Comment by MsJoanne — July 11, 2007 @ 11:59 am

Methinks this was in fact directed at someone else. I know damned well that the Republicans are obstructing, per Mitch McConnell’s own words, EVERYTHING the Democrats wish to present to Congress, on so-called “principle”.

I’m of the opinion that the Democrats should be attacking all of this through appropriations. Defund the White House (all of it), defund the military for anything not related to redeploying from Iraq, defund every, single, solitary damned private contractor, especially the mercenaries such as Blackwater. This is the one means Congress has, outside of its oversight powers, to bring this mess into check. Oversight by the various committees is a far slower process. If defunding were the tool of choice, the Executive couldn’t do a damned thing about it, besides try to play politics and exert that form of pressure. However, if the Congress keeps passing quite significant funding bills with the aforementioned stipulations, and placing them before the President, his vetoes and the nay votes from the opposition, will be the true reason why the troops are not being funded.

Read the Constitution. Congress gets to set up how the military is organized, the rules the military follows, the theatres of war the military is allowed to fight in, the rules under which the military must operate in that theatre of war, and the funding the military gets. The President gets to decide the raw strategic and tactical decisions, provided they follow the rules Congress allowed for that particular military action!

Section 8: The Congress shall have power

…

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

…

Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

Those are the authorities the two branches have in terms of control of the military. Read them. Study them. Memorize them. Love them.

I just love how conservatard/howsad/valiantthehater, etc. calls liberals/progressives stupid, etc., all the while making spelling errors galore, having no sense of punctuation, etc.
Don’t you ever get tired of your own BS and hypocrisy, conservatard? Oh, that’s right; you’re a paid troll. Typical of Republiscums that they can’t even find someone literate to do it.

Although that’s typical for Dana Bash.

LOL… Oh, gee, I guess that settles it. Oh, wait, no it doesn’t. The first chink in the armor, dear heart, is always significant. You can expect to see more in the months ahead; deal with it.

“It seems that TP is determined to clearly separate the parties, another anti-American tactic.”

ROFL… Oh my … you do realize that this makes no sense at all, right? You don’t? Oh, dear. I’m so sorry.

“However, Snowe’s political affiliation is of no importance.”

Yes, dear, it is, particularly when Congressional Republicans have been presenting a nearly unanimous front on the war in Iraq.

“Both the Republicans and the Democrats have their Surrender Monkeys and their Patriots.”

ROFL… No comment necessary.

If I recall correctly, some Democrats did, in fact, call for more troops in 2003, back when it would have made a difference to have those extra troops. Circumstances have changed since then, of course, and the few extra troops that we have been able to commit in “the surge” are pretty clearly insufficient. The general public and Congressional Democrats are aware of this. Congressional Republicans may have to wait until 2008 to truly learn this lesson.

Now this is significant because it makes it now just Olympia Snowe, but Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, two Republicans who are now going to vote with the Democrats on this. It is significant in terms of the symbolism of it,

No it isn’t.

It seems that TP is determined to clearly separate the parties, another anti-American tactic. However, Snowe’s political affiliation is of no importance.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats have their Surrender Monkeys and their Patriots.

I begin by saying the word “libtard” repeatedly. This is a powerful debate tactic, because it combines the prefix lib- with the suffix -tard! Thus, I show my disdain for things liberal, and imply quite strongly that such things are stupid.

I continue by responding to your posts with disagreement. If you claim something to be true, I will immediately deny that thing’s truthfulness! It’s like jujitsu, but with words! I have no need for facts and research, for I am fully equipped with false analogies and the word “libtard”. Plus, I have no spell-checking equipment (internal or otherwise) to slow me down.

None can defeat Mega-Conservatron! Especially not sad, sad Clinton-doody-poop-faces. (Dare I coin a synonym for “libtard”? I do dare!)

Link, please?

Comment by missmolly — July 11, 2007 @ 12:55 pm

Missmolly,

Oh please, I guess you forgot that since 2003 the Democratic party had been calling for a surge in Iraq, for more troops in Iraq. The second that Bush agreed and said, yes we need more troops, let me send them……guess what happened?! The Democratic party now said that we didn’t need more troops in Iraq.

Webb’s amendment is political and stupid. It is designed to undercut the military. Anyone with an IQ over 80 would know this.

I agree 100%. I also noticed that when the Democrats were in the minority, even the thought that they might fillibuster a bill was shouted down by the mainstream media. The media told us those evil obstructing Democrats were thwarting the will of the people. Those same media figures are strangely silent about all the Republican obstructionism though. Suddenly, fillibustering or refusing an up or down vote are perfectly acceptable actions for the minority party, to the point that the media won’t even discuss them. Not a single Republican is being criticized for “not supporting the troops” even when they refuse to give them a reasonable break between tours in Iraq.

You’re right that the primary objective for Republicans is to prevent Democrats from accomplishing anything. If Dems wanted to pass a resolution praising motherhood, you can bet the Reps would filibuster against it.

Look at the Webb Amendment — who in their right mind would deny a soldier a well-earned rest? But because it was the Dems who introduced it, the Reps voted against it. Sigh.

You have a point in that I should have phrased my post better. I should have said that Nixon couldn’t really be compared to Bush on the war issue, since Nixon didn’t start the Vietnam conflict. The comparison was between Nixon and Bush — not the two wars themselves (there are still PLENTY of valid comparisons there).

A fairer comparison would be between LBJ and Bush, as LBJ really DID escalate the war into an unwinnable quagmire similar to the mess in Iraq today.

And you’ll remember that LBJ was so unpopular because of Vietnam (despite all he had done for civil rights on the home front) that he couldn’t even win the New Hampshire primary for re-election in 1968, prompting him to drop out of the race.

PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!