Not Clear?

The trouble is that congress would have to make it law. What are the chances of that ? About the same as Bush admitting he and rove are lovers ?
 
Darla said:
"Even if Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd succeed in their effort, it is not clear whether President Bush would have to withdraw troops, or if he could resist by claiming that Congress cannot withdraw its earlier authorization but instead has to deny money for the war to achieve that result. "

I don't he will abide it, even if passed. You have two choices here, you defund the damned war, or you impeach him. And you can line up and call people who say this moonbats and left wing nuts, but the facts remain that there are two ways to stop this war. Impeach Dick Cheney and President Bush, or completely defund the war. If you defund the war, I think that Cypress is correct and he will leave the troops there anyway, and as the body count rachets up, he will say the democrats are killing our troops because they won't fund them. So, Impeachment, however "radical" someone might think it is (though I note it was not radical when someone got a FREAKING BLOWJOB) is the only route. Anything other than impeachment and people continue to die until January of 09, when we get a new President. That is a moral decision this country must make. They want the war done with, what are they willing to DO ABOUT IT. Because sitting around bullshitting in your living room...pretty much meaningless.

Clinton Proposes Vote to Reverse Authorizing War
By CARL HULSE and PATRICK HEALY
WASHINGTON, May 3 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq, injecting presidential politics into the Congressional debate over financing the war.

Mrs. Clinton’s proposal brings her full circle on Iraq — she supported the war measure five years ago — and it sharpens her own political positioning at a time when Democrats are vying to confront the White House.

“It is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible,” Mrs. Clinton said as she joined Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in calling for a vote to end the authority as of Oct. 11, the fifth anniversary of the original vote.

Her stance emerged just as Congressional leaders and the White House opened delicate negotiations over a new war-financing measure to replace the one that Mr. Bush vetoed Tuesday.

Even if Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd succeed in their effort, it is not clear whether President Bush would have to withdraw troops, or if he could resist by claiming that Congress cannot withdraw its earlier authorization but instead has to deny money for the war to achieve that result.

The question could prompt a constitutional debate over war powers that only the federal courts could resolve.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/washington/04cong.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
Click to expand...



Great post. I've been wondering how the heck the end game, is going to go.

I totally think Bush would leave soldiers to die in iraq to make a political point, if funding were immediately cut off. That's harsh to say. But we have six years of experience with bush - EVERYTHING, from war to the troops, to top gun landings on carriers is political to him.

Mind you, he and Rove are clever. If funding were cut off, they would go through the motions of making it look like they were withdrawing. But, either they would drag their feet, or simply leave some soldiers there, who would then be underequipped and under-funded. As they died, Bush would pin in on Democrats for "killing the troops"


This article raises my eyebrows. Because, as you suggest, the only was to end the war may be to impeach Bush. If we simply cut the funds, he'll figure out a way to leave some of them to die..... revoking his war authorization is more straightforward, but evidently bush indicates that he would ignore congress if they did. Leading to a constitutional crises and possible impeachment.

Wow. These are crazy times. I have no doubt that Bush will fight tooth and nail to keep troops in Iraq, so the next president gets the blame. And I have no doubt, he'll leave some there to die, regardless of funding, or revoking the 2002 authorization. He's pretty damn evil that way.
 
Cypress said:
Great post. I've been wondering how the heck the end game, is going to go.

I totally think Bush would leave soldiers to die in iraq to make a political point, if funding were immediately cut off. That's harsh to say. But we have six years of experience with bush - EVERYTHING, from war to the troops, to top gun landings on carriers is political to him.

Mind you, he and Rove are clever. If funding were cut off, they would go through the motions of making it look like they were withdrawing. But, either they would drag their feet, or simply leave some soldiers there, who would then be underequipped and under-funded. As they died, Bush would pin in on Democrats for "killing the troops"


This article raises my eyebrows. Because, as you suggest, the only was to end the war may be to impeach Bush. If we simply cut the funds, he'll figure out a way to leave some of them to die. , revoking his war authorization is more straightforward, but evidently bush indicates that he would ignore congress if they did. Leading to a constitutional crises and possible impeachment.

Wow. These are crazy times. I have no doubt that Bush will fight tooth and nail to keep troops in Iraq, so the next president gets the blame. And I have no doubt, he'll leave some there to die, regardless of funding, or revoking the 2002 authorization. He's pretty damn evil that way.
Click to expand...


I agree, and I don't think that given the past, it is a harsh judgement. He'd do it. This guy has a complete indifference to human life. And I don't care what his position on "embryos" is. I don't know the answer either. I think impeachment, but the people have to be moved there first. The thing is, where is the polling? For all we know, they're already there.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
I agree. She looks very good, especially for her age.

I was thinking of making some smartass quip about my being biased because I'm a San Francisco Nancy-boy, but thought better of it. That would be dangerous around here.

:cof1:
Click to expand...
She does look good, and she's been careful not to be "overdone."

But, you're still a nancy-boy
 
Last edited:
Darla said:
I agree, and I don't think that given the past, it is a harsh judgement. He'd do it. This guy has a complete indifference to human life. And I don't care what his position on "embryos" is. I don't know the answer either. I think impeachment, but the people have to be moved there first. The thing is, where is the polling? For all we know, they're already there.
Click to expand...


You know, I was JUST thinking about that last week. Where are the polls indicating how many americans support impeachment? I haven't seen one in ages.

I remember about 2 years ago, they had polls on it, suggesting that most americans supported impeachment if Bush lied, or misled us into the iraq war.

Odd, isn't it?...that those polls haven't been asked in a while.....
 
"I'm a heterosexual woman usc, no matter what Dano might say. So, rolling with swine? Pretty much part of my job description"

damn... that was funny....especially given the fact that you said you like crazy liberal men.... :D
 
Cypress said:
You know, I was JUST thinking about that last week. Where are the polls indicating how many americans support impeachment? I haven't seen one in ages.

I remember about 2 years ago, they had polls on it, suggesting that most americans supported impeachment if Bush lied, or misled us into the iraq war.

Odd, isn't it?...that those polls haven't been asked in a while.....
Click to expand...

I remember them too Cypress, and that's what makes me so suspicious on why we haven't seen current polling on this.
 
Superfreak said:
"I'm a heterosexual woman usc, no matter what Dano might say. So, rolling with swine? Pretty much part of my job description"

damn... that was funny....especially given the fact that you said you like crazy liberal men.... :D
Click to expand...

LOL


SF, a woman is a woman, and a man is a man.
 
Superfreak said:
"SF, a woman is a woman, and a man is a man."

Got ya...

Woman = gooooooooooooooood

Man = baaaaaaaaaaaad
Click to expand...

No. Just that there are some universals. I can connect with nearly any woman, regardless of her political ideology on some level. As long as politics are not brought up. Things can go bad quickly once they are.

And just because a man is a political liberal, does not mean he can't be a pig. Granted, it's pretty much ensured that a right wing man will be, but still...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top