Murtha Plans To Deny Bush Funding For Troop Escalation
Murtha Plans To Deny Bush Funding For Troop Escalation
President Bush is widely expected to announce a plan next week to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by at least 20,000. Congress may not cooperate.
In an interview with Arianna Huffington, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), the chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Committee, said he intends to block funding for any escalation plan. An excerpt:
When we asked about the likelihood of the president sending additional troops to Iraq, Murtha was adamant. “The only way you can have a troop surge,” he told us, “is to extend the tours of people whose tours have already been extended, or to send back people who have just gotten back home.” He explained at length how our military forces are already stretched to the breaking point, with our strategic reserve so depleted we are unprepared to face any additional threats to the country. So does that mean there will be no surge? Murtha offered us a “with Bush anything is possible” look, then said: “Money is the only way we can stop it for sure.”…
He says he wants to “fence the funding,” denying the president the resources to escalate the war, instead using the money to take care of the soldiers as we bring them home from Iraq “as soon as we can.”
A memo from the Center for American Progress, released December 27, recommends “an amendment on the supplemental funding bill that states that if the administration wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq above 150,000, it must provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
167 Responses to “Murtha Plans To Deny Bush Funding For Troop Escalation”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
In your face, Bush!
January 4th, 2007 at 11:17 amThey must be stopped.
Twenty thousand troops will not change anything in Iraq. Bush went in and blew their country to hell to look more macho than his father. Add this to the list of his many bad ideas and failures.
Iraq citizens will never forget what Bush has done.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:20 amWhat do you do with a serial disgrace who refuses to stop killing?
You start by tying his hands ...
January 4th, 2007 at 11:22 amcan anyone imagine having to speak to the president? I would think it most like trying to engage charlie manson in conversation. you better talk about what it wants, for it knows nothing else.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:22 amI do feel sorry for psychologists that have to speak to sociopaths, it must be depressing no end. you can see what it has done to our world
This is some really good news...maybe I can afford to take a breath now.
Whew!!!!!
January 4th, 2007 at 11:25 amThis is the only way to curb the beast that is GWB.
Good job, Rep Murtha. I hope it works.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:26 amThis I agree with. We elected congress and we should make congress go on record when it comes to Iraq. I want to know who votes yes to Winning and who votes no to Winning in Iraq. That is very important for the voters to see.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:27 amGood one oldtree, I read an article year's ago about the highest suicide rate was in the psychologists profession, after living in a world dictated by this insane madman I now truly understand......Blessings
January 4th, 2007 at 11:29 amThis veteran thanks you Mr. Murtha.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:32 amBlock on, Murtha!
January 4th, 2007 at 11:32 amSo, there is a decent man in US government.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:33 amRoger, just my opinion, winning or loosing is long gone on the issue of the bush ego war....We will not, nor can we ever win this one.....What this is now about is liveing or dieing, their's and our's...Blessings
January 4th, 2007 at 11:34 am#7 - Roger_Roger
And what exactly would winning be in Iraq? Dubya couldn't win a horse race if his was the only one running.
WAAAAY too much NeoCon Kool-aid, my 11% minority troll.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:35 am#7: With nearly four years elapsed since invading Iraq we have not won the war and we are currently not winning the war. It seems the Bush administration and the former Republican congress both voted for not winning.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:35 amWinning in Iraq.
Comment by Roger_Roger
Please expand on that thought. What does that mean to you?
January 4th, 2007 at 11:36 amI don't know what we are even trying to "win" in Iraq. I do know we are losing good young people and money. I'm tired of the whining about winning.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:38 amYessssss
January 4th, 2007 at 11:42 amBravo to Murtha and I hope he does that, but he must shame other Democrats to do the same! NO more doing what Bush wants anymore!
January 4th, 2007 at 11:43 amThis is starting to get juicy...
January 4th, 2007 at 11:43 amI guess I heard that winning would be a stable Democratic government who assists the US in the war on terror.
Hell the US can't even get support from itself on this issue.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:44 amJust so ol' Dumbya can send more of our men and women to Iraq -- to put them in harms way -- so the good 'ol Boys of Haliburton, the Oil Co.'s can rake in more Big Bucks.
I am sick to my stomach with this phoney baloney War on Terror"ism" -- gotta go after another "ism".
January 4th, 2007 at 11:45 amIn principal Murtha's plan to deny funding to the White House for troop escalation sounds great and would be the perfect in you face to our Dictator in Chief.
In reality it is all talk because even if congress where to deny Bush the additonal funding he will request to support the escalation the Pentagons budget for this year has already been passed and BUSHCO will just take the funding from elsewhere in the Pentagons budget to feed the escalation and in effect will tell Murtha and congress to stuff it, just like he does everyday in everway.
Our only hope is that somehow we as a country can stand up to this fool and declare him incompetent and get him committed to the same rehab center that Foley went to.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:45 am#7 - Roger_Roger,
Jon Steward got it right: the Iraqis are having a civil war. There is no winning or losing for us. Its like during the American Civil War if France worried about winning or losing.
Or try this on one: what we have here is an occupation. We don't win or lose an occupation; it either continues or it ends.
Or maybe you like this better: we went into Iraq because Saddam was a an evil dictator with WMD. Saddam is dead and there are no WMD. So we already won and should send the troops to where they are needed or home.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:45 amThis war was supposed to provide the oil revenues of Iraq to some very influential people. Now that that is not possible they will try and stay there as long as possible so they can make their money from war profiteering. Iraq's oil or your tax revenue. They don't care where it comes from just as long as they get their treasure.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:47 amAbout doggamn time somebody stood up to put an end to this BS.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:48 amGo Jack!
Now if they would only begin impeachment I'd be happy.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:49 amNOW, we're talking! Escalate the war?! Just say NO!
January 4th, 2007 at 11:50 am"Winning in Iraq" - exactly what does that mean: permanent garrisons in Baghdad, crossing the border into Iran, moving the US capital to Jerusalem?
Sharon has it right. The true casualty figure in Iraq is already at the 50,000 mark with the 3000 figure just a shill for the media. So, Roger, at one point do we accept the loss and go home? I'm with Congressman Murtha - let's do it right now.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:50 amMurtha for President in 2008
January 4th, 2007 at 11:51 amSadly, Dr. Benway is likely correct. One person cannot stop an out of control freight train.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:51 amI think it likely that Bush and his cabal of criminals will seek to politicize this maneuver and spin it in a light that will try to show Dems as witholding reenforcements to the already embattled troops. Care must be taken to mitigate that lie.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:52 amIf it passes, I have a feeling Bush will find a way to ignore Congress.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:52 amAnd You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid & Diet:
Please don't be so liberal in the use of the word "war". Losing any solider is terrible but as Iraq relates to any other war America has fought you have a lot to learn about war. I suppose we could have just nuked the country and not lost any lives.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:52 amThis is one of two powers that the Congress was granted by the Constitution to curb the appetite of presidents to go to war..and that is to excercise the power of Congress to stop funding wars...it is the purse power. The other power was given to the Congress is the power to declare wars. Sometimes this is misunderstood by some people to mean the president has the power to initiate a war. The Commander in Chief has the power of conducting the war that the Congress approved and has the power to fund. The resolutions passed by the Congress which gave the authorization to Bush to start a war in Iraq were related to 9/11 and terrorism...but IRAQ WAS NOT RELATED TO EITHER ONE,AND OFFICIALLY THE 'THE CONGRESS DID NOT DECLARE A WAR ON IRAQ'.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:53 amWinning in Iraq is about getting the Iraqi government powerful enough to support itself and defend itself. Furthermore, the Iraqi people require a Democracy. If those 2 goals are met, we win.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:53 amThere is no such thing as winning or losing... because there was no "prize" or finish line in the first place. You have to be an idiot to think there is any reality to the words "winning in Iraq". It is impossible for America to "lose" because there is nothing to "win". We dont even have an enemy. This is the worst possible outcome of group-think. Speaking points based on illusions from 3 or 4 years ago. Everything we do from here on out is a disgrace because all decisions are assuming that the base itself is solid when infact the basis for all the winning losing talk it itself an illusion.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:53 amRead the memo from the Center for American Progress (owner of TP). Read the whole thing; it's not that long. While their ideas are largely good, they are STILL not willing to support the idea of cutting funds for the Iraq war, only amending the supplemental bill. NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!! We lost Iraq from the very beginning, first by the invasion then by failing to secure the peace before the insurgency got a foothold. A bad beginning pretty much guarantees a bad ending. Staying there is NOT going to keep Iraq and the entire region from blowing up. That's inevitable. Much better to bring our troops home, secure our own country as best we can, launch a Manhattan-style project to become energy independent.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:54 amRoger feels there is never a point to cut losses and go home. He is like those cretons who feel we still could have won Vietnam, we just lost the will.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:55 amThe "winning" thing is about egos and politics, not connected with reality.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:55 amYes roger roger, lets see all the votes and all the signing statements that cancel the votes and all the implementations requested by the GAO on civilian contractors that haven't been implemented and all the votes on not providing the soliders with the proper equipment to "win".
Let's see a lot more from this president. Oh that's right, we will now that there is a congress that grew a pair.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:57 amBig deal, Bush will just ignore it like he does all other directives from Congress.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:00 pmBush knew this would happen. "I tried to surge/escalate. I tried to win. they chose defeat." That's why homeboy said it was a political decision.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:01 pmOh, I wasn't saying wether it is right or wrong to want to lose in Iraq. I simply think it is important for the voters to see where there congress men andd woman stand. Much of America currently wants to lose in Iraq. A Congress man and woman that feels the same way is probably gaining votes by declaring they want to be defeated in Iraq and lose. I just think it is silly not to get an ample amount of votes out of congress on winning or losing in Iraq. Hell, most of them ran almost there entire campaign on Iraq. It better be the number one thing Congress is doing now. That or they aren't doing what they are saying.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:02 pmRogerX2 says: Winning in Iraq is about getting the Iraqi government powerful enough to support itself and defend itself. Furthermore, the Iraqi people require a Democracy. If those 2 goals are met, we win.
1. "Get" the Iraqi government powerful? We can't make them do anything, only punish them/destroy them if they don't. It's their government, their ability to respond and, therefore, their responsibility.
2. "Require" a Democracy. Says who? The U.S.? If anyone except the Iraqi people themselves say that, it is not a democracy but an imposed system. Again, it's their country, their system, their responsibility.
Nothing to win, much to lose. Time to bring our men and women home.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:03 pmBush talked in length about finishing the MISSION in Iraq. What happened to the MISSION that was ACCOMPLISHED before on May 2003 that Bush declared, stating then the all war hositilities were over on that day in May 2003,speaking on the deck of US Navy Carrier.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:04 pmDennis Kucinich is advocating for more than that.
"Congressman Dennis Kucinich has issued a challenge to the Democratic party: "Use the power of the people to take a new direction, to offer a new plan, to end the occupation by ending the funding of the war.""
For his plan check out kucinich.us.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:05 pmFurthermore, the Iraqi people require a Democracy. If those 2 goals are met, we win.
Comment by Roger_Roger
The Iraqis placed Sharia Law into the Constitution that they created. Does that seem close enough of a democracy to you? Or should the US stay there until they finally "get it right".
January 4th, 2007 at 12:05 pmLet's see. To WIN we must maintain the illusion that a democracy is being founded. One that will be a shining beacon of freedom for the entire Middle East.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:08 pmIt's all smoke and mucking firrors.
RogerX2 says: Oh, I wasn’t saying wether it is right or wrong to want to lose in Iraq.
Sure you are. By setting up your little vote of Winning vs Losing you clearly demonstrate a bias. In my bias, staying in Iraq, continuing the occupation in the middle of a civil war, is losing. Bringing home the troops may not be a win, but it stops the senseless losses.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:10 pmBringing the troops home is out of the question right now, but the Dems agree with me on that one. Iraq isn't strong enough to defend itself yet. We cannot leave until Iraq can defend itself and allow for Oil production to start working properly. Ya, I said it. Oil is a huge reason we are there and will stay there. Sadly, we and the rest of the world require that Oil and we won't leave until it is secure. Hopefully in 30-40 years when demand for Oil finally starts to go past the Supply, we will look for something else to use for energy. Currently, it is simply to important to walk away from. The Dems know that to as they don't have enough members to vote for bringing the troops home either.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:11 pmFurthermore, the Iraqi people require a Democracy. If those 2 goals are met, we win.
Comment by Roger_Roger
The people that REALLY need a democracy are Americans, because we are losing it BIG TIME thanks to Dubya. Look at GW's actions across a gamet of issues, and then tell me if this is a Democracy worth "selling" anymore to anyone.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:11 pm"Furthermore, the Iraqi people require a Democracy."
So if Americans decide that Iraq REQUIRES a democracy, is it really a democracy? Can one country REQUIRE another to have a democracy, whether they want it or not? Requiring democracy is an oxymoron.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:13 pmSorry Shrub, when you're a lame duck, the buck stops somewhere else.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:13 pm#7 - Roger Roger,
I used to try to convince those against the war from the beginning to argue with people this way: The war was won when we took Baghdad and ousted the regime. That's when the occupation started. We already won. We're winners, so you don't have to worry about our military being losers. Since we have won, we've been in an occupation for 3 years. The only thing you can do in an occupation is eventually leave. You don't wait for people to stop shooting at you, you just leave after your victory.
We won. We're done. Let's bring them home.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:13 pm#35, Roger_roger,
Winning in Iraq is about getting the Iraqi government powerful enough to support itself and defend itself? I thought we went there because the WMD was an immenent threat?
Their govt will NEVER be powerful enough as long as we're there. Their govt is perceived as a puppet and the people will never support it under these circumstances. So "winning" isn't possible until we're gone.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:13 pmWe lost Iraq from the very beginning, first by the invasion then by failing to secure the peace before the insurgency got a foothold.
Comment by impeachcheneythenbush
No. This war was lost because is unjustifiable, immoral and illegal. This is not a war for freeing americans from the tyrannic grip of iraqis, this is not a war because iraqi set foot on US soil and killed civilians.
The only defendable wars are the wars for defense.
A great war leaves the country with three armies - an army of cripples, an army of mourners, and an army of thieves. ~German Proverb
Give me the money that has been spent in war and I will clothe every man, woman, and child in an attire of which kings and queens will be proud. I will build a schoolhouse in every valley over the whole earth. I will crown every hillside with a place of worship consecrated to peace. ~Charles Sumner
January 4th, 2007 at 12:13 pmRoger_Roger, I've about had it with you neocons and your idotic false choices.
And before you get all indignant because I just lumped you into the neocons' camp, consider your liberal use of their talking point, 'Dems want to lose in Iraq'.
Roger_Roger, 'victory', however you try to define the term, is no longer possible for us in Iraq. Even the concept of 'victory' and 'defeat' is becoming more meaningless by the day as the civil war in Iraq intensifies, and the American troops find themselves increasingly irrelevant, except as targets and unwitting arms suppliers.
Yammering about how those opposed to this disastrous war 'want us to lose' doesn't accomplish anything constructive, but of course, that's not your aim, is it?
January 4th, 2007 at 12:14 pmR2 has completely lost it.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:16 pmOut of his mucking find.
Sadly, we and the rest of the world require that Oil and we won’t leave until it is secure. Hopefully in 30-40 years when demand for Oil finally starts to go past the Supply, we will look for something else to use for energy.
Comment by Roger_Roger
I only wish you could say that, in front of a grieving iraqi family that just lost his son, for your OIL SUPPLIES.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:16 pmThat's not winning. That's nation building. Or being successful at nation building. You can call it a successful project or an acheived goal. But it isn't victory in a war. Please forgive the WWII comparisons, but when were VE day and VJ day? Were they after the regimes were toppled, or after the occupations ended?
January 4th, 2007 at 12:18 pmJuan - see #58
January 4th, 2007 at 12:18 pmRogerX2
So you go ahead and support the "slick liquid" and I'll support the troops. Bring them home, oil or no oil.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:19 pm#35 Roger_Roger
Winning in Iraq is about getting the Iraqi government powerful enough to support itself and defend itself. Furthermore, the Iraqi people require a Democracy. If those 2 goals are met, we win.
Our task is to nail Jello to a wall. If it isn't staying up, use more nails. If it still doesn't stay up on the wall, use even more nails. We mustn't quit trying to nail Jello to the wall. That would mean defeat. It would dishonor all the nails we've already stuck in the wall. More nails! Bring me more nails!!!
By the way, I did consult with all of the experts on this and I've determined that we have no choice but to stay the course. The way forward is to use more nails.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:20 pmRoger Dear, at what point in time will bush's war for ego and profit be good enough, how many Iraq citizens and U.S. military must die for his madness alone.? This war was planned by the bush cabal long before 9/11, it is written fact bush wanted to show up pappy bush and redeme the bush (legacy) because of his papas failing's and Hussaines attempt's on papas life....Power to the bush bunch is all their design, war in Iraq and a false" war on terror" to bring a seposed democracy to a country that we had previously imposed said dictator is all part of the supreme madness of interference to control and dictate . We must get the hell out immediately, bring all our troop's home now and start mending fences with the world diplomaticly....Blessings
January 4th, 2007 at 12:20 pmRRooggeerr must have a bumper sticker that says "Support the Oil"
January 4th, 2007 at 12:22 pmWhile Murtha is at it, how about a bill that denies BushCo their salaries since they are not doing their jobs representing the people and upholding the Constitution? Not that Halliburton wouldn't/aren't taking care of them. But, I'd like the symbolism.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pm#54 Jake - that's DEAD ON.
Stupid neocons don't even remember their Shrub's "Mission Accomplished" media assault.
See, we won already, we're not losers, and neither are you R2.
SUPPORT THE TROOPS
January 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pmNOT THE "WAR"
63 chimpeach
Brilliant!
January 4th, 2007 at 12:25 pmIf it wasn't just plain wrong I'd be tempted to just let Bush have his way with this surge thing just so he/they can't say later "It's not our fault! If they'd only let us have 20,000 more troops we could have won!"
But, as I said, that wouldn't be the right thing to do. Cuz we ALL know that the only thing 20,000 more troops will do (other than getting more people killed) is that there will be more troops positioned to threaten Iran.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:26 pmroger: "Winning in Iraq is about getting the Iraqi government powerful enough to support itself and defend itself. Furthermore, the Iraqi people require a Democracy. If those 2 goals are met, we win."
If those are your criteria, we've already lost. Iraq is an Islamic Republic dominated by Shia militias. As such, it will never be a Jeffersonian-style republic.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:26 pmdlet
Oil stick and dipstick.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:26 pmMurtha is only fulfilling his constitutional responsibility - exercising control over how the government spends the people's money. We see him as courageous only because the other Democrats are such cowards and Republicans such obvious sycophants.
The point is not that the money for the "surge" is already appropriated; the point is that someone in congress is finally growing balls.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:31 pmBush= Stupidity,Murtha=Logic Go Murtha go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ_NzM7uJaE&mode=related&search=
January 4th, 2007 at 12:31 pmJuan - see #58
Comment by RUCerious
RU, you are a vet. You know what war is. I dont assume I know what war is cuz Ive never been in one, but at least I know enough to not want them, not here nor anywhere. Roger may think that its ok as long as others die and its far away from his hometown.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:32 pm#63 - ROFLMAO!~!
January 4th, 2007 at 12:33 pmI have a railroad spike I was saving for the GW memorial bike rack & eternal pisser, but could use to hold up lots of jello, maybe.
You can act like Oil isn't a big deal, but I challenge everyone here to give me one example of anyone that doesn't use 1 drop of oil, 1 Oil based product, and doesn't buy any product that was produced using energy from fossil fuels. So many here talk about Oil being the devil, yet you turn right around and heat your house with fossil fuels, burn gas, and buy your children tons of plastic toys to play with. In the end, you and me are the MAIN reason we are in Iraq and people there are dying. Speak out against it all you want, but your cash does way more speaking then your mouth. When you take your cash and buy products made or produced by fossil fuels, you are killing Iraqi children. Good job!!
January 4th, 2007 at 12:33 pmI need to get some cash together to invest in the straw man factory R2Dumbass is buying his from...
January 4th, 2007 at 12:36 pmI have a railroad spike I was saving for the GW memorial bike rack & eternal pisser, but could use to hold up lots of jello, maybe.
Comment by RUCerious
Good luck with that.
Support the railroad spikes...
January 4th, 2007 at 12:36 pmYou can act like Oil isn’t a big deal, but I challenge everyone here to give me one example of anyone that doesn’t use 1 drop of oil, 1 Oil based product
Comment by Roger_Roger
Wasn't the oil flowing out of Iraq in greater quantities before the invasion and occupation?
January 4th, 2007 at 12:37 pmIn the end, you and me are the MAIN reason we are in Iraq and people there are dying.
Comment by Roger_Roger
Idiot. Do you see other countries invading for oil? So, there ARE other ways.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:40 pm#76, Roger_roger, some of us have NO CHOICE, but to buy oil because we need to drive to work every day. Don't blame us. Blame the Republicans who refuse to support renewables and refuse to impose better mileage standards.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:40 pmRogerX2
BULLsh**!!! I didn't support the warmongering approach to Iraq and toppling Hussein, who was already contained. The oil was flowing before the U.S. destabalized Iraq. Oil is not the devil, BushCo is. And you who support him, even now.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:41 pmRRooggeerr thinks that invading a country and reducing its supply of oil on the world market is a reason for us to stay there to try and fix it so the supply will be what it was before we invaded it.
Takes a lot of chutzpah to follow that line of reasoning.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:41 pmRUCerious
That spike should be saved to guard the tomb of the known unknown President.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:43 pmCould we get some donations of clothing for R2's strawman. He looks pretty pathetic naked like that.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:45 pmLet's see, we need some khaki pants, a nice shirt, a bow tie, fedora, and, oh yeah, combat boots.
Could we get some donations of clothing for R2’s strawman. He looks pretty pathetic naked like that. Comment by RUCerious
No. I support strawman welfare reform the Republican way. Let him get off his a**, get a job in a cornfield somewhere, and buy his own clothes.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:51 pmPLC #84, we need to clear that with Sharon Cox, as she has the maul that goes with the set...
January 4th, 2007 at 12:52 pmRUCerious
I've got a back-up maul, so we're good to go either way. Actually, with the size of the "tomb", might we need two spikes?
January 4th, 2007 at 12:56 pmMurtha was WRONG when he voted for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Murtha is RIGHT this time, but as others have pointed out, short of impeachment of the current corrupt president and his president in charge of Vice (which I favor, by the way) there seems no way for Congress to stop the current corrupt administration from continuing the occupation and escalation of the conflict in Iraq until 2009.
Protest seems to be the only thing left to do. If the protest gets large enough and loud perhaps a veto-proof segment in Congress will develop to stop funding the debacle in Iraq.
We must say over and over:
Re-deploy our troops out of harm’s way from Iraq NOW!
January 4th, 2007 at 12:58 pm#75 RUCerious
I have a railroad spike I was saving for the GW memorial bike rack & eternal pisser, but could use to hold up lots of jello, maybe.
Pray it doesn't come to this, but if all else fails, we may have to use...gasp!
...The Big Spike.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:58 pmWasn’t the oil flowing out of Iraq in greater quantities before the invasion and occupation?
Comment by dlet — January 4, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
Yes, I do believe it was. And nice of Roger Roger to point out that Bush lied about the reason we invaded Iraq.
As for Roger Roger's suggestion that we wait 30 or 40 years to find an alternative to oil...what a moron.
January 4th, 2007 at 1:07 pmThe war is Bush's War, the surge is Bush's surge and neither have or will help the USA. It's all about Baby Bush and his failures. He needs two more years to cover his ass and say that we would have won if only....
And like all dictators, the wildy unpopular psycho has his defenders. Thanks R2, for giving the loser cover. Does the blood wash off easy, or will you carry the guilt to your grave?
Fu*k Bush with that spike.
Then the mall handle.
sideways.
January 4th, 2007 at 1:08 pmHey Thinkprogress - did you ban me again?
January 4th, 2007 at 1:11 pm[...] Murtha Plans To Deny Bush Funding For Troop Escalation: [...]
January 4th, 2007 at 1:14 pmWhen Bush took office the price of oil was $26 a barrel, its now $60.
Mission Accomplished!
January 4th, 2007 at 1:14 pmJust a couple months ago, didn't the American people vote to essentially "not win" in Iraq? That's a lot of people to be angry with, Roger.
January 4th, 2007 at 1:28 pmReducing the price we pay at the pump should be an important issue. The biggest hurdle's to getting our price per gallon down right now is the lack of the Government to allow the Oil companies to expand refining capacity. The government should deregulate it and allow the 30%-50% increase in refining. Furthermore, we need to allow Oil companies to start drilling domestic oil. Drilling in ANWAR, the Florida Coast, and the California Coast would drive prices down alot. Hopefully, the Dems will look out for the little guy in there first 100 hours and reduce the price they pay at the pump by allowing drilling of domestic supplies and uping refining space.
January 4th, 2007 at 1:30 pmOops! It happened again...
Somebody crapped on their keyboard then decided to post it in #97.
Interesting technique.
January 4th, 2007 at 1:41 pmget over it rrooggeerr...
January 4th, 2007 at 1:43 pmdump your suv, buy and use compact flor bulbs, turn off the switches, turn down the thermostat, unplug anything not in use, get on your bike and/or take a walk, conserve, reuse, recycle, sacrifice...
and understand that 30+ years AGO the problem should have and would have been solved if not for the greedy oilcos... and the likes of you.
...
Rogx2 has this banner statement establising his credentials to talk about energy matters:
"oil will be $40 a barrel and gasoline at $1.15 by next spring"
I rest my case.
January 4th, 2007 at 1:45 pmRogerx2 your last posting makes you even more puzzling. You are hoping for the Dems to change something in their first 100 hours that the Repubs didn't touch for 12 years. But yet you still give the repubs your vote. You confuse yourself.
Some of your points make sense and have been brought up in the past 12 years (yep, by Dems). Such as the increasing of the refining capacity but they weren't given a chance on the floor. (yep, you guessed it again, because of Repubs).
You are a democrat that's been force feed the republican stupid soup.
Now you just have to drop that nontangible "win in Iraq" montra and you'll be well on your way.
Hell, you even speak for the little guy.
January 4th, 2007 at 1:47 pmrogerx2, did you really say that oil would be $40 a barrel and gas at $1.15 by next spring? You mean in like 2 months? Where I live it's twice that now. And you expect to be believed in anything else you say.
thanks for that TerrytheTurtle
January 4th, 2007 at 1:55 pmOn one level, it makes no sense to respond to someone like Roger, but on another, it is an opportunity to pierce the larger bubble of ignorance. So...just for clarity:
Concerning oil production, poor Roger completely misses the mark. The Bushites didn't go to Iraq to secure the flow of oil for the simple reason that there was no significant flow of oil from Iraq. The stunningly asinine truth is that the neo-cons drove us to war to prevent Russia from gaining access to those largely untapped reserves and the zio-cons drove us to war to destabilize the Middle East. Any other statement of rationale is just more skeevy bullshit from the Reich.
Given that, I hereby nominate RR for the "Meat Hat of the Month" award. Will anybody second that motion?
January 4th, 2007 at 1:58 pmThe surge is nothing but a political football. This has NOTHING to do with a plan for Iraq, this is a plan to get Iraq off of Bush and the Republicans' backs for 2008. They KNOW that Congress won't allow the troop surge and Bush will sit back and blame the "obstructionists" in Congress, the NEW MAJORITY for the failures in Iraq. He will say that "only if they had given me what I wanted, we could have avoided this tragedy". Troop surge is a load of crap, nothing more but typical politics for the Bush Admin.
January 4th, 2007 at 1:59 pmComment by Roger_Roger — January 4, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
A few questions:
Can you convince us that all of that oil we get out of the ground in Alaska and off the CA and FL coasts will be available to America, and only America?
What percentage of foreign oil consumption will this replace, and how much of a reduction in world oil prices, per barrel, will we see as a result?
If America's oil companies decide to sell some of this oil on the open market, they are not going to sell it for $40 a barrel when everyone else is getting $60. Why? Greed, mainly. And basic economics.
January 4th, 2007 at 1:59 pm#103
I'll second that.
January 4th, 2007 at 2:01 pmroger-roger must be playing the devils advocate, no one can be that dumb. "until Iraq can defend itself" . From whom ? Who is invading Iraq?
January 4th, 2007 at 2:05 pm#97 the price of oil is not determined only supply and demand..it is determined by the value of the US dollar also. As you may noticed that when the dollar goes down..the price of oil goes up..That is because oil producers sell their oil in the market and receive dollar....It is one of the fundementals of keeping our dollar strong and on demand by other countries and as the top hard currency in demad is the use of dollar as selling currency for oil....If the oil countries choose to accept payment in other currencies ,such action will hurt the dollar badly. Since the dollar lost almost 30% of its value to the Euro in the last few years...and the British pound is reaching its highest peak in years against the dollar,oil producing countries raised their prices as a result. If you are paid $50.00 for the gallon you sell,and the dollar goes down against other major currencies...to get the same money , you have to increas oil price per gallon you sell to get the same amount of dollars you used to get. The reason the dollar is going down is because we have too much debt , we are not balancing our budget...and our export /import ratio is in decline....
January 4th, 2007 at 2:05 pm104 you may be right. Why else would they let that slip out so far in advance from the official anouncement. It's not much of an obstruction because it's easily refuted. 20,000 troops wouldn't make any positive difference according to the Generals and that can be pushed back in Bushs' face. Remember the whole listening to the Generals thing.
January 4th, 2007 at 2:06 pmOk, I just saw 6 busloads of Marines and Sailors leave the gates here, going to "parts unknown". Another 6 left the other day. This is going to be a trend for the next couple months. Lets take a different approach to the problem. Don't just bitch, look for solutions.
We all realize that we all use too many petrol-based products. That is agreed on. We all know there needs to be alternatives.
Now, in order to placate both sides, we 1) Start drilling in the Gulf region and off California. This helps to give us a stand in reducing our need for foreign oil. 2) Invest HEAVY amounts of money in research for affordable alternatives. I am sure no one would mind if Exxon got a tax break for their research. I know I wouldn't.
What does all this do for us? No need for foreign oil, no need for wars over foreign oil. It gives Corporations incentives to find alternative fuel sources as well.
BTW, we already won the war, it is the peace that is killing so many of us.
January 4th, 2007 at 2:12 pm#103 I'll third that. I have seldom read such bull ( except MA).
January 4th, 2007 at 2:14 pmRobert says: "Exxon got a tax break..."
(1) Exxon has still not paid for Exxon Valdez
(2) Junkie says to pusher: "hey here's some more money go find a way to get off this smack"
Pusher: "ok , I'l get back to you. Where's your twenty, by the way?"
Sorry Robert that won't work.
January 4th, 2007 at 2:23 pmTerrytheTurtle, I was using Exxon as an example of "big oil", open your mind a little
January 4th, 2007 at 2:33 pmGoing to war to secure American interests is unfortunetly valid. Having us gain control over vast untapped Oil instead of Russia is in our best interest. Are you inferring that we should simply let Russia take the energy without a fight? That would be foolish. The world is run on energy/Oil. We either fight for some of it or get left in the dust.
January 4th, 2007 at 2:42 pm"open your mind" - says the guy who thinks that the energy issue can be solved by solving supply side issues and throwing money at oil companies.
Robert do some mind expansion yourself and tighten up your thinking. Here we go:
January 4th, 2007 at 2:43 pm(1) The oil in the ground under those caribou in Alaska - whose is it?
(2) When BP digs it up - whose is it now?
(3) Where does all that oil end up? Are you sure?
(4) What is the difference between foriegn and domestic oil at the pump?
I am sure no one would mind if Exxon got a tax break for their research. I know I wouldn’t.
What does all this do for us? No need for foreign oil, no need for wars over foreign oil. It gives Corporations incentives to find alternative fuel sources as well.
Comment by robert — January 4, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
Exxon already has tax breaks and subsidies. Note the use of the words "new industry investments" from its top executive as noted in this posting from ThinkFast on 12/1/2006:
We could take some of those "investments" and develop alternative energy sources. But they won't. Just drill drill drill for more oil.
January 4th, 2007 at 2:46 pmroger2- try this one on Mr. energy expert. Why are there not large refineries over the border in Mexico ? That would solve the problem according to you-NOT. What does refinery capacity have to do with the price of crude oil ? Lastly, do you even have a clue to "supply and demand" ? BTW- the major energy companies have no economic interest in building excess capacity.
January 4th, 2007 at 2:48 pmWatch out Roger Rabbit's Risk board is coming out now.....
January 4th, 2007 at 2:49 pmTerrytheTurtle,
1) If we do not need oil from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc, because we can find it HERE in the U.S. it reduces our need to "defend" our interests abroad.
2) Decrease shipping cost=decreased production cost=decreased cost to the consumer.
3) read all of what I wrote. IT STARS WITH REDUCING/ELIMINATING our need for foreign oil until we can have affordable alternatives.
I would love to have a vehicle that is more environmentally friendly to drag the wife and 3 kids around in. The problem is that the COST of such a vehicle is prohibitive to me. Give energy companies and INCENTIVE to do the right thing. Sorry, sometime you have to make it worth while to people.
January 4th, 2007 at 2:52 pmThe price of crude is largely dicatated to us by OPEC. We can however slightly change that. For one, we need to start drilling ANWAR, Florida, and California ASAP. This would bring down Crude prices. Furthermore, we need to stabalize Iraq and then move on to Iran. If we got both those countries pumping out the Oil THEY COULD BE PUMPING, it would drive prices down well in the $20 range. At this point we would be on cruise control for the next 30-40 years. 30-40 years is the estimated time Demand will start to potentially be more then the supply. Currently, we are soaked in Oil. We have more Oil then we know what to do with. The price is high because of to much regulation, lack of us drilling out Oil, and IRAN/Iraq not being stable countries.
We should be working to fix these problems. It should be our Congress' highest priority.
January 4th, 2007 at 2:57 pmGoing to war to secure American interests is unfortunetly valid. Having us gain control over vast untapped Oil instead of Russia is in our best interest. Are you inferring that we should simply let Russia take the energy without a fight? That would be foolish. The world is run on energy/Oil. We either fight for some of it or get left in the dust.
Comment by Roger_Roger — January 4, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
You still haven't answered my questions posed in #106 almost an hour ago. Busy using the Google? I see that TerrytheTurtle has posed similar questions.
As for your most recent post, are you suggesting that we invaded Iraq to claim their oil reserves for ourselves? We invaded a sovereign nation for this? Isn't that, like, theft? And if Russia decided to invade America for its coal reserves (250 years' worth, as I understand) to secure their future, you think that would be just peachy?
January 4th, 2007 at 2:59 pm#110 Robert. You've really been changing your mind about things, and I hope that has something to do with reading and commenting on progressive blogs such as TP. However, I personally would not support any more tax breaks to "Big Oil" for research into alternatives. There are LOTS of smaller companies out there, both inside and outside the U.S. who have been doing such research as well as developing technology, but are struggling due to lack of investors. I wouldn't trust Exxon or other simillar companies to not take the money and hide or destroy their most potentially beneficial R&D. (Let's not forget about GM's destruction of their electric car.)
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Applies to corporations as well.
January 4th, 2007 at 3:03 pmGoing to war to secure American interests is unfortunetly valid.
Comment by Roger_Roger — January 4, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
Not according to international law. Hitler went to war, to grab resources nearby, and to expand the scope of the third Reich. Are you trying to say that the US has a right, where other countries don't to invade and take whatever we want? If you are, you are no better then the Nazi's, imperial Japan, or any other invader through history.
January 4th, 2007 at 3:04 pmRogerx2 are you moving the goal posts again. Just like GW. WMD's, Tyrants, Demcoracy, now oil.
I value american life much more than that.
Robert and Terry, you guys are a lot closer to the same side than you realize.
Robert is right about giving businesses incentive to do the right thing (read make a profit). And Terry is right about accountabilty needed.
You are 2 sides of the same coin.
January 4th, 2007 at 3:04 pm#114- Roger..[ Going to war to secure American interests is unfortunetly valid. Having us control over vast untapped Oil instead of Russia is in our best interest]......Are you refering to 'untapped' Russian oil? How are you going to do that?...and by what power legally can you do that?..are you going to take from Russia their number one source of income? !! or do you mean 'untapped' in another countries...By what power legally can you go and take oil belong to other countries? You think it is 'ok' because it is your interest..or because it is legal?. Do you like to see other countries control our 'untapped oil' because their interests Dictates that? You suggested that you want to go to war fighting other countries to control their oil,and you think these countries will not fight you for that?!!
January 4th, 2007 at 3:06 pmRobert, I'm on a treo so long answers are not possible - WC will weigh in I'm sure.
Your points briefly:
(1) Hubbels peak for US production was 1973. 70 pct of US comsumption is imported. But well done on finding the largest government subsidy to the oil industry - the DOD budget.
(2) Oil is completely fungible - shipping costs are spread throughout the world market. This is irrelevant.
(3) I did - your fallacy is the word "foreign". Once the oil is out of the ground - all oil becomes "foreign". That's what a global market does.
Sorry, how did today's automobile economy come from? Did the US taxpayer give the railroads a wad of cash saying "hey this railroad thing isn't working for us - find us something else"?
January 4th, 2007 at 3:06 pmIn other words, Roger Roger is saying we need oil, and to hell with Iraq and Iran and the fact they are sovereign nations. We are going to invade you, occupy you, kill your people if they get in our way, and take what treasures (oil, in this case) we want to, and you can do nothing to stop us.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present the Roger Roger Doctrine.
January 4th, 2007 at 3:09 pmHellinabucket - hmm maybe. There are examples all over history of why monopolies have to be bypassed by disruptive technologies. Monopolies never voluntarily give their monopolies up. Carrotts won't work, the stick is the only way with them.
January 4th, 2007 at 3:11 pmWC - Roger Rabbit can't claim the copyright on that one - Prime Minister Tojo - Japan, December 7th, 1941.
January 4th, 2007 at 3:16 pmLast night on Olbermann, Barney Frank said that the money for the Defense Department has already been approved (one of the few spending bills passed by the Repubs). Since the money is already in the budget, keeping the Presidunce from spending it any way he wants is (according to Frank) very unlikely. Can anyone address this seeming discrepancy between Frank's statements and what Murtha is proposing? I'm hoping that public outrage over Bush's pending proposal for escalation will convince him to abandon his lunacy before thousands more Americans are killed and maimed (much like the Harriet Miers SCOTUS debacle).
January 4th, 2007 at 3:20 pmWhoah Randron back on topic.
Don't really know - is the DOD budget and the Iraq funding different? Iraq is on the nations 'credit card' as a supplemental and not on the budget - ooh that means the deficit is bigger than Chimpy says....
January 4th, 2007 at 3:28 pmRoger_Roger is missing the more important point. He is a believer that we use up all the oil FIRST, and then we will be forced to do something about another energy source. Somewhere lost within his reasoning (I use that term lightly) is the issue of global warming and climate change. That is, burning hydrocarbons is the largest contributing factor to what will be a complete disaster...not only for the U.S., but world-wide. We are already beginning to see the effects of this, and unless we make a quick course correction, (which unfortunately will only ameloriate global warming for some years), we will be steaming full power ahead into a global disaster.
January 4th, 2007 at 3:58 pmHey there you are Roger Rabbit. Straying away from your major: the energy industry into politics. I see your fax machine is running well today. Hey give me your fax number, I want to send you a talking point.
Not being American, the US government is a bit confusing at times. But Chimpy is the executive 'the Commander in Chief' and Congree the legislative. Is Roger Rabbit saying that Nancy Pelosi can order the troops home tomorrow? Well I never....
January 4th, 2007 at 4:29 pmFrom 131:
I believe that the supplemental authorization is a budgetary estimate, a proposed spending package for a specific objective, not an actual release of funds, in the sense of a signed check. If I understand this process correctly, the Appropriation Committee still retains final control over how and when that money is spent. This means that Murtha is still in the driver's seat until the money has actually been spent. It would be good if we could find somebody with day-to-day experience in these matters who might be able to clarify the inner workings of this process.
January 4th, 2007 at 5:24 pmMurtha is the Man.
January 4th, 2007 at 6:05 pmLadies and gentlemen, I present the Roger Roger Doctrine.
Comment by WC — January 4, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
Which is-post complete bull $hit. Then we challenge him on it and you never hear back from him on that issue. He just flits off to another thread and posts some more bull $hit. The little snot nose backs the party that had complete control of our government for the last six years and he is bitching about what the Dem's have or haven't done in the last 6 hours. That is a puke for you.
January 4th, 2007 at 6:10 pmJack Murtha is an excellent example of why we are thankful to have the US Senate and cloture.....
January 4th, 2007 at 6:18 pmJoeFriday - I would have thought you would be in a celebratory mood! I'm thankful Jack Murtha, Speakette Pelosi, Cindy Sheehan and the rest of Progressive America can show middle of the road voters what the Prog agenda is. See, we all have something to be thankful for.
January 4th, 2007 at 6:24 pmJoeFriday - I would have thought you would be in a celebratory mood! I’m thankful Jack Murtha, Speakette Pelosi, Cindy Sheehan and the rest of Progressive America can show middle of the road voters what the Prog agenda is. See, we all have something to be thankful for.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 4, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
Oh, but I am! It's like having your team win the super bowl. However, let me go on record as saying that I don't expect the world to change. I am an independent that dislikes both major parties.
January 4th, 2007 at 6:32 pm#139 - "... I am an independent that dislikes both major parties."
Comment by Joefriday
******An independent Progressive??? There are just different degrees of left-leaning tilt. If i were a gambling woman, I would be willing to bet you are a Dem voter when it gets down to the brass tacksof a general election and a Green voter in primaries....just to let the Dems know your "true feelings"......
January 4th, 2007 at 6:57 pmIt's interesting that Bush wouldn't put in more troops when everyone was telling him to saying the Generals hadn't asked for more and if they did he'd send them. Now, everyone is saying get out of Iraq, but Bush wants to send more people? How bass-akward can he get? It's all about the money and oil they are making. They aren't about to give it up now.
January 4th, 2007 at 7:05 pmDear Jacquie - If you don't think oil is a national vital interest - then you qualify as an ignoramous. Progs don't want to drill for it here, they don't want to buy it there - that is why I support alternative fuels and send the Arbs back to their camels where they belong. 7th Century people have no business operating modern machinery.....
January 4th, 2007 at 10:10 pmA few years from now, the Republicans can say: "Just as we were about to win in Iraq by increasing troup numbers, The Democrats surrendered and wasted the brave efforts of our troups."
January 5th, 2007 at 12:02 amMartin, we're still in the survival mode.....you keep la-la land ready for the rest of us......
January 5th, 2007 at 12:37 amI hear Hillary and Barrack are intending to support the "McCain Doctrine".
How ya feel about that, America?
January 5th, 2007 at 1:21 amit seems most likely murtha and others who don't support this escolation of troops to iraq will be used for excuses of why the war was lost. the bush administration is looking for another reason
January 5th, 2007 at 8:49 amto deny failure of their agressive war and corruption that has permiated their decisions from the beginning.
I fully support this! I can think of no better way to ensure the death of those shit head soldiers who are already in Iraq.
January 5th, 2007 at 9:38 amWell then, we'll see how much power the Democrats have gained in Congress, and/or what they truly believe in, won't we?
January 5th, 2007 at 12:11 pmRepresentative John Murtha has consistently requested, boldly, the withdrawal of our troops. Now, with Democrats finally having some power, his non-funding for escalation bill, makes total sense. Take a look at the budget deficits, rampant spending by private contractors, 8.5 billion dollars mysteriously lost, lack of accounting, cutting Veterans benefits, and the mess made of the whole Iraq occupation. It is time for the Congress to stop worrying about what the Republicans may do or say, and do what is RIGHT! I would suggest that Congress pass a bill that would severly limit profits made by independent contractors. We, the people, have financed billions of dollars in profits handed out to private companies working in Iraq and to defence contractors in the U.S. No bid contracts given to the administration's cronies have fattened their already bloated holdings. War profiteering was once seen as treasonous. President Carter, and Truman put a stop to it. Bush et al, have laughed all the way to the bank! DEMOCRATS GET BRAVE AND ACTIVE. We have lost all our Civil Rights, let's not carry on with this bloody occupation, too.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:24 pmMurtha is NOT alone. Presidential candidate/Congressman Kucinich is with him along with many in the Kuchinich lead Congressnal group. We need to push the media to give Kucinich more air time.
January 5th, 2007 at 4:52 pm[...] So if you support our troops, then support Murtha and get our troops out for now. Again, when things clear up. There will be a lot less of them to deal with. And we can support or put in power whom ever we want. Like all of the hundreds of times we’ve done this in the past. Why isn’t the CIA really doing its job?read more | digg story [...]
January 5th, 2007 at 6:20 pmGeorge Bernard Shaw: The Revolutionist's Handbook,
January 5th, 2007 at 6:38 pm"A fanatic is someone who redoubles his efford once his forgotten his aim"
Words that George W. Bush lives by!!
Stop this neo-con madness. Bush, Cheney, Rice,et:al must go either by Impeachment or other way's I will not post. Save our young men and women from this debacle that has lasted longer than WW11!
If they are still around when this is all over, If they are not taken out, They deserve to be turned over to the Hague for War Crimes. The first time in our great history, We attacked a Sovereign country. It made no difference who was in charge of that nation.
Countries who attack other countries throughout history, Those leaders have been judged to have been War Crimes. Hitler died by suicide, But his Henchmen were either hanged or jailed. Napolean spent his last day's on a small Island. God willing, BUSHCO will suffer the same fate!!!
January 5th, 2007 at 8:31 pm[...] story No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTMLallowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> [...]
January 5th, 2007 at 9:53 pm[...] Defense Appropriations Chairman John Murtha (D-PA) told Arianna Huffington last week that he wants to “fence the funding,” denying the president the resources to escalate the war, instead using the money to take care of the soldiers as we bring them home from Iraq “as soon as we can.” [...]
January 7th, 2007 at 11:40 am[...] Defense Appropriations Chairman John Murtha (D-PA) told Arianna Huffington last week that he wants to “fence the funding,” denying the president the resources to escalate the war, instead using the money to take care of the soldiers as we bring them home from Iraq “as soon as we can.” [...]
January 7th, 2007 at 2:38 pmPasted below is my reaction:
Dear Congressperson,
I understand legislation by Mr. John Murtha to restrict the military occupation in Iraq (based upon a multitude of lies to the American people) will be presented to Congress in the near future. I request that you support his endeavors and keep me informed of your related actions.
As I read the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16, I find authority for the Congress to call out the Militia to “suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.†reserving to the States the Appointment of the Officers. I do not find any authority for the military to be used to invade and occupy sovereign nations. I request that you reconsider and remove the President's authority to engage our military in conflict without Congressional approval and reconfirm the State‘s authority to appoint officers.
It is additionally understood that a standing Army was denied by the spending restriction of Clause 12 to prevent a tyrant‘s use of the military on a whim. What actions do you consider undertaking to re-establish that provision ??
Sincerely,
January 14th, 2007 at 11:08 pmYour constituent.
[...] Notwithstanding Joe Biden’s threat of a “constitutional confrontation” if Bush attacks Iran without Congressional authorization, the fact is that such an attack would be perfectly legal: the War Powers Act gives the US President legal authority to wage war against any country for 60 days. It would also be legal for Bush to order nuclear strikes against Iran: under NSC-30 of 1948, “the decision as to the employment of atomic weapons in the event of war is to be made by the Chief Executive”. Neither Congressional “resolutions” nor votes to withold funding will have any effect on preventing such events. [...]
January 20th, 2007 at 5:44 pm[...] Huffingtonpost via ThinkProgress.org: When we asked about the likelihood of the president sending additional troops to Iraq, Murtha was [...]
February 25th, 2007 at 12:29 amBRAVO Mr. Murtha. We elected the Democrates so that they would bring the troops home, not increase troops to have more killed in Iraq. we MUST HALT THE MONEY - that is the ONLY way we can bring them home alive- and not worry about the nasty comments of "not supporting our troops" Our Pres. Bush surely is NOT suporting our troops by treating them in the HORRIBLE manner in the hospital in Washington, with vermin, rats etc. and the BAD care they are receiving.we MUST CUT THE MONEY - there is NO OTHER WAY.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:23 pmNaked Girls Naked Black Men Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:24 pmWild Bill
I found this on google.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:06 amNaked Girls Beyonce Naked Naked Teen Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 4:52 amJack
Truer word have never been uttered, indeed. Your point is sound and excellent. Thanks for sharing.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:29 pmStewart
Do you really believe what you write?
April 4th, 2008 at 8:06 pmAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 7th, 2008 at 8:07 amJessie
To all the uninitiated out there - read this and take heed. This is good stuff. Thanks.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:27 am