Johnson Closing Speech on Emergency War Supplemental

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by grembert

I agree with this, but Bush doesn't seem to understand much about the ethnic and religious make-up of Iraq

I completely disagree, if Bush didn't care about the difference between the ethnic groups we would have left once the shittes were voted into power and let them run the country their way. But we didn't

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

no but my point is that the american public and congress don't understand combat

Neither does our president, vice president, and former secretary of defense. They know nothing, yet when they find a general that doesn't fit their agenda they just fire them for one that does fit their agenda.

There are some congressmen/women who know far more about combat than the members of the administration because they actually served.

I think we can tell how much our administration knows about combat, particularly in the middle east, by simply analyzing the current situation we have there and how the last 4 years have been executed by them.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

no but my point is that the american public and congress don't understand combat

So they are supposed to just keep writing checks for it and stay quiet?

We have a Congress so we don't have to and this is how it works. Representative Democracy.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

sure worked for lincoln

Lincoln has what to do with what I said?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Lincoln has what to do with what I said?

fired generals during a war

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by thomez

The American public wants to abort the mission or set a timetable to get it done. They, through the House, are supposed to have that ability. That's how our government is setup.

just because it is popular doesn't make it right. Our current shift in strategy is showing progress and we stick with what our generals want. The idea that Congress is going to limit by funding the type of war that can be fought it a horrible idea

[thomez]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

just because it is popular doesn't make it right. Our current shift in strategy is showing progress and we stick with what our generals want. The idea that Congress is going to limit by funding the type of war that can be fought it a horrible idea

I agree, it should be all or nothing. The American public, given that choice, seems to want nothing. The House should stop funding the war or they should fund a new strategy that will originate from the President once faced with the option of immediate funding cuts and withdrawl. If the President cannot formulate a plan that is acceptable to the House, and the American public, then the war effort and funding should cease immediately. This is why the public holds the House directly accountable every 2 years, and why that branch controls the purse.

[grembert]

Originally Posted by thomez

I agree, it should be all or nothing. The American public, given that choice, seems to want nothing. The House should stop funding the war or they should fund a new strategy that will originate from the President once faced with the option of immediate funding cuts and withdrawl. If the President cannot formulate a plan that is acceptable to the House, and the American public, then the war effort and funding should cease immediately. This is why the public holds the House directly accountable every 2 years, and why that branch controls the purse.

Why should it be all or nothing? There are complicated and serious issues in the Middle East and Iraq. ( For example, not many people realize that the Iranians are Shiites, but almost all of the rest of the Middle East is Sunni )
--- Congress' war bill states that the Iraqi government ( Shiite dominated ) must share the oil revenue with all parts of the country. It also states that the religious militias must be disbanded, for the U.S, to give continued support. The larger picture here is that the " Iraq War " involves more than just combat, and thinking only in military terms has been a mistake.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by grembert

Why should it be all or nothing?

It is dangerous to fight a war with your hands tied. Either let the generals run the war effort how they wish it to be done, or do not fund it at all. It is not the job of Congress to strategize operations on the ground. If the President and his generals cannot formulate a plan that is acceptable to the House, and to the populus, the effort should not be funded. If the generals do not believe they can be successful fighting in a way that is acceptable to the House, they should abandon the effort entirely.

[goldenponderbob]

The 'peanuts' thing is more or less the same as we use the word pork today.

But, there is also a sense of of appeasement, pacification and
accommodation from those whose importance was entirely in
their own heads.

Republicans actually had no voice or power in those days, and
were treated like the second class representatives they were.

Regarding those polls, that appear to support Pelosi, what do
they say we should do if all hell breaks out the day after the
pullout - just wondering.

And, where are the "out by this Friday polls".

I ask because I believe either way it's the same thing.

goldenponderbob

[DosEquis]

I understand the all or nothing comments/concept but there comes a point where the "all" simply isn't affective. So how long do we stick with "all"? Do we go all in for 4 years, 10 years, 20 years without pressuring change? We need a major change in strategy there and that change will simply not happen when they fire generals who do not agree with the bush idea for military strategy there. We need those generals who have different ideas if we are to change.

I dont think the answer is "nothing", so I do not want to see a cut in funding and forced withdrawl. I believe it to be the congress duty to pressure them however they can to get a different plan in there. Given that I do not accept the "all or nothing" false choice being presented in the thread.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I dont think the answer is "nothing", so I do not want to see a cut in funding and forced withdrawl. I believe it to be the congress duty to pressure them however they can to get a different plan in there. Given that I do not accept the "all or nothing" false choice being presented in the thread.

It isn't and shouldn't be "Bush's way or come home", that is what would make it all or nothing. If the administration sticks with their plan and will not change, then don't fund it. That isn't the only option, however.

I am saying that the administration needs to find generals to formulate a new strategy, one that is acceptable to the House, or they should not fund the war. "Stay the Course" should no longer be an option, the American people rejected that in November.

It isn't as simple as Bush's way or nothing - but he should be forced to compromise, that is the job of the House. And part of this new strategy should be a plan for withdrawl in a given timeframe.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

fired generals during a war

Completely unrelated, and Lincoln wasn't exactly the model president when it comes to power, then again you can't compare the American Civil war to the Iraq War.


You say Congress, nor the anyone in Washington, should be running the war. So let's see.. In the beginning he's told that he would need 500k troops. Fired General. Later on he's told Iraqis are ready for elections. Fired. Then There's Bremer. He's the top guy, etc. Fired. Then Casey, who said a surge wouldn't do anything... fired.


So when you make a post as you did saying Congress is trying to run the war, and that nobody from Washington should, then you're looking at the wrong branch of Government.

[DosEquis]

Regarding the video:

Sounds like, more rhetoric to me. He goes on this rant regarding pork and bullshit spending but all that I see is a pot calling the democratic kettles black. His opinion to me is of very little value because he has been in government long enough to see a bridge to no where tied to troop funding, indoor rain forest in Iowa tied to troop funding, etc. Where was this rant of his then? Why did he not call out these injustices then? Because this man is a partisan just like the rest of them. Suddenly when they are not spending the money, then it is a problem and only then is spending out of control. The "slow bleed" buzz word is ridiculously annoying and not even close to accurate in the description of their strategy. We all know the brief words and slogans are the republicans main ammo in delivering their messages. "We fight them there so we dont fight them here", their strategy is a "slow bleed", etc.

The only point that I will accept from him is the fact the pork is basically there to buy the votes, which i also agree is bullshit. I have always said a spending bill needs to include things that are related. No bridges on troop funding, and no spinach farmer money on troop funding.

[Pro Street]

I agree that the agricultural funding should have been placed in the agri appropriations bill (which is where that usual pork has always been thrown in)


and again, do we even know that the pork was thrown in to buy votes? When has it become acceptable in society/news for someone just to state something and have it treated as fact?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by thomez

I agree, it should be all or nothing. The American public, given that choice, seems to want nothing. The House should stop funding the war or they should fund a new strategy that will originate from the President once faced with the option of immediate funding cuts and withdrawl. If the President cannot formulate a plan that is acceptable to the House, and the American public, then the war effort and funding should cease immediately. This is why the public holds the House directly accountable every 2 years, and why that branch controls the purse.

I agree completely, congress should either vote to go to war or not, not the type of war that should be fought

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by thomez

It isn't and shouldn't be "Bush's way or come home", that is what would make it all or nothing. If the administration sticks with their plan and will not change, then don't fund it. That isn't the only option, however.

I am saying that the administration needs to find generals to formulate a new strategy, one that is acceptable to the House, or they should not fund the war. "Stay the Course" should no longer be an option, the American people rejected that in November.

It isn't as simple as Bush's way or nothing - but he should be forced to compromise, that is the job of the House. And part of this new strategy should be a plan for withdrawl in a given timeframe.

Bush has changed strategies since November with a new general and plan since then

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Completely unrelated, and Lincoln wasn't exactly the model president when it comes to power, then again you can't compare the American Civil war to the Iraq War.


You say Congress, nor the anyone in Washington, should be running the war. So let's see.. In the beginning he's told that he would need 500k troops. Fired General. Later on he's told Iraqis are ready for elections. Fired. Then There's Bremer. He's the top guy, etc. Fired. Then Casey, who said a surge wouldn't do anything... fired.

my point is that lincoln went through several generals before grant was given power and won the war.

So when you make a post as you did saying Congress is trying to run the war, and that nobody from Washington should, then you're looking at the wrong branch of Government.

the executive branch should run the war, not congress

[grembert]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

my point is that lincoln went through several generals before grant was given power and won the war.

the executive branch should run the war, not congress

Much of the fighting in Iraq is because the Sunni and Shiite are afraid of each other. The Sunni are very afraid that the Shiite ( the majority ) will not share oil revenue with them ( the oil wells are mostly in the Shiite and Kurdish territories ) --- Here is the question : Is it wrong for Congress to push the Shiite majority to share the wealth with the Sunni? ----- General Patreus himself said that the war has to won politically more than militarily