Arkansas Blog

I saw the clip of Bush on CNN promising to veto the legislation with a bunch of service members behind him.

I know some of our fellow bloggers have served in some capacity...

Isn't it true that the active military isn't supposed to be involved/photographed/whatever in political events or speeches? Even if it is Monkeyboy?

Maybe I should say ESPECIALLY with Monkeyboy...

As long as people like The Booz have zero chance of being in harm's way, they will continue to be war heroes in their own mind, more than willing to send others to die in Iraq.

If we required all members of Congress to spend 1 week outside the Green Zone in Iraq, this war would be over by the time I hit the Post button on this message.

"No, Republicans countered on the House floor. Several said the measure would amount to micromanaging the war, to the detriment of military commanders and front-line troops. "Its prevailing tone is one of defeat," Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the minority whip, said of the legislation."
NYT

While most people see the President as commander-in-chief how many recognize our Constitution actually states the following powers belong to Congress:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for longer Term than two Years;

To make rules for the Government and Regulation of land and naval Forces;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia....
---- Article 1 sec 8 U.S. Constitution.

Why is it Republicans have such a problem with our Constitution, especially the Chickenhawks like Roy Blunt?
_

those 218 voted to continue funding the war.

W comes out and accuses them of "political theatre" (which is rich when you're backdrop is a bunch of teary-faced military family members, who smile on cue when he says the magic word "veto")

and of course, W was lying (big surprise) for when the Senate passes and the two bills are reconciled, if there is any timetable provision still in it, W will simply write a 'signing statement' that says he will ignore those provisions in the bill that "interfere" with his duties as CiC.

pity those principled anti-War DEMS who fell for Pelosi's trick, they've been had.

so far that makes for a non-binding resolution and an easily erasable timetable provision since the DEMS took over, while the surge flounders, more troops are on their way, and the war funding (off-budget) continues unabated.

i'm NOT impressed.

I just sent Vic Snyder a thank you email.

I would send my Congressman (Boozman) a message about it if I thought he could read.
_

Mark Pryor weeps.

Who are these Democrats presuming to rein in Pryor's commander in chief and the Bush-Pryor dream of taking down the Iranians?

What can he do to undercut them?

So many Democratic bills to vote against, and...[tears flowing now]...only one vote to cast against each, dang it.

Life for Mark Pryor must be real hell now, with the Democrats so firmly in control of the House. At least he and his fellow Republicans can stop the evil Democrats in the Senate.

"I would send my Congressman (Boozman) a message about it if I thought he could read."

___

I resent the implication that Congressman Boozman is not an intelligent man. I have met the gentleman and he is a good and intelligent man. Calling people names and insulting their intelligence is not the way to further intelligent debate and in fact makes the accuser look petty and reveals that he is lacking any credible arguments himself.

From what I read, EverythingIsCyclical, Lwood is a constituent of Mr. Boozman and is quite entitled to hold and to share his opinion.

I, on the other hand, have not met the man, but have seen him on TV enough to form my own opinion: Lwood is right.

Yeah, you're right Spirit. They usually don't require Optometrists to read.

John Aravosis answered my question with DOD official policy...

The more I think about using those troops as props the more angry I get, man...

What was the timeline for withdrawal in WWII, again?

Bring on the unexplained claims that that this war isn't comparable to WWII.

anon,

if you're referring to the 100k+ US troops still in Japan and Germany, then i suppose the timeline is 62 years and counting.

which, per W's plan is probably accurate for Iraq (considering the construction of 17 permanent, ah pardon me, "enduring" bases built there)

therefore, come 2069 there may actually be a serious move to withdraw US troops from Iraq (though they be our grandchildren and great-grandchildren)

Spirit, it's great that you have formed your own opinion and I don't dispute Lwood's right to share his opinion. I was merely pointing out that implying that someone is stupid by saying that they cannot read is a very weak argument which is probably due to the fact that he has no other credible points of contention to present. So he simply calls someone stupid. That may have worked in 5th grade but it doesn't really make for intelligent debate.

That being said, I have enjoyed other posts that you and Lwood have presented and I hope you continue to do so in the future.

And yes, being an Optometrist does require some level of education so I'm sure one can deduce that Boozman has the ability to read among his other intellectual capacities.

"anon,

if you're referring to the 100k+ US troops still in Japan and Germany, then i suppose the timeline is 62 years and counting.

which, per W's plan is probably accurate for Iraq (considering the construction of 17 permanent, ah pardon me, "enduring" bases built there)

therefore, come 2069 there may actually be a serious move to withdraw US troops from Iraq (though they be our grandchildren and great-grandchildren)

Posted by: muleboy303 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 23, 2007 04:15 PM"

Okay.

I have to agree with Anon. In ways, this war is like WW2.

We invented evidence on which to invade a country.

Now we're occupying that country and another, killing civilians and citizens defending their country.

And now we're threatening to invade a third country, and it's all their fault.

Our secret police are active in making people who disagree with our policies disappear and/or be tortured.

My father-in-law fought in WW2 and Korea, and hel takes it as an outright insult when someone compares our actions in Iraq to our actions in WW2.

"We used to be the good guys" he says.

I just heard John McCain on NPR repeating that favorite of Republican phrases of late: the House Democrats are trying to micro-manage the war.

I think the Republicans need to learn the meaning of "micro-manage". A bill requiring a pullout by Sept. 2008 if a long way from micro-managing every tiny detail of the President's war.

"I was merely pointing out that
implying that someone is
stupid by saying that they
cannot read is a very weak
argument...
Posted by: EverythingIsCyclical"

I don't think he was making an argument, Everything. I think he was making a joke.
(perhaps a topic you're not very familiar with?)

Seriously, please study this web page:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/facetious

Trust me, I'm very familiar with jokes. Have you seen some of the comments on these various blogs? (See, I can be facetious as well)

Have a good weekend Spirit.

Hey Guys, what about the pork. Can't we do anything without a payday?? Sick.

"Hey Guys, what about the
pork. Can't we do anything
without a payday??
Posted by: Sqwheel"

The answer to your question is, of course, no, since we're dealing with Congress.

The pork was necessary to get enough votes to pass the bill. Sad but true. Business as usual in Congress. Well worth the price, in my opinion, as it gets a lot of Republicans on record as supporting Bush as the captain of the Titanic*.

* to borrow DBI's recent analogy

Good find, rosso.

But dubya is all about props and fake backdrops:

* Mission Accomplished

* St. Louis Cathedral in New Orleans

Those soldiers in the background serve at the pleasure of the president.

People, this invasion must end and soon. Look at the history of Iraq and it's major cities. Saddam was not a good person, but Iraq was much better off under his control than it is now.
Bush made a terrible mistake, and led us into invading a country that was no threat to the USA, and he continues to try to justify his mistake.
We ned to get out now.

>I resent the implication that Congressman Boozman is not an intelligent man.<

Stick around, I can give you piles of stuff to resent if resentment is your game.

Btw , the line I used above is from a very famous comic. $20 bucks if you can name the comic. You have 10 min from this post time.
_

>What was the timeline for withdrawal in WWII, again?<

What was Bushco's timeline for Iraq?

"Oh, six months at the most"
Donald Rumsfield
_

Wow, lwood, you sure did turn the tables on me. The point is that having timetables for exit has never been a successful part of military planning because you can't control what the enemy does. They kind of have a vested interest in fighting back.

It's remarkable that y'all are so eager to get out now. The surge is working and y'all just can't have that. Y'all are so invested in defeat that even when we win y'all will still be saying that we lost or are losing.

""Oh, six months at the most"
Donald Rumsfield"

P.S. Would you mind citing that for me? If he did say that, you can bet that his context was about the destruction of Saddam's army, which, only took a 6th of that time, by the way.

About 10 seconds googling turned up this, from the Christian Science Monitor. And there's nothing said about Saddam's army.

It's funny how all the 'cakewalk' proponents of war now have conveniently forgotten that in favor of the 'world war two' spin.

Why can't you just admit that if Bush said the world was flat, 30% of Americans would believe him? There's no room for the truth in the Republican party, except what the Administration says is the truth.

"In February of 2003, the BBC reported that then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld anticipated that any war against Iraq "could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." Then, in June of 2005 after the first time estimate had shown itself to be incorrect, Mr. Rumsfeld said insurgencies can last anywhere from "five to 12 years."

The war against Saddam's army lasted about a month. So, the secdef overestimated his first appraisal. Thanks for finding that so quickly. We're not fighting Saddam's army, by the way. We're fighting al Qaeda and Shi'ites funded by Iran and Syria.

As for the WWII analogy. I appreciate that nobody wasted any of their remaining brain cells trying to explain why they think WWII is different from the War on Terror. It's not, except that our enemy is much more dangerous and not bent on conquering us, but on destroying us.

heh.