Should Bush veto Troop Withdrawal Legislation?

Should Bush veto Troop Withdrawal Legislation

  • Total voters
    0
#2
#2
Absolutely - I think the Democrats are in danger of overreaching in recent days. Harry Reid's "The war is lost" comment was unreal.
 
#3
#3
If the republicans were doing this how many "seperation of powers" headlines would we see all over this great land.
 
#4
#4
of course he should veto it. Reid and Pelosi are getting a little too uppity and need to be brought back down to earth.
 
#6
#6
When the President of Iran starts complimenting the Democratic Party, it's not a good thing.
 
#9
#9
How many more billion of dollars do we have to spend in Iraq before the U.S. acknowledges the occupation was a mistake? Even the Iraq people when they are polled want the U.S. out. So do the American people.
 
#10
#10
oklavol said:
How many more billion of dollars do we have to spend in Iraq before the U.S. acknowledges the occupation was a mistake? Even the Iraq people when they are polled want the U.S. out. So do the American people.
Click to expand...

I think it's perfectly valid to have that opinion, but setting dates for troop withdrawals is still not the way to go IMO.
 
#11
#11
CSpindizzy said:
Let me guess. An expected veto will supposedly do this?
Click to expand...

not by itself, no. It needs to be followed with the same level of invective directed at Reid/Pelosi that they so willingly heap upon the administration. Of course, since the GOP is so weak willed right now, Bush will probably find a way to sign this legislation.
 
#14
#14
GAVol said:
I think it's perfectly valid to have that opinion, but setting dates for troop withdrawals is still not the way to go IMO.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The bill passed because pork concessions were used to get enough to sign on.

Regardless of one's position on the war, this is a bad bill.
 
#15
#15
I disagree with the timetable, but do think that someone from either or both sides of the aisle needs to come up with a workable plan to win the "occupation".

Maybe once the current buildup is complete things will get better.
 
#17
#17
OWB said:
Let's just stay in Iraq forever!
Click to expand...

Even you must see the difference between withdrawing, and actually telling the enemy when you plan to withdraw. I am no military strategist, but it seems to me that telegraphing withdrawal dates will logistically put our transporting troops in much greater danger.
 
#18
#18
Lexvol said:
Even you must see the difference between withdrawing, and actually telling the enemy when you plan to withdraw. I am no military strategist, but it seems to me that telegraphing withdrawal dates will logistically put our transporting troops in much greater danger.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can see that. Let's just stay.
 
#20
#20
Regardless if you actually announce a timetable or you just keep it mum, it is pretty obvious withdrawal is coming when you see over a period of months over 150K troops withdrawing. People who think announcing a timetable is ludicrous need to realize we will be telegraphing an advanced withdrawal regardless. We cannot just say secretly that overnight we are pulling out 150K troops. It will be obvious. The Iraqi government will be informed and it will be leaked. We have to give some sort of timetable whether public or private to basically give the Iraqis some sort of motivation to take control themselves.

It's like welfare. If the recipient knows the giver has no plans to stop payments, they will keep riding the system and getting aid as long as they can. The Iraqi government knows as long as there is an insurgency, the US will keep sinking money into Iraq to boost equipment, etc. The longer they allow the insurgency to continue, the more they gain financially and materiel-wise. Even if it is only to Al Maliki, give him a timetable and say you have until X date to step up or your country and your newfound power implodes. For the sake of his nation and his own padded pockets and new power, he will be forced to do something.
 
#21
#21
CSpindizzy said:
Regardless if you actually announce a timetable or you just keep it mum, it is pretty obvious withdrawal is coming when you see over a period of months over 150K troops withdrawing. People who think announcing a timetable is ludicrous need to realize we will be telegraphing an advanced withdrawal regardless. We cannot just say secretly that overnight we are pulling out 150K troops. It will be obvious. The Iraqi government will be informed and it will be leaked. We have to give some sort of timetable whether public or private to basically give the Iraqis some sort of motivation to take control themselves.

It's like welfare. If the recipient knows the giver has no plans to stop payments, they will keep riding the system and getting aid as long as they can. The Iraqi government knows as long as there is an insurgency, the US will keep sinking money into Iraq to boost equipment, etc. The longer they allow the insurgency to continue, the more they gain financially and materiel-wise. Even if it is only to Al Maliki, give him a timetable and say you have until X date to step up or your country and your newfound power implodes. For the sake of his nation and his own padded pockets and new power, he will be forced to do something.
Click to expand...

While I agree we need a better plan, even if withdrawal is obvious due to leaks and or mass mobilization, I still see no reason for the US government to telegraph such a move.
 
#22
#22
The problem with the withdrawal as stated in the bill is that it is set in stone.

There is a 3 month window between the Iraqi government meeting every single goal and missing any or all goals. In short, it is a withdrawal strategy regardless of facts on the ground. This is quite different than setting metrics.

The second problem is that it presupposes the outcome of the strategy that is early in its implementation. Assuming the Iraqi's miss one of their goals, the withdrawal is set to begin this summer. If that's the case, I would imagine the military strategy should change to one of preparing for the withdrawal (clean up, shut down). Essentially the constraint dictates military strategy.
 
#23
#23
CSpindizzy said:
It's like welfare. If the recipient knows the giver has no plans to stop payments, they will keep riding the system and getting aid as long as they can.
Click to expand...

Thats a good analogy. Throwing more good money after bad. Most people realize the troops will be out before 2008 presidential elections, that is if the Republicans have any prayer of holding their seat in Congress. The last election was basicly a referendum on the Iraq War.....and they lost.
 
#24
#24
My problem with the "if they no we are leaving they will get their act together" strategy is that it is base on hope. Sounds good but we got in trouble in the first place for making this type assumption.
 
#25
#25
volinbham said:
My problem with the "if they no we are leaving they will get their act together" strategy is that it is base on hope. Sounds good but we got in trouble in the first place for making this type assumption.
Click to expand...
Have you been drinking or are you drunk on war?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top