billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
mnealtx 0
If they're willing to let him waive compliance on the withdrawal date, then why put it in there in the first place, other than to score points?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 2,400
>then why put it in there in the first place . . .
Because they are tasked with representing their constituents. Most americans want a withdrawal timeline.
Because they are tasked with representing their constituents. Most americans want a withdrawal timeline.
mnealtx 0
Quote>then why put it in there in the first place . . .
Because they are tasked with representing their constituents. Most americans want a withdrawal timeline.
And again, if they're willing to let him waive compliance on that item, then it's in there for no more reason than for them to score political points, just as they have done with the budget bills they've submitted so far.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 2,400
>And again, if they're willing to let him waive compliance on that item,
>then it's in there for no more reason than for them to score political points . . .
I think the term might be "compromise." (Besides, if it has no other purpose than to score political points, shouldn't Bush sign it, thus putting the troops over politics? He certainly can't lose any MORE political points than he has.)
>then it's in there for no more reason than for them to score political points . . .
I think the term might be "compromise." (Besides, if it has no other purpose than to score political points, shouldn't Bush sign it, thus putting the troops over politics? He certainly can't lose any MORE political points than he has.)
mnealtx 0
Quote>And again, if they're willing to let him waive compliance on that item,
>then it's in there for no more reason than for them to score political points . . .
I think the term might be "compromise." (Besides, if it has no other purpose than to score political points, shouldn't Bush sign it, thus putting the troops over politics? He certainly can't lose any MORE political points than he has.)
And when the troops AREN'T home by that date, regardless of what the Dems *said* they'd allow they'd be all over the airwaves screaming about how the President and the Republicans didn't go by what the bill said.
Look at the signing statements flap... all you hear about is how Bush is "circumventing the law" by issuing signing statements...but yet, signing statements have been common for decades...but you don't see them mention THAT.
Politicians (all of them) are spending WAY too much time trying to discredit the "other side" and not NEARLY enough time actually READING the bills that they're voting on and determining if it is a good thing for their constituents and America as a whole...
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 2,400
>And when the troops AREN'T home by that date, regardless of what the
>Dems *said* they'd allow they'd be all over the airwaves screaming about
>how the President and the Republicans didn't go by what the bill said.
Yes. And the republicans will scream "this non-binding language handcuffed our troops and is forcing them to lose the war!" or some other such nonsense. Both sides will scream no matter what.
>Look at the signing statements flap... all you hear about is how Bush is
> "circumventing the law" by issuing signing statements...but yet, signing
>statements have been common for decades...but you don't see them
>mention THAT.
?? I see quite a lot of mention of that. The issue is that Bush has issued over 750 challenges in his signing statements and still has two years to go; his predecessor issued 130. In 2006, the American Bar Association (an organization I hope you can accept is not a democratic organization) described the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers." They noted that other presidents use this procedure, but Bush has abused it.
Indeed, Arlen Specter (a politician I hope you can accept is not a democrat) introduced the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006, which would have instructed all state and federal courts to ignore presidential signing statements. It went nowhere, not surprisingly.
>Politicians (all of them) are spending WAY too much time trying to
> discredit the "other side" and not NEARLY enough time actually READING
>the bills that they're voting on and determining if it is a good thing for
>their constituents and America as a whole...
I agree. It's time to stop playing politics and sign the damn thing, even if it has language that Bush dislikes. This latest proposal gives him everything he asked for. Compromise does not mean "give me exactly what I want or go fuck yourself" - it means getting what you want while giving in on things that don't matter as much to you (like language that indicates what the people of the US want.)
>Dems *said* they'd allow they'd be all over the airwaves screaming about
>how the President and the Republicans didn't go by what the bill said.
Yes. And the republicans will scream "this non-binding language handcuffed our troops and is forcing them to lose the war!" or some other such nonsense. Both sides will scream no matter what.
>Look at the signing statements flap... all you hear about is how Bush is
> "circumventing the law" by issuing signing statements...but yet, signing
>statements have been common for decades...but you don't see them
>mention THAT.
?? I see quite a lot of mention of that. The issue is that Bush has issued over 750 challenges in his signing statements and still has two years to go; his predecessor issued 130. In 2006, the American Bar Association (an organization I hope you can accept is not a democratic organization) described the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers." They noted that other presidents use this procedure, but Bush has abused it.
Indeed, Arlen Specter (a politician I hope you can accept is not a democrat) introduced the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006, which would have instructed all state and federal courts to ignore presidential signing statements. It went nowhere, not surprisingly.
>Politicians (all of them) are spending WAY too much time trying to
> discredit the "other side" and not NEARLY enough time actually READING
>the bills that they're voting on and determining if it is a good thing for
>their constituents and America as a whole...
I agree. It's time to stop playing politics and sign the damn thing, even if it has language that Bush dislikes. This latest proposal gives him everything he asked for. Compromise does not mean "give me exactly what I want or go fuck yourself" - it means getting what you want while giving in on things that don't matter as much to you (like language that indicates what the people of the US want.)
mnealtx 0
QuoteCompromise does not mean "give me exactly what I want or go fuck yourself"
Unfortunately, that's EXACTLY what it's come to mean over the last 30 years or so...
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love President Bush. I think he is the BESTEST President EVER!!!!!!!!1
>could sign it, and they could both say that not only did they do the right
>thing, but the other side also did, too?
Looks like this isn't going to happen either. Congress offered a bill that would strip out the domestic spending and make the timetable for withdrawal optional instead of mandatory. The administration rejected that one too.
---------------------------
No deal on war spending bill
POSTED: 1:04 p.m. EDT, May 18, 2007
. . .
In a closed-door meeting with Bush's top aides on Capitol Hill, Democrats said they'd strip billions of dollars in domestic spending out of a war spending that Bush opposed if the president would accept a timetable to pull combat troops out of Iraq. As part of the deal, Democrats said they would allow the president to waive compliance with a deadline for troop withdrawals.
But no deal was struck.
"To say I was disappointed in the meeting is an understatement," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada. "I really did expect that the president would accept some accountability for what we're trying to accomplish here."
White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten, who rejected the deal, said any timetable on the war would undermine the nation's efforts in Iraq.
"We consider that to be not a significant distinction," he said. "Whether waivable or not, timelines send the wrong signal."
---------------------------
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites