Bush 2nd veto ever

bitonti · 05-02-2007, 09:35 AM

I guess we can't criticize congress for not trying to end the war huh? Congress may have screwed up by voting for the war in the first place but they made up for it yesterday, both parties and both houses.

65% of people want some sort of end to the war, Congress acts upon the will of the people and Bush still believes he knows best.

We all know how this is gonna end, and it's not going to be a glorious USA victory.

MnJetFan · 05-02-2007, 09:48 AM

According to the law. Congress can defund the war, but cannot set timetables. Only the President can do that! So actually Pelosi and company are breaking the law. The democrats don't have the balls to defund the war! Nor do they have the votes to do so on its own merits(without all the pork barreling) .

King Ryan · 05-02-2007, 09:58 AM

[QUOTE=MnJetFan]According to the law. Congress can defund the war, but cannot set timetables. Only the President can do that! [/QUOTE]

And he SHOULD:

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

-- George W. Bush, 4/9/99, criticizing President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo.

"I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."

-- George W. Bush, 6/5/99

bitonti · 05-02-2007, 09:59 AM

this thing has drug on longer than WWII and it's getting worse. we can talk about the legality of this and that until the cows come home, bottom line is continuing war in Iraq good for this country?

MnJetFan · 05-02-2007, 10:36 AM

I believe Bush has set some sought of a timetable(written in sand so to speak). I think he must pressure the Iraq government to put their best foot forward. Bit have you been following what has happened in Saudi Arabia lately. That has me very scared.

bitonti · 05-02-2007, 11:15 AM

[QUOTE=MnJetFan]Bit have you been following what has happened in Saudi Arabia lately. That has me very scared.[/QUOTE]

we screwed up the whole region MN. Saudi 'our friends' are discouraging our presense in Iraq publically for political reasons but privately they are so pro our occupation that if we leave they are threatening to break our long standing 'oil for power' deal. Why? Because Saudi = Shia, Iran = Sunni and Iraq is the battleground.

turns out we were alot safer in a world with Saddam than without him. who'd a thunk it?

Warfish · 05-02-2007, 11:20 AM

[QUOTE=bitonti]this thing has drug on longer than WWII and it's getting worse.[/QUOTE]

Out of curiosity, what does that mean exactly? What is the relevance to a simple "length of time" qualifier for a particular conflict? Clearly WWII and Iraq II are very very different in almost every way.

And I have to ask as well, how is Iraq II "worse" than WWII beyond length of time involved? Clearly casualties are vastly less for Iraq II. I would be interested in seeing a cost (with WWII $$ brought to current prices) of the two conflicts.

bitonti · 05-02-2007, 11:32 AM

[QUOTE=Warfish]Out of curiosity, what does that mean exactly? [/QUOTE]

it means we are losing Warfish. i can't say it any plainer than that. whatever muddled goals we had going into this thing are pretty much unreachable. the length issue is not really my problem, my problem is that we as a country are losing and not only that, but we made the world more dangerous than it was before the war.

King Ryan · 05-02-2007, 11:51 AM

[QUOTE=bitonti]Saudi = Shia, Iran = Sunni and Iraq is the battleground.[/QUOTE]

You got that backwards

MnJetFan · 05-02-2007, 11:58 AM

[QUOTE=bitonti]it means we are losing Warfish. i can't say it any plainer than that. whatever muddled goals we had going into this thing are pretty much unreachable. the length issue is not really my problem, my problem is that we as a country are losing and not only that, but we made the world more dangerous than it was before the war.[/QUOTE]

Bit, I don't think we are losing. Winning/Losing is not as easy to say in a conflict such as Iraq is. BTW on the Saudi thing I was referring to the huge amount of weapons and cash the Saudi's found in the desert and plans to fly planes into major Saudi oil fields. We get 20% of our oil fro SA but the Chinese and Europe get 80% of their's from SA. It would cripple Europe's and China's economies and ours eventually.

kennyo7 · 05-02-2007, 12:14 PM

[QUOTE=MnJetFan]I believe Bush has set some sought of a timetable(written in sand so to speak).[/QUOTE]

I agree.
His time table is wait until im out of office so it can become someone elses problem.
He cares more about his legacy than the troops. Thats why he is willing to keep them in harms way in a war that has already been lost. This problem has no military solution. Hes simply buying time until hes out of office. The man is truly a coward

bitonti · 05-02-2007, 12:16 PM

[QUOTE=Tanginius]You got that backwards[/QUOTE]

yup sorry my mistake

either way it's a fargin mess

MnJetFan · 05-02-2007, 12:18 PM

[QUOTE=kennyo7]I agree.
His time table is wait until im out of office so it can become someone elses problem.
He cares more about his legacy than the troops. Thats why he is willing to keep them in harms way in a war that has already been lost. This problem has no military solution. Hes simply buying time until hes out of office. The man is truly a coward[/QUOTE]

I really cant agree with you. He has stated this position from the beginning. It has never changed unlike the Democrats who change position like the wind changes direction!

kennyo7 · 05-02-2007, 12:29 PM

[QUOTE=MnJetFan]I really cant agree with you. He has stated this position from the beginning. It has never changed unlike the Democrats who change position like the wind changes direction![/QUOTE]

He believes in this war and will noot change position regarless of the reality b/c he does not want to be labled a failure.

BTW, not all Dems changed their position. There were quite a few who have been against this war from day 1.

MnJetFan · 05-02-2007, 12:36 PM

A vast majority voted for the funding. Now they changed because of public opinion. Mostly because of moveon.org.

Piper · 05-02-2007, 12:38 PM

[QUOTE=kennyo7]I agree.
His time table is wait until im out of office so it can become someone elses problem.
He cares more about his legacy than the troops. Thats why he is willing to keep them in harms way in a war that has already been lost. This problem has no military solution. Hes simply buying time until hes out of office. The man is truly a coward[/QUOTE]
Oh the "he's dumb and doesn't care about our troops" speech?

Second only to the "they went to Iraq with no plan whatsoever" speech.

You can get a more honest debate in your average third grade class ...

bitonti · 05-02-2007, 12:50 PM

[QUOTE=Piper]
You can get a more honest debate in your average third grade class ...[/QUOTE]

hey Piper the proof is in the pudding

sackdance · 05-02-2007, 01:06 PM

[QUOTE=bitonti]hey Piper the proof is in the pudding[/QUOTE]
Whose pudding, moveon.org's? When everyone believes and agrees with you, "proof is in the pudding" might mean something. But that isn't nearly the case. When your master, Sen. Reid, hopped on the soapbox to announce that we lost, that all was lost (everything you say) he was hooted down by Republicans, Democrats, the public, and, most of all the military. You espouse the views of a bitter stinking onion, bitonti, and it's not carrying the weight it did only three months ago.

kennyo7 · 05-02-2007, 01:33 PM

[QUOTE=Piper]Oh the "he's dumb and doesn't care about our troops" speech?

Second only to the "they went to Iraq with no plan whatsoever" speech.

You can get a more honest debate in your average third grade class ...[/QUOTE]

As opposed to the classic:

"your emboldening the enemies" speach
or
"if we leave they will attack us here" speach
or
"if we set a deadline, the enemy will wait until that date to attack" speach :rolleyes:

kennyo7 · 05-02-2007, 01:34 PM

[QUOTE=sackdance]Whose pudding, moveon.org's? When everyone believes and agrees with you, "proof is in the pudding" might mean something. But that isn't nearly the case. When your master, Sen. Reid, hopped on the soapbox to announce that we lost, that all was lost (everything you say) he was hooted down by Republicans, Democrats, the public, and, most of all the military. You espouse the views of a bitter stinking onion, bitonti, and it's not carrying the weight it did only three months ago.[/QUOTE]

Actually NOBODY hooted him down.
If you make such a statement please provide a source backing your claim up

05-02-2007, 09:35 AM	#1
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	Bush 2nd veto ever I guess we can't criticize congress for not trying to end the war huh? Congress may have screwed up by voting for the war in the first place but they made up for it yesterday, both parties and both houses. 65% of people want some sort of end to the war, Congress acts upon the will of the people and Bush still believes he knows best. We all know how this is gonna end, and it's not going to be a glorious USA victory.

05-02-2007, 09:48 AM	#2
MnJetFan All League Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,312	According to the law. Congress can defund the war, but cannot set timetables. Only the President can do that! So actually Pelosi and company are breaking the law. The democrats don't have the balls to defund the war! Nor do they have the votes to do so on its own merits(without all the pork barreling) .

05-02-2007, 09:58 AM	#3
King Ryan take a guess Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Montville, NJ Posts: 5,473	[QUOTE=MnJetFan]According to the law. Congress can defund the war, but cannot set timetables. Only the President can do that! [/QUOTE] And he SHOULD: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." -- George W. Bush, 4/9/99, criticizing President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo. "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn." -- George W. Bush, 6/5/99

05-02-2007, 09:59 AM	#4
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	this thing has drug on longer than WWII and it's getting worse. we can talk about the legality of this and that until the cows come home, bottom line is continuing war in Iraq good for this country?

05-02-2007, 10:36 AM	#5
MnJetFan All League Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,312	I believe Bush has set some sought of a timetable(written in sand so to speak). I think he must pressure the Iraq government to put their best foot forward. Bit have you been following what has happened in Saudi Arabia lately. That has me very scared.

05-02-2007, 11:15 AM	#6
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	[QUOTE=MnJetFan]Bit have you been following what has happened in Saudi Arabia lately. That has me very scared.[/QUOTE] we screwed up the whole region MN. Saudi 'our friends' are discouraging our presense in Iraq publically for political reasons but privately they are so pro our occupation that if we leave they are threatening to break our long standing 'oil for power' deal. Why? Because Saudi = Shia, Iran = Sunni and Iraq is the battleground. turns out we were alot safer in a world with Saddam than without him. who'd a thunk it?

05-02-2007, 11:20 AM	#7
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=bitonti]this thing has drug on longer than WWII and it's getting worse.[/QUOTE] Out of curiosity, what does that mean exactly? What is the relevance to a simple "length of time" qualifier for a particular conflict? Clearly WWII and Iraq II are very very different in almost every way. And I have to ask as well, how is Iraq II "worse" than WWII beyond length of time involved? Clearly casualties are vastly less for Iraq II. I would be interested in seeing a cost (with WWII $$ brought to current prices) of the two conflicts.

05-02-2007, 11:32 AM	#8
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	[QUOTE=Warfish]Out of curiosity, what does that mean exactly? [/QUOTE] it means we are losing Warfish. i can't say it any plainer than that. whatever muddled goals we had going into this thing are pretty much unreachable. the length issue is not really my problem, my problem is that we as a country are losing and not only that, but we made the world more dangerous than it was before the war.

05-02-2007, 11:51 AM	#9
King Ryan take a guess Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Montville, NJ Posts: 5,473	[QUOTE=bitonti]Saudi = Shia, Iran = Sunni and Iraq is the battleground.[/QUOTE] You got that backwards

05-02-2007, 11:58 AM	#10
MnJetFan All League Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,312	[QUOTE=bitonti]it means we are losing Warfish. i can't say it any plainer than that. whatever muddled goals we had going into this thing are pretty much unreachable. the length issue is not really my problem, my problem is that we as a country are losing and not only that, but we made the world more dangerous than it was before the war.[/QUOTE] Bit, I don't think we are losing. Winning/Losing is not as easy to say in a conflict such as Iraq is. BTW on the Saudi thing I was referring to the huge amount of weapons and cash the Saudi's found in the desert and plans to fly planes into major Saudi oil fields. We get 20% of our oil fro SA but the Chinese and Europe get 80% of their's from SA. It would cripple Europe's and China's economies and ours eventually.

05-02-2007, 12:14 PM	#11
kennyo7 All Pro Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 7,417	[QUOTE=MnJetFan]I believe Bush has set some sought of a timetable(written in sand so to speak).[/QUOTE] I agree. His time table is wait until im out of office so it can become someone elses problem. He cares more about his legacy than the troops. Thats why he is willing to keep them in harms way in a war that has already been lost. This problem has no military solution. Hes simply buying time until hes out of office. The man is truly a coward

05-02-2007, 12:16 PM	#12
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	[QUOTE=Tanginius]You got that backwards[/QUOTE] yup sorry my mistake either way it's a fargin mess

05-02-2007, 12:18 PM	#13
MnJetFan All League Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,312	[QUOTE=kennyo7]I agree. His time table is wait until im out of office so it can become someone elses problem. He cares more about his legacy than the troops. Thats why he is willing to keep them in harms way in a war that has already been lost. This problem has no military solution. Hes simply buying time until hes out of office. The man is truly a coward[/QUOTE] I really cant agree with you. He has stated this position from the beginning. It has never changed unlike the Democrats who change position like the wind changes direction!

05-02-2007, 12:29 PM	#14
kennyo7 All Pro Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 7,417	[QUOTE=MnJetFan]I really cant agree with you. He has stated this position from the beginning. It has never changed unlike the Democrats who change position like the wind changes direction![/QUOTE] He believes in this war and will noot change position regarless of the reality b/c he does not want to be labled a failure. BTW, not all Dems changed their position. There were quite a few who have been against this war from day 1.

05-02-2007, 12:36 PM	#15
MnJetFan All League Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,312	A vast majority voted for the funding. Now they changed because of public opinion. Mostly because of moveon.org.

05-02-2007, 12:38 PM	#16
Piper Hall Of Fame Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from) Posts: 13,197	[QUOTE=kennyo7]I agree. His time table is wait until im out of office so it can become someone elses problem. He cares more about his legacy than the troops. Thats why he is willing to keep them in harms way in a war that has already been lost. This problem has no military solution. Hes simply buying time until hes out of office. The man is truly a coward[/QUOTE] Oh the "he's dumb and doesn't care about our troops" speech? Second only to the "they went to Iraq with no plan whatsoever" speech. You can get a more honest debate in your average third grade class ...

05-02-2007, 12:50 PM	#17
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	[QUOTE=Piper] You can get a more honest debate in your average third grade class ...[/QUOTE] hey Piper the proof is in the pudding

05-02-2007, 01:06 PM	#18
sackdance All Pro Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,906	[QUOTE=bitonti]hey Piper the proof is in the pudding[/QUOTE] Whose pudding, moveon.org's? When everyone believes and agrees with you, "proof is in the pudding" might mean something. But that isn't nearly the case. When your master, Sen. Reid, hopped on the soapbox to announce that we lost, that all was lost (everything you say) he was hooted down by Republicans, Democrats, the public, and, most of all the military. You espouse the views of a bitter stinking onion, bitonti, and it's not carrying the weight it did only three months ago.

05-02-2007, 01:33 PM	#19
kennyo7 All Pro Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 7,417	[QUOTE=Piper]Oh the "he's dumb and doesn't care about our troops" speech? Second only to the "they went to Iraq with no plan whatsoever" speech. You can get a more honest debate in your average third grade class ...[/QUOTE] As opposed to the classic: "your emboldening the enemies" speach or "if we leave they will attack us here" speach or "if we set a deadline, the enemy will wait until that date to attack" speach :rolleyes:

05-02-2007, 01:34 PM	#20
kennyo7 All Pro Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 7,417	[QUOTE=sackdance]Whose pudding, moveon.org's? When everyone believes and agrees with you, "proof is in the pudding" might mean something. But that isn't nearly the case. When your master, Sen. Reid, hopped on the soapbox to announce that we lost, that all was lost (everything you say) he was hooted down by Republicans, Democrats, the public, and, most of all the military. You espouse the views of a bitter stinking onion, bitonti, and it's not carrying the weight it did only three months ago.[/QUOTE] Actually NOBODY hooted him down. If you make such a statement please provide a source backing your claim up