immediate withdrawal.

 

The mentality that we can 'fix our mistake' in Iraq is an interesting one. I liken it to shooting your spouse, then trying to 'undo' your mistake afterwards. Very American (Oops, I spilled...sorry!) Good luck with that.

 

An irreversible chain of events was set in motion the day we said 'Let's roll' (remember that bumper sticker? Where are they now?). We destroyed a society, which immediately began to factionalize, a process which continues today. Now, what we have in Iraq is a viral movement of continued factionalization (first the Sunnis, now the Shiites), each group with either its own competing agenda or no agenda other than to wreak havoc, and each group successfully feeding off of the chaos. This decentralized process is now a force of its own. It will continue until it burns itself out or the local powers that be force or negotiate a solution. It also interesting to note that the process is spreading throughout the region; to Pakistan and Afghanistan, most notably.

 

As the perpetrators, invaders, and outsiders, we have not, and cannot, help in the reversal of this trend.

 

We are, to borrow a phrase, 'failing upward'.

Edited April 26, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[ashw_justin]

 

"This one appears to have been a dud, sir."

[jordop]

Executive veto powers=tyranny

then why did the tyrant-fearing founders put it in article 2 then?

Yeah, exactly. And we have similar measures in Canada. The veto isn't the problem I guess. It's just this sort of thing that seems so darn wacky.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court in June struck down the previous military tribunal system at Guantanamo as unconstitutional. President Bush subsequently signed a law creating a new military tribunal system.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Throughout it's history, the Supreme Court, which is not an elected body, has generally deferred to the Legislature, which is. This results in more, rather than less, democratic outcomes. Instances where the Supreme Court has disagreed with the Legislature in their rulings are few and far between.

 

Democratic outcomes are not always just ones, however. Slavery was upheld for decades by the Supreme Court, again, in deference to existing legislation, which was enacting the will of the people (those who could vote, that is) at the time.

 

The bottom line is that if you have a democratic society full of assholes, you get assholish legal outcomes. Hence, the past six years. We're reaping what we've sown.

 

The Supreme Court struck down the military tribunal system in large part because it was not adequately supported by legislation. The executive branch and fuck head Republican congress then dissected that loophole and filled it with enough bullshit to delay or circumvent another adverse Supreme Court ruling for a while. As a result, the CIA and private contractors may still torture people, the President may still unilaterally 'interpret' the Geneva conventions, attorney access to detainees is still very limited, and evidence or confessions, obtained through torture in other countries, such as Syria, is still admissable in these kangaroo tribunals, and habeus corpus is still in the trash can. There are still multiple lawsuits pending on behalf of many of the detainees at Guantanamo, so stay tuned.

 

Of course, in their latest manuever, the shitheap currently stinking up the Whitehouse is calling for limited attorney access to detainess, for reasons of 'national security'. The last (Australian) terrorist they let go on a face saving plea bargain to a minor charge went home without jail time...a real threat to national security.

 

Riiiiighhhhht.

Edited April 26, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[chucK]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Bush does not veto. Issues some bullshit signing statement. Says that his hands are tied, he can't let the military go broke and endanger our fighting men and women.

 

It would give him a get out of Iraq free card, and allow him to blame the all the ensuing chaos on the Democrats.

 

How many times in the past year has Bush been totally adamant about something and then done an abrupt about-face?

 

It could happen. I'm giving 1-5 odds if anyone is interested in a friendly wager.

 

[mattp]

On the face of it, I think that would be a good move on his part. I don't know for sure he could pull it off, though, because so many military experts have confirmed that there is in fact no immediate budget crisis for the military and all this talk about an urgent need to "fund the troops" is BS.

 

Either way, he's gonna have to fire up the Rove machine again, and insist that black was red and get all the media to go along with him. And maybe that is a given: after all, he's been saying all week that we shouldn't let the politicians in Washington tell the generals how to run a war and I don't think any of the media have pointed out that he has been doing exactly that for the last four or five years - telling the military how to run the invasion and the aftermath, and sacking any general who expressed concern for his plans.

 

 

Once again, the so-called "liberal media" that right wingers complain so much about is pretty much giving the President a free pass - at least this week.