Bush says he will veto Democrat troop withdrawal strategy

JaJae · 03-17-2007, 01:39 PM

Bush to Veto Iraq Legislation Withdrawing Troops (Update1)

By Holly Rosenkrantz

March 17 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said he opposes the plan to withdraw troops from Iraq that is advancing in U.S. Congress, and reiterated he will veto the legislation if it reaches his desk.

``Congress needs to approve emergency funding for our troops, without strings and without delays,'' Bush said in his weekly radio address today. ``If they send me a bill that does otherwise, I will veto it.''

Democrats in Congress, seeking to influence Bush administration policies in Iraq, this week won endorsement of a troop withdrawal proposal from a House committee while losing a similar bid in the Senate.

The legislation approved by the House committee contains emergency funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would pay for Bush's initiative to send about 21,500 more troops to Iraq to quell violence in Baghdad. It requires the Iraqi government meet security benchmarks for continued support and mandates that U.S. troops receive sufficient rest, training and equipment before deployment.

Democrats will continue to push for measures that will withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Washington Senator Patty Murray said today in the Democratic weekly radio address.

`No End in Sight'

There is ``still no end in sight'' for the nearly four-year- old conflict that has resulted in more than 3,200 American casualties, nearly 30,000 wounded troops and cost $400 billion, said Murray.

``My fellow Democrats and I believe it is time to bring this war to a close,'' she said.

In his radio address, Bush said Democrats are using the spending measure ``as an opportunity to micromanage our military commanders'' and ``force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq.'' His plan to boost U.S. troops in Baghdad is showing signs of progress, he said.

Americans favor Democratic proposals to remove U.S. forces from Iraq over the president's plan to increase troop levels by a nearly two-to-one majority, according to a Newsweek poll released today. The survey of 1,001 adults, conducted March 14 and 16, found 59 percent of respondents support plans to withdraw U.S. forces by next year, while 32 percent are in favor of the troop surge. The survey of has a margin of error of plus or minus four points.

The bill, Bush said, would impose ``arbitrary and restrictive conditions on the use of war funds.'' Its ``rigid conditions'' on the Iraqi government do not give them the means to take more control of their country, he said.

``Many in Congress say they support the troops, and I believe them,'' Bush said. ``Now they have a chance to show that support in deed, as well as in word.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Holly Rosenkrantz in Washington at hrosenkrantz@bloomberg.net

Bloomberg.com: U.S.

Another classic case of Bush saying you either support me or you don't support the troops. However, this is also a rare case of Bush saying he will use his veto power.

It is interesting to see the turn of events. Bush has basically said the same thing I and many of the conservatives on this board said about the Democratic pullout bill. The same bill many on this board claimed was just an 'idea." The process is coming to fruition and now Congress and Bush have to decide if they will allow the Democrats to micromanage the war in such a way and to load a spending bill with a withdrawal plan.

I for one think the plan the Dems are pushing forward is silly and has no business being on the table. I commend Bush for saying he'll veto it. However, I disagree with the way in which he did. We need to stop splitting the parties here and start working together to create a viable solution. The Democratic plan is not it and Bush's response to it is no better.

JaJae · 03-17-2007, 01:42 PM

Some more of his address in full and not scattered:

"Unfortunately, some in Congress are using this bill as an opportunity to micromanage our military commanders, force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and spend billions on domestic projects that have nothing to do with the war on terror," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "Many in Congress say they support the troops, and I believe them. Now they have a chance to show that support in deed, as well as in word."

Sound familiar to any other party up until recently? Anyone? Anyone?

Basically the Dems are loading the bill with liberal pork barrel spending to get all the Dems to vote for the bill. I wonder where they got that idea from? I bet Pelosi knows those numbers better than she knows the pullout dates...

ballz2wallz · 03-17-2007, 01:59 PM

He should veto it anyway for the pork alone.

motivez · 03-17-2007, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

He should veto it anyway for the pork alone.

It was bullshit when the Republicans added stupid and unrelated pork to military spending bills, and it's still bullshit when the Democrats do it.

grembert · 03-17-2007, 02:05 PM

I have a question for those who support Bush' s position on Iraq: Is wrong for Congress to get into the debate about what is happening in Iraq ? I know many question what Democrats have been saying and criticize proposed bills and parts of bills, but do many Bush supporters think that Congress should basically stay out of the whole Iraq issue? If you support Bush's position, what should Iraq look like in 6 months, 1 year, or 2 years ?

motivez · 03-17-2007, 02:08 PM

I don't support Bush's idiotic lack-of-coherent-policy on Iraq, but it's most definitely appropriate for Congress to assert itself in the spending process. It's their job and it's their constitutional check on the executive branch.

JaJae · 03-17-2007, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by grembert

I have a question for those who support Bush' s position on Iraq: Is wrong for Congress to get into the debate about what is happening in Iraq ? I know many question what Democrats have been saying and criticize proposed bills and parts of bills, but do many Bush supporters think that Congress should basically stay out of the whole Iraq issue? If you support Bush's position, what should Iraq look like in 6 months, 1 year, or 2 years ?

I don't support Bush's plan in Iraq. I think he needs new leadership over there or a new strategy. I think Congress has a duty to be involved in wars. I just also disagree with the current plan the Democrats have.

ballz2wallz · 03-17-2007, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by grembert

I have a question for those who support Bush' s position on Iraq: Is wrong for Congress to get into the debate about what is happening in Iraq ? I know many question what Democrats have been saying and criticize proposed bills and parts of bills, but do many Bush supporters think that Congress should basically stay out of the whole Iraq issue? If you support Bush's position, what should Iraq look like in 6 months, 1 year, or 2 years ?

Of course they should be involved. But as a country we (including Congress) decided to go into Iraq. We should do what we intended to, not pussy-foot out of there for political reasons. This is merely political posturing...those in Congress don't care about the war itself.

motivez · 03-17-2007, 03:15 PM

By that logic, Congress should never be able to change direction once a course is set, even if it's determined that the road ahead is a dead end

That's a horrible idea for many very obvious reasons.

I think it's far more than political posturing, and I disagree that Congress doesn't care about the "war on terror", rather they think Iraq is a misguided and mismanaged diversion (which it is)

ballz2wallz · 03-17-2007, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

By that logic, Congress should never be able to change direction once a course is set, even if it's determined that the road ahead is a dead end

Not by any means.

Changing direction is certainly a viable option; we should always be willing to change strategies as deemed necessary...that's part of war.

Once the decision is made to go to war, however, we should go to war. We shouldn't 'kinda' go to war.

motivez · 03-17-2007, 03:55 PM

Well, that's what Bush has done by taking us into Iraq without a coherent strategy or adequate planning..

Not to mention America has not been asked to sacrifice anything like in the past.

JaJae · 03-17-2007, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Once the decision is made to go to war, however, we should go to war. We shouldn't 'kinda' go to war.

I agree. If we're overseas in enemy territory our primary concern should be to win, not play political tests and slowly bring ourselves home based on arbitrary requirements.

Either go to war and give the full support to the military (that includes backing them and not letting the enemy know we'll just leave if they do "this"). If you can't provide our military will full powers to do what it needs to do, and that includes threatening the use of more force (or flat out having the ability to) then we shouldn't be overseas in the first place. Bring em home. But don't play needless political games. That's just absurd. Either go to war to win or come home. None of this in between crap.

ballz2wallz · 03-17-2007, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Not to mention America has not been asked to sacrifice anything like in the past.

I don't know what you mean by this.

motivez · 03-17-2007, 04:02 PM

You guys seem to be placing a lot of blame on "political games" and not a lot on Bush for failing to plan for after the invasion. Surely he deserves more blame than the Democrats speaking out about his mismanagement of the war.

Their criticisms are far more than simple political games and there's much more at stake than political gains and losses... IMO it's a disservice to downplay them like that.

ballz2wallz · 03-17-2007, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

You guys seem to be placing a lot of blame on "political games" and not a lot on Bush for failing to plan for after the invasion. Surely he deserves more blame than the Democrats speaking out about his mismanagement of the war.

Their criticisms are far more than simple political games and there's much more at stake than political gains and losses... IMO it's a disservice to downplay them like that.

In case you're unawares, there is more than one person running this country and the things this country does.

Thorgrim · 03-17-2007, 04:06 PM

I fail to see what your point is...what do you disagree with about the Democrats planned bill?

motivez · 03-17-2007, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I don't know what you mean by this.

Look up the sacrifices Americans had to make to help the war effort in WWII.. people giving up silk garments to use in parachutes, factories were used for bullets and planes and tanks and whatnot.. people bought war bonds, the list goes on and on.

There's an armored vehicle in Iraq right now (about 100 of them) called a Cougar that no one has ever died in so far because of the design of the armor plating, etc..

Why shouldn't Americans sacrifice so we can get those produced and over to our troops instead of having them in lightly armored (or not at all armored) hummers?

That's just one example, but surely if that's how you feel about going to war, then Americans, and American businesses should be asked to sacrifice so we can have what we need as fast as possible, right?

JaJae · 03-17-2007, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

You guys seem to be placing a lot of blame on "political games" and not a lot on Bush for failing to plan for after the invasion. Surely he deserves more blame than the Democrats speaking out about his mismanagement of the war.

Their criticisms are far more than simple political games and there's much more at stake than political gains and losses... IMO it's a disservice to downplay them like that.

He planned for the invasion, but he planned for something he wasn't expecting. He then shifted his plan to training Iraqi security forces, setting up a government, etc.

Saying he had no plan after invasion is like saying "slow bleed". It's rhetoric. Only slow bleed is meant to be satirical. The President didn't send our troops to Iraq with no plan. Nor have they been sitting in Iraq doing nothing.

Bush definitely deserves some blame. But, Bush is at least willing to fight this war. The Democrats have to decide. Be on board with the war or bring our troops home. There should be no in between. If they're going to sabotage the war with bills like this, why bother keeping our troops over there? They should fight to bring them home. That would be more respectable.

ballz2wallz · 03-17-2007, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Look up the sacrifices Americans had to make to help the war effort in WWII.. people giving up silk garments to use in parachutes, factories were used for bullets and planes and tanks and whatnot.. people bought war bonds, the list goes on and on.

There's an armored vehicle in Iraq right now (about 100 of them) called a Cougar that no one has ever died in so far because of the design of the armor plating, etc..

Why shouldn't Americans sacrifice so we can get those produced and over to our troops instead of having them in lightly armored (or not at all armored) hummers?

That's just one example, but surely if that's how you feel about going to war, then Americans, and American businesses should be asked to sacrifice so we can have what we need as fast as possible, right?

I have no problem sacrificing for the sake of the war, but my feeling is that people were sacrificing silk garments for use in parachutes because it was needed...is it needed today?

Frankly, I don't see a general need for us to sacrifice...as a country we have more than we could ever need of everything. As a country we aren't asked to sacrifice anything because there isn't a need for it. Back then, there was.

On the other hand, I know plenty of people who are voluntarily sacrificing (ie donating, sending care packages, etc) to our troops.

Are you sacrificing?