General Odom says withdrawl is the only solution

cawacko said:
I agree with you but let me ask you this. Republicans got smoked in the '06 mid-term elections and the familiar reframe was the American people want a different direction in the war. If it was not pulling out what do you think it was? (not a rhetorical question nor attempting to ask it in a condescending tone).
Click to expand...

I think most Americans want us out of there. I think there is probably broad disagreement on how that exit should come about, though; I think '06 was about wanting a competing voice in the government to counter what was being seen more & more as a failed policy & failed management by the admin.

I think that most Americans would not support cutting off funding; I don't think that's what they had in mind with the '06 election. I think that most Americans were hoping that the admin might actually work with the new majority on a compromise plan to get us out of Iraq, or start us down that road.
 
cawacko said:
Why wait for tomorrow for what you can say today? The Dems are in control of Congress and we are not withdrawing from Iraq. It is their fault.
Click to expand...
Can't override a Presidential veto, they do not have 2/3's vote in the Senate to do such....why continue to waste the time on Congress when this has been made clear....is how I look at it?

The President can veto appropriation bills also...and one defunding the war would surely be vetoed and the repubs would all hold hands and not break with the President on that either, thus the veto could not be over ridden... and another waste of time.... other than some kind of political posturing in an election year from both sides of the aisle on it...?

care
 
Care4all said:
Can't override a Presidential veto, they do not have 2/3's vote in the Senate to do such....why continue to waste the time on Congress when this has been made clear....is how I look at it?

The President can veto appropriation bills also...and one defunding the war would surely be vetoed and the repubs would all hold hands and not break with the President on that either, thus the veto could not be over ridden... and another waste of time.... other than some kind of political posturing in an election year from both sides of the aisle on it...?

care
Click to expand...

I was being facetious and just playing with citizen.
 
People talk about the '06 election & what it meant. I think if Americans WERE speaking with one voice, it was simply saying to the President, "This isn't working. We want you to work with this new Congress & get our troops out of Iraq." They assumed that he was a normal human being, who is capable of getting a message.

He isn't. He is "the decider," and this "regular folks" guy has nothing but contempt for the American voter. He knows best; he always has, and always will. He has said that even if only Laura & his dog Barney agree with him, he's still sticking to his guns.

We have elected a man who is dangerously unstable & delusional to a 2-term tenure...
 
Care4all said:
Can't override a Presidential veto, they do not have 2/3's vote in the Senate to do such....why continue to waste the time on Congress when this has been made clear....is how I look at it?

The President can veto appropriation bills also...and one defunding the war would surely be vetoed and the repubs would all hold hands and not break with the President on that either, thus the veto could not be over ridden... and another waste of time.... other than some kind of political posturing in an election year from both sides of the aisle on it...?

care
Click to expand...

1) Good to see you again.

2) You are incorrect. The funding can be cut off with a simple majority. The President cannot force Congress to fund anything.


Socrtease... the " Bush would leave the troops to die" is simply opinion. He would be strung up if he attempted to leave the troops there without funding, weapons, ammo etc... I know that is a convenient excuse for the Dems inaction on something they promised to take action on... but come on. To suggest that the majority in Congress is powerless to act is simply sad.
 
Superfreak said:
1) Good to see you again.

2) You are incorrect. The funding can be cut off with a simple majority. The President cannot force Congress to fund anything.


Socrtease... the " Bush would leave the troops to die" is simply opinion. He would be strung up if he attempted to leave the troops there without funding, weapons, ammo etc... I know that is a convenient excuse for the Dems inaction on something they promised to take action on... but come on. To suggest that the majority in Congress is powerless to act is simply sad.
Click to expand...

Good to see you too! :)

Can a veto be overturned with a simple majority Super?


Can Appropriations be vetoed?

doesn't it take 2/3's or the super majority vote of 60 to over ride a presidential veto? I think it does...thus...you're wrong!!!!! hahahahaha!!!

(Unless proved otherwise! :D ) lol

Care
 
Care4all said:
Good to see you too! :)

Can a veto be overturned with a simple majority Super?


Can Appropriations be vetoed?

doesn't it take 2/3's or the super majority vote of 60 to over ride a presidential veto? I think it does...thus...you're wrong!!!!! hahahahaha!!!

(Unless proved otherwise! :D ) lol

Care
Click to expand...

No a veto cannot be overturned with a simple majority. But the Budget and All Appropriations have to pass through Congress. Congress can choose, with a simple majority, to not approve funding. Bush would never have a chance to veto it.
 
Superfreak said:
No a veto cannot be overturned with a simple majority. But the Budget and All Appropriations have to pass through Congress. Congress can choose, with a simple majority, to not approve funding. Bush would never have a chance to veto it.
Click to expand...
Of course he would, he's done it already and has made it clear on other appropriations bills since the Dems have come in to the majority, that he will veto it....he doesn't care, he will veto it....it's a waste of Congress's time and our tax monies, unless some repubs decide to not follow Bush lock step on this...in the Senate.

care
 
Dungheap said:
8 since January '07 when the Dems took control. Keep in mind, though, that his friends in the Senate are blocking most legislation by filibuster.
Click to expand...


Yep and I wonder why we don't hear Fox crying "Obstructionst Republicans" ?
And MSM in general for that matter.

I still think many of the Dems are wussies though, mainly for giving in to the hype about the war.
 
The general I quote most and whose words speak as profoundly today as they did more than 70 years ago is Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler.

War Is A Racket
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html#c1

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

entire speech at link ...

If you're not familiar with Butler on war, do yourself a favor.
 
cawacko said:
Actually, he was kind of giving you a lot of props. He seemed to be equating your opinion with those of a General. Cypress may be a closet supporter of yours. Who knew?
Click to expand...

Well, it is certainly a possibility that he is trying to come out of a closet....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top