Edwards: Send The Same Bill Back To Bush

[ECW]

This is exactly the position I hold. Send Bush the same bill until he either signs it or he has to pull the troops out of Iraq. Either way is fine with me.

WASHINGTON, May 6 (UPI) -- Former senator and Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Democrats should not negotiate with President George W. Bush on an Iraq funding bill.
The North Carolina Democrat and 2004 vice presidential candidate said Democrats should not back down and, in a television commercial that began airing last week, urged Congress to keep sending the same bill to the White House.

The House Wednesday sustained Bush's veto of a $124 billion bill to fund Iraq and Afghanistan operations, because it contained an Oct. 1 timetable for beginning the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq and other spending provisions.

"And the way for Congress to stand firm is to resubmit another bill funding the troops but with a timetable for withdrawal," Edwards said on ABC's "This Week" Sunday.

"My response is the American people spoke very clearly in the last election, said they wanted a different course in Iraq."

Edwards said Congress had the funding authority to end the war and "they did exactly what they should have done."

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/05/06/edwards_democrats_stand_firm_on_iraq/

[Elrathin]

I disagree with this fully and I will say why. We have checks and balances in this system. The president does not have Totalitarian rule and neither does congress. If a Bill get's vetoed by the president, if it is a bill that is worth passing, then the members of congress will then pass it regardless of what the president says.

I do not agree with a stall tactic such as this one to end the war. I say at this point, they change it without the deadline, send the bill back and have the president sign it and say that they tried but the president and other members of congress were unwilling.

If the people of the United States believe so strongly against the people that caused the bill to die, the people will vote them out of office. Our system of government may not be perfect, but I don't agree stalling until we are forced to pull out because of the stall tactic. It is not the way to go IMO and would be conceived as an abuse to the system which would ultimately cause a guaranteed Republican Victory in 2008.

[BoogyMan]

This is foolishness on a grand scale, and is indicative of the Murtha "impeach him if he doesn't sign our legislation" tactic. It is also terribly short sighted, making no effort to deal with the vacuum of leadership and protection when our forces are pulled out precipitously.

[Drocket]

But saying that Congress HAS to pass a bill Bush wants DOES mean that he has totalitarian control. Congress has no obligation to pass the sort of bill the president wants (lots and lots of cash, with absolutely no obligations of any kind), no matter how much Bush whines about being the commander guy.

[BoogyMan]

But saying that Congress HAS to pass a bill Bush wants DOES mean that he has totalitarian control. Congress has no obligation to pass the sort of bill the president wants (lots and lots of cash, with absolutely no obligations of any kind), no matter how much Bush whines about being the commander guy.


And saying that Bush HAS to sign a bill that congress wants DOES mean that congress has totalitarian control. The president certainly has no obligation to sign a bill that the democrats want, no matter how much democrats whine about there being "a new congress in town."

[lily]

I do not agree with a stall tactic such as this one to end the war.Â*Â*I say at this point, they change it without the deadline, send the bill back and have the president sign it and say that they tried but the president and other members of congress were unwilling.



See, I'm stuck on this. I don't believe there should be a deadline, but what there should be is if the government doesn't do something by a set date, we move out troops. If the Iraqi military doesn't start taking over major battles, we remove more troops.

Deadlines worked in all three elections.

This tactic has worked well with Iraq and personally I think this is what the Democratic leaders really wanted in the first place and I also think Bush does need to see some improvement in Iraq soon, he's going to be in a lot worse shape than he is now.

This way, both sides come out smelling like a rose.

[lily]

I do not agree with a stall tactic such as this one to end the war.Â*Â*I say at this point, they change it without the deadline, send the bill back and have the president sign it and say that they tried but the president and other members of congress were unwilling.




What I see hapening is date of withdrawl is taken out and benchmarks are put in. If the Iraqi government doesn't go something by a certain day, we pull out troops. If the Iraqi soldiers don't start doing some of the major fighting, we pull out more troops.

I really think this is what both the Democrats and Bush can agree to. It has to look like both sides gave something up and this way both can claim victory.

[Drocket]

And saying that Bush HAS to sign a bill that congress wants DOES mean that congress has totalitarian control. The president certainly has no obligation to sign a bill that the democrats want, no matter how much democrats whine about there being "a new congress in town."

He doesn't have to sign it. He can keep right on vetoing it. Of course, if he wants money to keep his little war going...

[BoogyMan]

And saying that Bush HAS to sign a bill that congress wants DOES mean that congress has totalitarian control. The president certainly has no obligation to sign a bill that the democrats want, no matter how much democrats whine about there being "a new congress in town."

He doesn't have to sign it. He can keep right on vetoing it. Of course, if he wants money to keep his little war going...


This shows just how little the left does actually care about what happens to our soldiers in Iraq and the fact that the left is willing to use them as a political pawn.

Sending a bill that they know will NOT get signed and faking dismay over the a known outcome was bad enough. What you are now advocating is disgusting. The platform of the left is now a combination of cut and run with some slow bleed thrown in.

[Elrathin]

This shows just how little the left does actually care about what happens to our soldiers in Iraq and the fact that the left is willing to use them as a political pawn.

Sending a bill that they know will NOT get signed and faking dismay over the a known outcome was bad enough. What you are now advocating is disgusting. The platform of the left is now a combination of cut and run with some slow bleed thrown in.


Boogy, while I don't agree with the tactic being used here, what truly is disgusting is a President who does not give one damn about the will of the people.

People are tired of this war in Iraq and that way it has been handled by this administration. The president works FOR THE PEOPLE, not the other way around.

[BoogyMan]

Boogy, while I don't agree with the tactic being used here, what truly is disgusting is a President who does not give one damn about the will of the people.

People are tired of this war in Iraq and that way it has been handled by this administration. The president works FOR THE PEOPLE, not the other way around.


I disagree. I don't think he has done a great job in this war, but not cutting and running because he has an understanding of what will happen if we do is the right thing to do.

[Stoner]

Edwards: Send The Same Bill Back To Bush


This is exactly what I would expect from an ambulance chaser who uses his wife's cancer to get votes.

Pathetic and disgusting.

[Elrathin]

I disagree. I don't think he has done a great job in this war, but not cutting and running because he has an understanding of what will happen if we do is the right thing to do.


Boogy if the majority of people are NOT for this war anymore than the President should follow that. Taxpayers money is being used for this and if the majority of people do not want it used for that anymore, than the that's it.

You are advocating that the President should somehow ignore the people in this matter and that is just wrong. The President works for the people and not the other way around.

[Elrathin]

Pathetic and disgusting.


Yes, this Presidency is pathetic and disgusting, see we agree on something after all LOL.

[BoogyMan]

I disagree. I don't think he has done a great job in this war, but not cutting and running because he has an understanding of what will happen if we do is the right thing to do.


Boogy if the majority of people are NOT for this war anymore than the President should follow that. Taxpayers money is being used for this and if the majority of people do not want it used for that anymore, than the that's it.

You are advocating that the President should somehow ignore the people in this matter and that is just wrong. The President works for the people and not the other way around.


El, if the majority of the people are constantly whipped into a lather by the left that we are doing nothing of value in the Middle East, which is a wholly subjective assessment, the president still has the reality of what a precipitous withdrawal will cause to weigh into his decisions. We leave now and things will be much worse throughout the world as a whole for our precipitous exit. Putting the emotionalism of your argument aside I know that you can see the truth of this argument if nothing else.

[Elrathin]

El, if the majority of the people are constantly whipped into a lather by the left that we are doing nothing of value in the Middle East, which is a wholly subjective assessment, the president still has the reality of what a precipitous withdrawal will cause to weigh into his decisions. We leave now and things will be much worse throughout the world as a whole for our precipitous exit. Putting the emotionalism of your argument aside I know that you can see the truth of this argument if nothing else.


Boogy, noone is arguing that things will get worse if we leave, but the argument is that if we stay the are STILL going to get worse in long run by staying there. The majority of the people believe that.

It's funny that Bush supporters can't see beyond the talking points of "cut and run" to see we are being standoffed by a bunch of rebels. The tactics in Iraq ARE NOT working Boogy. How many more American deaths do you need to realize that?

We are now fighting a guerrilla war Boogy, you do know the only 2 ways to win a war like that don't you? Well we sure in the hell aren't winning the hearts and minds of the people and we aren't just going to slaughter everyone in Iraq. So what do you propose to win?

[BoogyMan]

Boogy, noone is arguing that things will get worse if we leave, but the argument is that if we stay the are STILL going to get worse in long run by staying there. The majority of the people believe that.

It's funny that Bush supporters can't see beyond the talking points of "cut and run" to see we are being standoffed by a bunch of rebels. The tactics in Iraq ARE NOT working Boogy. How many more American deaths do you need to realize that?

We are now fighting a guerrilla war Boogy, you do know the only 2 ways to win a war like that don't you? Well we sure in the hell aren't winning the hearts and minds of the people and we aren't just going to slaughter everyone in Iraq. So what do you propose to win?


Talking points?? You post this and accuse me of falling back on talking points? I am focusing on the bigger picture of what the world will be like in a few years if we exit that country as the left wishes to do, without having completed the job. Leave the "how many more deaths" emotional appeals at the door El, war is never pretty and especially not a guerilla war with Al Queda feeding insurgent hatred.

I propose we let men like general Petraeus tell us when it is time to leave, not Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

[Mayberry]

What I see hapening is date of withdrawl is taken out and benchmarks are put in. If the Iraqi government doesn't go something by a certain day, we pull out troops. If the Iraqi soldiers don't start doing some of the major fighting, we pull out more troops.
I think Lily hit the nail on the head here. It's called a compromise, a foreign subject to most of you, I think. This compromise would accomplish two things: It would force the Iraqis to stand on their own two feet, to sink or swim on their own, and it would allow us to finish the job we started, which was to free Iraq, in case anyone has forgotten. We will have accomplished our objective, and Iraq will have gained their freedom and independence. If the Iraqi government was smart, the first thing they'd do is to seal their borders to quell the insurgency, then start pumping oil like madmen to get their economy really rolling. A wealthy population is a happy population, with something to stand for and defend. They need to seize the opportunity at hand. The outcome can only be positive for them.

[Elrathin]

I am focusing on the bigger picture of what the world will be like in a few years if we exit that country as the left wishes to do, without having completed the job. Leave the "how many more deaths" emotional appeals at the door El, war is never pretty and especially not a guerilla war with Al Queda feeding insurgent hatred.


I am focusing on the big picture as well. We have helped Al-Qaeda recruit more people THAN EVER Boogy. We are FEEDING them just by being there.

As for the deaths, I will not, and neither are the majority of people. Maybe you don't care who dies for the Iraq war, but I do. You say the left doesn't support the troops, yet all I see is the right pushing for the troops to stay and die. Some support. :rolleyes:

[BoogyMan]

I am focusing on the bigger picture of what the world will be like in a few years if we exit that country as the left wishes to do, without having completed the job. Leave the "how many more deaths" emotional appeals at the door El, war is never pretty and especially not a guerilla war with Al Queda feeding insurgent hatred.


I am focusing on the big picture as well. We have helped Al-Qaeda recruit more people THAN EVER Boogy. We are FEEDING them just by being there.

As for the deaths, I will not, and neither are the majority of people. Maybe you don't care who dies for the Iraq war, but I do. You say the left doesn't support the troops, yet all I see is the right pushing for the troops to stay and die. Some support. :rolleyes:


What the left seems to want is the immediate gratification of a pullout of the troops from Iraq without any deference or concern for the world-wide consequences El.

[Elrathin]

What the left seems to want is the immediate gratification of a pullout of the troops from Iraq without any deference or concern for the world-wide consequences El.


I love when you use terms like "immediate gratification". Yes Boogy, we on the left just love gratifying ourselves, that must be it. :rolleyes: It couldn't be the fact that there are no real gains in this war and that Al-Qaeda, a rag tag army, is currently still operating in Iraq still despite the efforts of a SUPER-POWER like the U.S. could it? It couldn't be that we have not convinced the people of Iraq AS A WHOLE to stand up to Al-Qaeada has it? Of course those on the right can't handle the fact their war isn't going well at all, they have too big of egos that need to be satisfied with American Soldiers Dead.

This does not change the fact that the right shouts as loud as they can "We must stay no matter the costs, no matter how much in debt it puts us and no matter how many soldiers die". Sorry there is a little bit of reality that war COSTS MONEY and we simply do not have the means to keep fighting this war to satisfy the war lust of the right.

And last but not least, the simple fact that the right hates to hear. The left want the soldiers to come home alive while the right wishes to keep them there dying. Nice support.

[BoogyMan]

I love when you use terms like "immediate gratification". Yes Boogy, we on the left just love gratifying ourselves, that must be it.

You need to then speak to the issue of why the left is demanding a pullout knowing full well that it will leave behind a pit of vipers we will have to deal with on the world stage rather than a remote part of the world.

It couldn't be the fact that there are no real gains in this war and that Al-Qaeda, a rag tag army, is currently still operating in Iraq still despite the efforts of a SUPER-POWER like the U.S. could it?

You must be correct El, your desire for us to fail must mean that it is so.

It couldn't be that we have not convinced the people of Iraq AS A WHOLE to stand up to Al-Qaeada has it? Of course those on the right can't handle the fact their war isn't going well at all, they have too big of egos that need to be satisfied with American Soldiers Dead.

War is ugly and you know it. We, America, have been at war on three front for these past few years. One in Iraq, one in Afghanistan, and one here at home where the left has done everything in its power to undermine our efforts for their own political gain.

This does not change the fact that the right shouts as loud as they can "We must stay no matter the costs, no matter how much in debt it puts us and no matter how many soldiers die". Sorry there is a little bit of reality that war COSTS MONEY and we simply do not have the means to keep fighting this war to satisfy the war lust of the right.

I don't know of anyone on the right saying those things El, I do know of a bunch of lefty bloggers screaming those lies at the top of their lungs. What I hear on the right is that we either finish it or it finishes us. But don't let the truth stand in the way of that chest thumping you are doing.

And last but not least, the simple fact that the right hates to hear. The left want the soldiers to come home alive while the right wishes to keep them there dying. Nice support.

Ah yes, the standard appeal to emotion lie. Not really worthy of much of a response.

[Drocket]

The primary problem that you have to face, Boogy, is that we simply don't have the troops necessary to stablize a country as big as Iraq. If we had another half-million troops, and were willing to deploy them to Iraq for a decade or so, then MAYBE we could make some progress. We don't, we won't, and we can't. With any level of troop deployment we may possibly be capable of sending to Iraq, the only question is a matter of how long we can stretch things out before we lose outright and a driven from the country. And that day is coming fast - even the green zone, despite having the highest concentration of US troops in Iraq and having gotten many more with the surge, isn't safe anymore.

Our troops aren't dying over there to "win" in Iraq (and nobody even tries to define what "winning" would be, anymore): our troops are dying to drag things out until after Bush leaves office and everything can be blamed on his (Democratic) successor.

[Elrathin]

You need to then speak to the issue of why the left is demanding a pullout knowing full well that it will leave behind a pit of vipers we will have to deal with on the world stage rather than a remote part of the world.

and you need to then speak to the issue of why the right is demanding that we stay full well knowing that it will only cause more terrorist attacks on civilians and that the civilians no longer trust us for us to "win the hearts and minds for".


You must be correct El, your desire for us to fail must mean that it is so.

That's real cute considering I fought in the war, did you Boogy? Nice RepubliCON talking point though. Useless, but cute. I have no desire for us to fail, just I live in a reality that we aren't winning the war and the people have lost faith in us.

Now tell me Boogy, what have you done for the war against terror besides sit behind your computer and bitch about the left?


War is ugly and you know it. We, America, have been at war on three front for these past few years. One in Iraq, one in Afghanistan, and one here at home where the left has done everything in its power to undermine our efforts for their own political gain.

LOL the left has done nothing to undermine the efforts of the war, only point out the flaws of this administrations obvious errors and lack of ability to manage the job that is needed.

And let's not forget that war in Iraq was this administrations choice instead of finishing the one in Afghanistan first. Now we are hearing reports of Taliban returning and even rising to positions of power again. Another botched up job by this administration to manage a war.


I don't know of anyone on the right saying those things El, I do know of a bunch of lefty bloggers screaming those lies at the top of their lungs. What I hear on the right is that we either finish it or it finishes us. But don't let the truth stand in the way of that chest thumping you are doing.


Yes, you would rather let ego dictate procedure instead of reality. A dangerous and idiotic plan indeed. As for truth, your little snippits of the left are as false as the reports Saddam has STOCKPILES of information so don't let the truth get in YOUR way.


Ah yes, the standard appeal to emotion lie. Not really worthy of much of a response.


Yes we know with the right human lives aren't worthy much, that is why you would rather let your egos keep soldiers dying when you yourselves don't have to fight the war.

[lily]

This shows just how little the left does actually care about what happens to our soldiers in Iraq and the fact that the left is willing to use them as a political pawn.

Yet you don't even consider the fact that Bush is also using the soldiers as political pawns? Ok, both sides have drawn their line in the sand, the only thing to do now is compromise, as in any negotioation you start high and go lower. If you can't see this Boogy, then you truly are blinded by partisanship.

Sending a bill that they know will NOT get signed and faking dismay over the a known outcome was bad enough.Â*Â*What you are now advocating is disgusting.Â*Â*The platform of the left is now a combination of cut and run with some slow bleed thrown in.

Cut and run and slow bleed.....ah the "talking points" of the month club. You see what has been forgotten in your tunnel vision is that Bush is also against shorter depolyments, longer stays at home in between these longer deployments, better training and full equipment for the forces that you want to stay there until another president gets in office and cleans up this disaster. Why should anyone continue to give this administration free reign to do as he pleases, when we have seen just what he has done?

.......and while I'm on my little rant......why the hell should we be fighting to make it safe for the Iraqi government to actually govern, when they are taking 2-3 months off and the Sunni's not only are thinking about pulling out, but refuse to come to Washington to talk? This is what you want the best and brightest of Americans to be doing?

[Stoner]

Yet you don't even consider the fact that Bush is also using the soldiers as political pawns

Very liberal opinion you have there.

[BoogyMan]

Yet you don't even consider the fact that Bush is also using the soldiers as political pawns? Ok, both sides have drawn their line in the sand, the only thing to do now is compromise, as in any negotioation you start high and go lower. If you can't see this Boogy, then you truly are blinded by partisanship.

I can work with compromise, but that hasn't been the part of the discussion in the public arena, there has been little more than the "new sherrif in town" garbage and a blind refusal to understand the gravity of a precipitous withdrawal.

Cut and run and slow bleed.....ah the "talking points" of the month club. You see what has been forgotten in your tunnel vision is that Bush is also against shorter depolyments, longer stays at home in between these longer deployments, better training and full equipment for the forces that you want to stay there until another president gets in office and cleans up this disaster. Why should anyone continue to give this administration free reign to do as he pleases, when we have seen just what he has done?

Bwahahahahahahahah, you answer what you call talking points with DNC talking points. Thanks for the giggle. :)

We aren't talking about free reign lily, we are talking about not running out of Iraq in a precipitous fashion with no concern for what such a vacuum of leadership would cause.

.......and while I'm on my little rant......why the hell should we be fighting to make it safe for the Iraqi government to actually govern, when they are taking 2-3 months off and the Sunni's not only are thinking about pulling out, but refuse to come to Washington to talk? This is what you want the best and brightest of Americans to be doing?

Until the military situation is stabilized I don't see that the political one can make much progress. Enjoy the rant as I am sure that there is much that you and I don't know about what is going on and I will choose not to play into the hands of the media on this one and will as Tony Snow said "wait and see."

[Drocket]

Wherein 'liberal' means 'realistic', yep.

[lily]

Yet you don't even consider the fact that Bush is also using the soldiers as political pawns

Very liberal opinion you have there.


Thank you!

[lily]

I can work with compromise, but that hasn't been the part of the discussion in the public arena, there has been little more than the "new sherrif in town" garbage and a blind refusal to understand the gravity of a precipitous withdrawal.

Well, that says a lot about where you are getting your information. I suggest that you branch out and give Fox a break. You see the Democrats (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/washington/story/8C78F382D9976969862572CA0013E91C?OpenDocument) are willing to compromise, but the Repbulicans are the ones that are stonewalling. What was that about pawns?



Bwahahahahahahahah, you answer what you call talking points with DNC talking points.Â*Â*Thanks for the giggle. :)

Oh...ok.....I see where the problem is now. You don't know the difference between talking points and what else isÂ*Â*actually in the bill. Thanks for clearing that up.

We aren't talking about free reign lily, we are talking about not running out of Iraq in a precipitous fashion with no concern for what such a vacuum of leadership would cause.

Again, I suggest that you read the bill. No one, not even those evil Democrats are saying pull all of the troops out and let the Iraqis fend for themselves.


Until the military situation is stabilized I don't see that the political one can make much progress.Â*Â*Enjoy the rant as I am sure that there is much that you and I don't know about what is going on and I will choose not to play into the hands of the media on this one and will as Tony Snow said "wait and see."

Oh, ok........I'm sure once it's stabilized the Iraqi government will cut their vacations short and leave their villas and run right back to Iraq....Oh, wait, what was that you said about cut and run and running out of Iraq? Come on Boogy, if the elected officials don't even care, why should I?

[wonder cow]

Politically speaking, Edwards is 100% correct. Bush and his bunch are bullies, and the only way to deal with them is to shove that bill right back in their face.

Of course, policy wise this political tactic will result in a compromise, which considering the inherent powers of the presidency in regard to the military is the best congress can hope for until Bush is out of office.

In the meantime, Bush will continue painting congress’ action as a betrayal of the troops and congress will call Bush’s position as being counter to the position of the American people.

[BoogyMan]

Well, that says a lot about where you are getting your information. I suggest that you branch out and give Fox a break. You see the Democrats (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/washington/story/8C78F382D9976969862572CA0013E91C?OpenDocument) are willing to compromise, but the Repbulicans are the ones that are stonewalling. What was that about pawns?

I guess I should expect this from you by now, but it still always surprises me. I don't actually watch much TV, I find it puerile and base. What you are glossing over in your treatment of this situation is that compromise is only compromise if you give something up and not disguise it under another name knowing that it will be unacceptable.

As for the pawns commentary, I don't remember mentioning pawns, I could have, but don't remember it.

Oh...ok.....I see where the problem is now. You don't know the difference between talking points and what else is actually in the bill. Thanks for clearing that up.

I know the bill that was vetoed quite well Lily, and unlike the left, I understand the ramifications of the fools errand the left has laid out in its verbage.

Again, I suggest that you read the bill. No one, not even those evil Democrats are saying pull all of the troops out and let the Iraqis fend for themselves.

Getting our troops out of there in the period of time between October and the following March IS what we are talking about and it IS a precipitous, self serving, and foolish thing to do.

Oh, ok........I'm sure once it's stabilized the Iraqi government will cut their vacations short and leave their villas and run rught back to Iraq....Oh, wait, what was that you said about cut and run and running out of Iraq? Come on Booby, if the elected officials don't even care, why should I?


Wow, name calling. Thanks for that too.

[lily]

I guess I should expect this from you by now, but it still always surprises me.Â*Â*I don't actually watch much TV, I find it puerile and base.Â*Â*What you are glossing over in your treatment of this situation is that compromise is only compromise if you give something up and not disguise it under another name knowing that it will be unacceptable.

Well, as the new thread I just started states the ball is now again in Bush's corner. But I still have to ask you...if only one side is willing to compromise, is it still a compromise?

As for the pawns commentary, I don't remember mentioning pawns, I could have, but don't remember it.

Post #9


Wow, name calling.Â*Â*Thanks for that too.

For crying out loud, it was a typo, which I corrected. If it's gotten to this point already, boogy color me done. Egads!

[BoogyMan]

Well, as the new thread I just started states the ball is now again in Bush's corner. But I still have to ask you...if only one side is willing to compromise, is it still a compromise?

What if one side isn't actually compromising but is redefining the same old foolishness under a different name desirous of the exact same outcome.

Hmmmmm.

Post #9

I found it. Thanks for the post #. I stand behind that comment 100%.


Wow, name calling. Thanks for that too.

For crying out loud, it was a typo, which I corrected. If it's gotten to this point already, boogy color me done. Egads!


Glad you cleared that up Lily, you typed it not me, so I wouldn't get to excited over my pointing it out. :D

You have to now get your own word to express exasperation, egads is mine.

[Pookie]

Ok, so where's Bush's Plan B? The surge isn't working and the troops are still over there.
So, where is Plan B?
Or was this thought out in the beginning?
Just asking. I haven't seen any answers.
Purrs,

[potter]

This shows just how little the left does actually care about what happens to our soldiers in Iraq and the fact that the left is willing to use them as a political pawn.




And manipulating intelligence and lying about motivators so that you can send men and women off to die is caring for the soldiers? They shouldn't even be over there. You folks sent them over there for no justifyable reason and almost 3400 are dead because of it.

The right wing's days are over, ya'll messed up and messed up badly with your greed and arrogance. You would be kings but you got greedy and lost all honor in the process.

[BoogyMan]

And manipulating intelligence and lying about motivators so that you can send men and women off to die is caring for the soldiers? They shouldn't even be over there. You folks sent them over there for no justifyable reason and almost 3400 are dead because of it.

Once again Potter, prove they were lies. Nobody on the left has ever been able to do this but they sure seem to like to speak about it in a definitive fashion.

Other world governments had it wrong too.

The right wing's days are over, ya'll messed up and messed up badly with your greed and arrogance. You would be kings but you got greedy and lost all honor in the process.


We shall see, you like to spread those greed an arrogance comments around, but your own party is walking the same isle.

[ECW]

And manipulating intelligence and lying about motivators so that you can send men and women off to die is caring for the soldiers? They shouldn't even be over there.Â*Â*You folks sent them over there for no justifyable reason and almost 3400 are dead because of it.

Once again Potter, prove they were lies.Â*Â*Nobody on the left has ever been able to do this but they sure seem to like to speak about it in a definitive fashion.

Other world governments had it wrong too.

Right here is your proof. (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=4873)

[BoogyMan]

Right here is your proof. (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=4873)


A partisan effort on the part of Dick Durbin is proof? Thanks for playing ECW.

[Elrathin]

A partisan effort on the part of Dick Durbin is proof?


LOL It's more solid than the reasons we went into Iraq, that is for sure.

[Saigio]

A partisan effort on the part of Dick Durbin is proof?


LOL It's more solid than the reasons we went into Iraq, that is for sure.


Gas is more solid then those reasons, El.

[ECW]

Right here is your proof. (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=4873)


A partisan effort on the part of Dick Durbin is proof?Â*Â*Thanks for playing ECW.


Your trouble is that anyone that is on the other side of the aisle from you is automatically tagged with a "partisan" label and you hope that THAT will discredit them enough to a point you won't have to provide contrary proof.

You wanted proof that the Bushies manipulated the intel. I could whip out pages of circumstantial evidence that proves my case but I decided to go for the jugular. You see, in a court of law, the physical evidence is the best evidence. There is plenty of that. Then comes eyewitness accounts in levels of importance followed by circumstatial evidence. There is plenty of physical evidence and circumstatial evidence about the lies this administration told to get us into this war. Dick Durban is an eyewitness.

You can call him a partisan all you want but unless you can provide another eyewitness from the Intelligence Committee or someone that can directly counter the claims that Durban made, you are just howling in the wind, pal. You got nothing.

[BoogyMan]

Your trouble is that anyone that is on the other side of the aisle from you is automatically tagged with a "partisan" label and you hope that THAT will discredit them enough to a point you won't have to provide contrary proof.

Interesting way of avoiding a debate ECW. You and I both know very well that Durbin is and always has been an abject partisan.

You wanted proof that the Bushies manipulated the intel. I could whip out pages of circumstantial evidence that proves my case but I decided to go for the jugular. You see, in a court of law, the physical evidence is the best evidence. There is plenty of that. Then comes eyewitness accounts in levels of importance followed by circumstatial evidence. There is plenty of physical evidence and circumstatial evidence about the lies this administration told to get us into this war. Dick Durban is an eyewitness.

You can call him a partisan all you want but unless you can provide another eyewitness from the Intelligence Committee or someone that can directly counter the claims that Durban made, you are just howling in the wind, pal. You got nothing.

Lets make sure we don't bring up all the other countries who thought they were there as well, that would simply destroy your case. The radical left likes to completely overlook that one when tossing bombs.

Now, what does this have to do with the funding of the troops to do their jobs ECW?

[potter]

We shall see, you like to spread those greed an arrogance comments around, but your own party is walking the same isle.



What is my party Boogy?

[BoogyMan]

We shall see, you like to spread those greed an arrogance comments around, but your own party is walking the same isle.



What is my party Boogy?


Maybe I should have said "those who think along the same lines as the left of center." :)

[wonder cow]

Politically speaking, Edwards is 100% correct. Bush and his bunch are bullies, and the only way to deal with them is to shove that bill right back in their face.

Of course, policy wise this political tactic will result in a compromise

*Pats self on back*

[ECW]

Your trouble is that anyone that is on the other side of the aisle from you is automatically tagged with a "partisan" label and you hope that THAT will discredit them enough to a point you won't have to provide contrary proof.

Interesting way of avoiding a debate ECW.Â*Â*You and I both know very well that Durbin is and always has been an abject partisan.

You wanted proof that the Bushies manipulated the intel. I could whip out pages of circumstantial evidence that proves my case but I decided to go for the jugular. You see, in a court of law, the physical evidence is the best evidence. There is plenty of that. Then comes eyewitness accounts in levels of importance followed by circumstatial evidence. There is plenty of physical evidence and circumstatial evidence about the lies this administration told to get us into this war. Dick Durban is an eyewitness.

You can call him a partisan all you want but unless you can provide another eyewitness from the Intelligence Committee or someone that can directly counter the claims that Durban made, you are just howling in the wind, pal. You got nothing.

Lets make sure we don't bring up all the other countries who thought they were there as well, that would simply destroy your case.Â*Â*The radical left likes to completely overlook that one when tossing bombs.

Now, what does this have to do with the funding of the troops to do their jobs ECW?


Ah, Boogy, I never avoid any debate but if it makes you happy to think so then knock yourself out. You still have not provided any proof that Durbin was lying or was otherwise untruthful. All those other governments got the intel that Bush wanted them to have, NOT what he got or what Durbin got and was sworn to secrecy over. I don't overlook anything and if I throw a bomb your way, amigo, you'll know it.

What does this have to do with funding the troops? I have no idea but it was you that brought the issue up, not me. I just answered your comment from right here:


And manipulating intelligence and lying about motivators so that you can send men and women off to die is caring for the soldiers? They shouldn't even be over there.Â*Â*You folks sent them over there for no justifyable reason and almost 3400 are dead because of it.

Once again Potter, prove they were lies.Â*Â*Nobody on the left has ever been able to do this but they sure seem to like to speak about it in a definitive fashion.

Other world governments had it wrong too.

[tomanyhumans]

There is no good reason to stay in Irag, no matter what the consequences of leaving are. It was wrong to go there in the first place which means everything after that is wrong. The sooner we get out the better. If there is a civil war - so be it.

[Truth_and_Power]

Lily Said:
" If the Iraqi soldiers don't start doing some of the major fighting,"

Yeah and they will want the benchmarks worded just like that. And who will evaluate the targets with the progress? I guarantee that whatever benchmarks are put in there will be met in a most unsatisfactory way amid much argument.

I agree with whomever said that Bush & Co are a bunch of bullies and need their tactics shoved back in their faces. Bush's idea of compromise is saying someone else has "concerns" and then holding out until he gets exactly what he wants. About the only instance of this not happening was harriet meiers.

It's really nice to see that SOMEONE from the democratic party besides Al Sharpton the Big Joke is advocating the democrats acting with some kind of backbone.

[Truth_and_Power]

There is no good reason to stay in Irag, no matter what the consequences of leaving are. It was wrong to go there in the first place which means everything after that is wrong. The sooner we get out the better. If there is a civil war - so be it.


If there is, atleast the arab conspiracy nuts can't say we're orchestrating it. Of course, they'll hate us anyway.

[Pookie]

Dang, the Bush administration even admitted there was "mistaken intelligence" and so what's the debate here? Bush even said he made mistakes.
There is no question. We need to get them out of there and give the Iraqis their country, and let them deal with it.
Purrs,

[lily]

Yeah and they will want the benchmarks worded just like that. And who will evaluate the targets with the progress? I guarantee that whatever benchmarks are put in there will be met in a most unsatisfactory way amid much argument.

I'm not sure what you mean when you ask who will evaluate. The benchmark would be met, when Iraqis start taking over the fighting and our soldiers come home. For example, when it is time for a soldier to come home an Iraqi takes his place instead of extending that soldiers turn. When troops are to be sent over to replace, Iraqi troops replace instead.

[Truth_and_Power]

Yeah and they will want the benchmarks worded just like that.Â*Â*And who will evaluate the targets with the progress?Â*Â*I guarantee that whatever benchmarks are put in there will be met in a most unsatisfactory way amid much argument.

I'm not sure what you mean when you ask who will evaluate. The benchmark would be met, when Iraqis start taking over the fighting and our soldiers come home. For example, when it is time for a soldier to come home an Iraqi takes his place instead of extending that soldiers turn. When troops are to be sent over to replace, Iraqi troops replace instead.


Well if the benchmark is something quantifiable like "# of u.s. troops in theatre" and those troops are not being replaced with ex-military u.s. contractors, then perhaps the benchmarks would work. But I have a lot of confidence that whatever these benchmarks are, they will be totally manipulated and whoever does the judging will get the result they want.

[lily]

Well, you may be right there, Truth and past experience tells me you probably are......but we won't know until it happens. One thing that I have noticed is since the last veto and Bush now "seeing the light", he hasn't been in front of every camera in sight saying he's going to veto the new bill.

[Truth_and_Power]

Well, you may be right there, Truth and past experience tells me you probably are......but we won't know until it happens. One thing that I have noticed is since the last veto and Bush now "seeing the light", he hasn't been in front of every camera in sight saying he's going to veto the new bill.


He's not going to have to, he's going to get something he can work with this time. And by work with, I mean exploit.