Senate approves withdrawal (from Iraq)

Too bad they won't be able to override the imminent veto


Edited by Benjichang - 26 April 2007 at 3:10pm

fixed

I thought this was funny:

article wrote: The bill may be presented to him on Tuesday, the fourth anniversary of his speech declaring the battle of Iraq a "victory" in the war on terror.

Edited by Benjichang - 26 April 2007 at 3:04pm

Why would they approve such a bad form of birth control.

Withdrawal does not work, if it did, I would not be here.

I was curious. Doesnt them telling the President, The Commander and Chief, how to RUN a WAR, go against the constitution? It just doesnt make sense? They have no right to run the war. If they feel the war should end, they should cut funding. That is their responsibility, not telling the president how the war should be won. They dont even listen to the Generals who are in command who are professionals who are THERE. Congress takes a day trip to Iraq and BAM, they know everything. Including republicans who go over there. The only ones who should be running the war are the generals. If Congress doesnt like that then cut the funding. Its that simple. But they dont have the balls to do it, so they come up with some phony bill with deadlines and stupid crap of the sort forcing the President to Veto it, so when there is no Money they can play politics with my friends lives and say see Mr. President you did this to them, we authorized the money and you vetoed it.

Kristofer wrote: The only ones who should be running the war are the generals.

Umm...

Thats somewhat scary. I don't think that is a good system to go by at all.

Well Congress can't check the president if he vetoes everything.

Benjichang wrote: I just had an insight about this. If it's going to take us so long to get Iraq back on its feet, as Bush keeps saying, then why was this war sold to us as being a quick victory. I can recall no one saying that we were going to be in Iraq for years, especially after "Mission Accomplished" If I am wrong, someone please correct me.

Do you ever recall anyone saying 'Oh boy! This is going to be over in no time! Rebuilding Iraq is going to be a snap!'?

Dune wrote: Well if they cut the funding, then the President has an easy blame. They give him a timetable, then there's leniency to correct his mistakes. There are some senators that have more of an idea as to how to run the war, being as they were in the military, than the President does.

Is this about blame? Does blame have anything to do with the way this country is run? If congress cut the funding on the military, the check and balance would have worked the way it was intended to work, If the Democratic controlled Congress is afraid to do what they beleive they should do if Bush won't do it for them, in the face of public backlash, are they really doing the bidding of the People that supposedly elected them last year for this purpose? If they really want to do their jobs the way they were elected, they should grow the testicular fortitude that it takes to deliver on the promises that got them into office. Bush has, sticking to what he beleives is the right thing to do, regardless of the fickle nature of public opinion, driven by the urging of a biased media.

Remember peeps, indaviduals can be unique, wonderful and amazing, but the People are stupid, ignorant, easily swayed and prone to panic.

Edited by c4cypher - 26 April 2007 at 4:32pm

Benjichang wrote: Well Congress can't check the president if he vetoes everything.

2/3 vote overrides a veto bud.

Benjichang wrote: WGP guy2 wrote: Benjichang wrote: Well Congress can't check the president if he vetoes everything. 2/3 vote overrides a veto bud. I am aware. This particular bill passed the House and Senate. GW said he would veto it. The necessary vote for an override won't happen. Things have been so close lately, that if the president vetoes something, that's the end of it.

Well that doesn't mean the checks and balances aren't working.  In fact, it means they are working exactly how they were designed to.

WGP guy2 wrote: Benjichang wrote: WGP guy2 wrote: Benjichang wrote: Well Congress can't check the president if he vetoes everything. 2/3 vote overrides a veto bud. I am aware. This particular bill passed the House and Senate. GW said he would veto it. The necessary vote for an override won't happen. Things have been so close lately, that if the president vetoes something, that's the end of it. Well that doesn't mean the checks and balances aren't working.  In fact, it means they are working exactly how they were designed to.

It's just dumb that this is what most of the people want, yet just because the pres. doesn't agree with it, he will veto it. It's like Bush doesn't even care about what everyone else wants. Too damn stubborn to admit he was wrong. I just wish the administration could at least acknowledge that this is a concern among many Americans and maybe compromise just a bit.