quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b

I'm still waiting for an honest answer as to why Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded in the first place.

Not that I'm holding my breath, like..

Revenge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well Hunter there is the matter of millions of dollars worth of equipment,despite what some might think we do not have unlimited airlift capability's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

Why,exactly, are we in Afghanistan? Or any of the other 40 odd countries around the world?
Bring em home let all of "those" folks solve their own problems.  The U.N. is the worlds police force not the U.S.  That is one of the reasons the U.N. was formed.
 
H.
 

The UN is impotent without us and our military.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

No absolute pull-out or defunding bill ever reached the president's desk. Why ? Because it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture of a fillibuster that isn't a filibuster at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
        Load of crap, Rodg.  The President would have the ability to veto legislation that made his desk, but they didn't need any such legislation.  They (the Dems) kept right on opening the purse they could have simply kept closed.  

        Every single morning the Dem majority in the House woke up, they had the power to cut off the money.  They've woken up almost 700 times, and then gone to bed that night without doing it.

quote:

Bush has repeatedly expressed his intent to divert other funds to keep troops in iraq even if Congress refused to fund it.

Furthermore the GOP would surely have spun any attempt to force a pull out by defunding the occupation into "the dems don't support the troops!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

No absolute pull-out or defunding bill ever reached the president's desk. Why ? Because it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture of a fillibuster that isn't a filibuster at all.

        Load of crap, Rodg.  The President would have the ability to veto legislation that made his desk, but they didn't need any such legislation.  They (the Dems) kept right on opening the purse they could have simply kept closed.  

        Every single morning the Dem majority in the House woke up, they had the power to cut off the money.  They've woken up almost 700 times, and then gone to bed that night without doing it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

Just curious but if  US troops are still fighting in Iraq say in 2010 will "you"
still till be supporting the democrats and Obama and the mission?

I will almost certainly support whatever decision President elect Obama makes.
Just as all the Bush supporters have stood behind the Commander in Chief for
the last 8 years that we have been in Iraq.
We all know that after almost a 10 year war, we can't just run out of there, now
can we?

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Bush has repeatedly expressed his intent to divert other funds to keep troops in iraq even if Congress refused to fund it.

Furthermore the GOP would surely have spun any attempt to force a pull out by defunding the occupation into "the dems don't support the troops!"

So the Democrats in Congress, for fear of what Bush might do, shrank from doing what they presumably believed was right?

Wonderful display of political leadership, that.  Such awesome strength and character.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
Just like the political reality that saw 61% of House Democrats oppose the Iraq War Resolution while only 3% of House Republicans did likewise.  The Senate was even more interesting as 42% of 50 Democrats voted against the war while only 1 Republican out of 49 did the same.

Let me highlight the math a little more.  Out of 272 Republican members of the House and Senate just 7 voted against authorizing the war.

Now talk to me some more about political leadership and strength of character.

quote:

the Democratic-controlled Congress is the one political entity held in lower esteem (and greater contempt) than President Bush

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
Just like the political reality that saw 61% of House Democrats oppose the Iraq War Resolution while only 3% of House Republicans did likewise.  The Senate was even more interesting as 42% of 50 Democrats voted against the war while only 1 Republican out of 49 did the same.

Let me highlight the math a little more.  Out of 272 Republican members of the House and Senate just 7 voted against authorizing the war.

Now talk to me some more about political leadership and strength of character.

Your math, while impressive, is irrelevant.  The inherent presumption in a vote is that the person voting is sincere in how he or she votes.  Are you prepared to argue that the Republicans who voted for the resolution did not believe at the time they were doing the right thing?  Even if they had cause to alter their opinion after the fact, that does not render the vote inherently unprincipled merely because you disagree with the war.

On the other hand, for Democrats to complain about not being able to take a stand on their principles for fear of what Bush might do, and how they simply must have a veto-proof majority in order to advance any legislation, when they already possess a majority in both houses, is political cowardice, pure and simple.

The Democrats could easily have refused to pass any funding bill on Iraq--Bush cannot veto legislation that is not presented for his signature.  They could easily have taken to the airwaves to argue before the public that starving the troops of funding was the only way to bring them home--that would be a principled position. 

They did not do either; what they have done since 2006 is complain about how big bad Bush bullies them around, and how only a Democrat in the White House would put things to right.  That is neither principled nor courageous; it is ethically bankrupt and completely cowardly.

And it is why the Democratic-controlled Congress is the one political entity held in lower esteem (and greater contempt) than President Bush.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112


Your math, while impressive, is irrelevant.  The inherent presumption in a vote is that the person voting is sincere in how he or she votes.  Are you prepared to argue that the Republicans who voted for the resolution did not believe at the time they were doing the right thing?  Even if they had cause to alter their opinion after the fact, that does not render the vote inherently unprincipled merely because you disagree with the war.

On the other hand, for Democrats to complain about not being able to take a stand on their principles for fear of what Bush might do, and how they simply must have a veto-proof majority in order to advance any legislation, when they already possess a majority in both houses, is political cowardice, pure and simple.

The Democrats could easily have refused to pass any funding bill on Iraq--Bush cannot veto legislation that is not presented for his signature.  They could easily have taken to the airwaves to argue before the public that starving the troops of funding was the only way to bring them home--that would be a principled position. 

They did not do either; what they have done since 2006 is complain about how big bad Bush bullies them around, and how only a Democrat in the White House would put things to right.  That is neither principled nor courageous; it is ethically bankrupt and completely cowardly.

And it is why the Democratic-controlled Congress is the one political entity held in lower esteem (and greater contempt) than President Bush.

quote:


The same low approval ratings and contempt the public had for the Republican-controlled Congress before 2006.

quote:

And yes, I am prepared to argue that the Republicans who voted for the war resolution were not acting in good conscience, just as you are arguing that Democrats have not in failing to end the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Don`t ever expect or look for a straight answer from this guy.

quote:

So it is your contention the Democrats needed to show political courage by opening themselves up to a charge of "not supporting the troops" knowing in the end it would accomplish nothing except guarenteeing defeat at the polls.