War spending bill

[Enigma]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democrats ignored a veto threat and pushed through a bill Thursday requiring President Bush to start withdrawing troops from "the civil war in Iraq," dealing a rare, sharp rebuke to a wartime commander in chief.
In a mostly party line 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $122 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also orders Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008.

I'm very conflicted on this whole thing, and im hoping ( ) that we can have some decent discussion about it. Conflicted, admittedly because of my own lack of understanding about what will actually happen here. As far as troop withdrawls, I'm sure I've made it clear in other posts that I did'nt think we should have been there to begin with, let alone still there 4 years later in a no-win situation. However, I dont know what actually happens if this bill were to pass. The Repubs make it sound like we cut off funding and all of a sudden the Military is out in Iraq with no money to spend on equipment, food, housing, or even a plane ride home. Obviously this isnt entirely true, as it would be complete political suicide for the Dems. I also dont believe that "setting a timetable" for leaving is a big disaster as the Repubs suggest. Any withdrawl, at any time, under any circumstances will yeild the same results. At some point, someone will present a date. I dont see what difference the timing makes when there is clearly no end in sight. (60 dead today in a Baghdad car bombing). I also have a hard time recognizing a downside to reigning in from a disaster of a war that has cost the lives of more than 3,200 American troops and more than $350 billion, to seemingly no advantage to the American people, and no end goal in sight, or within realistic grasp. Not to say I dont understand what could happen to Iraq if we all left today, but...where do we draw the line?

I guess in the end I just dont know that this is a good solution that the Dems are proposing. But, maybe it is, and I misunderstand it.
The norm around here is for guys like me who speak openly about their personal lack of faith in the current administration to the point where it's obvious that I feel them to be incompetent liars, to put it nicely, automatically makes me a bleeding heart liberal, leftist, whatever. It's simply not true in my case. I think i'm taking a pretty hawkish stance towards Iran in other threads. The only reason I point this out is to make clear, just because I know (in my mind) the current Repubs get almost everything wrong, I am in no way convinced the Dems are right, or better, or anything else. They happen to be making more sense to me right now than the right, thats for sure. But on this specific issue, I dont feel like I understand the end results enough to make an informed decision either way. Anyone willing to take the time to try to explain, Im listening. I'd love to avoid the partisan spin that we so frequently find here on these forums n the responses, so I guess all I can do is ask to avoid it.

[Enigma]

P.S = Not that it really matters...after all, this thing is dead the second it hit's the President's desk....

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by Enigma

P.S = Not that it really matters...after all, this thing is dead the second it hit's the President's desk....

Unless it turns right around and pulls a 2/3's out of The Congress.
If the "liberal media" jumps on this one, it can be done.

Over-ride the President. I'm all for it.

[Enigma]

Liberal Media =

[moose1am]

The media in the United States is owned by FOUR Huge Corporations and not one of them is Liberal. So saying that the media is liberal sounds pretty silly.

If Bush Vetoes the spending bill the blood will be on his hands. Congress has given him the money and if he turns it down then HE will be the one that failed our troops.


Here is the deal. GOP wants to continue the war and to keep giving out money to GOP contractors. Democrats want to bring the troops home and save money on defense.

Bush has been told point blank that there is a NEW CONGRESS IN TOWN! Bush needs to chill out with his threats and take what money he gets from the Congress. Bush does not run the Congress anymore. He is just going to have to learn to deal with the facts.

Even his buddy over is Saudi Arabia is snubbing Bush these days and calling for the US to get out of Iraq. The King of SA said this was an illegitimate Occupation by a foreign country. At least that's how Bush's so called buddy sees things these days.

Originally Posted by tycho102

Unless it turns right around and pulls a 2/3's out of The Congress.
If the "liberal media" jumps on this one, it can be done.

Over-ride the President. I'm all for it.

[Tchocky]

The Dems want to see the soldiers come home. Fair enough, I'm of the same opinion.
Through this spending bill, they are putting the soldiers in more danger than they are already, by tying funding to a withdrawal date. It's stupid and dangerous.
This is not the way to get them home.

[ASWnut101]

Originally Posted by moose1am

The media in the United States is owned by FOUR Huge Corporations and not one of them is Liberal. So saying that the media is liberal sounds pretty silly.

Um, COX Radio? I think otherwise...

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

Um, COX Radio? I think otherwise...

What kind of reply is that? Being esoteric doesn't mean you sound smart. You're just being an ass. I personally hate these smart ass, one sentense anwers that do nothing but prove that you have no desire to actually argue. I know you think otherwise. Why not actually talk about it like a real intellectual.

And in fact there is no liberal media, not in a collective or royal, or grand sense. The major news outlets on TV, on the radio, and on paper are mostly owned by yes large conglomerates. And if I learned one thing from Economics its that corporations are above all else conservative. Liberal media is the exception. CNN, Fox News, ABC, NBC, New York Times, LA Times, on and on, they're all owned by one or two companies. Its the same thing in Canada. CanWest Global, Rogers.

Hell you guys in the US have Conrad Black on trial in Chicago and he was a big time newspaper tycoon.

The liberal media is just a myth of ironically the right wing media. I mean if you hear Anne Coulter mentioning it regularly on Hannity and Colmes then you might want to actually reconsider it. I know that if Anne Coulter started to say that Karl Marx was a genius that I'd have to go back and re-read Das Kapital to make sure.

[ASWnut101]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

What kind of reply is that? Being esoteric doesn't mean you sound smart. You're just being an ass. I personally hate these smart ass, one sentense anwers that do nothing but prove that you have no desire to actually argue. I know you think otherwise. Why not actually talk about it like a real intellectual.

And in fact there is no liberal media, not in a collective or royal, or grand sense. The major news outlets on TV, on the radio, and on paper are mostly owned by yes large conglomerates. And if I learned one thing from Economics its that corporations are above all else conservative. Liberal media is the exception. CNN, Fox News, ABC, NBC, New York Times, LA Times, on and on, they're all owned by one or two companies. Its the same thing in Canada. CanWest Global, Rogers.

Hell you guys in the US have Conrad Black on trial in Chicago and he was a big time newspaper tycoon.

The liberal media is just a myth of ironically the right wing media. I mean if you hear Anne Coulter mentioning it regularly on Hannity and Colmes then you might want to actually reconsider it. I know that if Anne Coulter started to say that Karl Marx was a genius that I'd have to go back and re-read Das Kapital to make sure.

So you say there is a Right-Wing media, but no left?




P.S. Sometimes, being a smart-ass is a way to have fun in life...

[Tchocky]

Right-wing media, left-wing media......this discussion could go on forever, with everyone being right and hold opposite positions.
Media is a plural, the sheer number of news outlets in the US make accusations of bias in both directions valid, if not useful.
The idea of right/left is past its time anyway, categorising our news as such is bloody pointless.
The US media lean both right and left. And centre. And libertarian. And authoritarian. And Up. And Down. And Sideways.

[ASWnut101]

I agree exactly. And there will be as long as one person disagrees with another, which will always happen, which is why communism wont happen, why there is war, why your name is Tchocky and mine is ASWnut. The list goes on. And on. And on...

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

So you say there is a Right-Wing media, but no left?




P.S. Sometimes, being a smart-ass is a way to have fun in life...

Actually you're right. There is only one real Right Wing Media. Thats Fox News. They are so blatant its funny. But the rest are just conservative because being conservative is good economic policy. CNN just decides whats popular and makes a point of pointing it out. Real journalism is a thing of the past because it might just shock people or make them change the channel or something.

No you're right. Wrong characterization on my part. But I am right about there being no left wing media monster, at least none that has massive viewership and a market monopoly.

And being a smart ass might be fun but its rude to people who actually want to have a real conversation.