Bush vetoes war-funding pullout bill

[Arthur Dent]

Whatever you think of him, I don't know why he should approve a bill that amounts to Congress trying to enforce it's own foreign policy. Every president in history would have done this.

Why should foreign policy be made by only one man?

In any case, there is at least one President in history didn't do this. When Congress ended the Vietnam War, President Ford signed the bill.

[maddash]

Smart move by the Prez.

No way does an enemy need to know the details of our exit strategy months in advance.

You're assuming, of course, that the two factions involved in a sectarian civil war are our enemy. Some people think we're simply telling the Sunnis and Shiites that we're leaving and to fight it out on you own.

While Al Qaeda no doubt has a major presence in Iraq, they're mostly going out of their way to kill Shiites and stoke the civil war. Americans that die in the process are doing so in the effort to hold back the flood gates of that civil war. The consequences of that damn breaking (IMO) would be disastrous. But make no mistake about it, this isn't our war, it's their war.

Bush has dug a hole so deep for us in Iraq that we're basically stuck there for decades. I hate this war, but I don't think we can leave Iraq high and dry. We'll lose thousands of young men and women trying to mitigate the damage cause by the civil war in Iraq, but what can we do? We'll lost trillions (yes, trillions) in American tax dollars paying for this war, but what can we do? We'll break the back of our military and turn off recruitment for years, but what can we do?

[Arthur Dent]

Where's the evidence that leaving Iraq will necessarily make the violence there worse? It seems pretty clear that our actions in Iraq have helped to initiate the conflict there.

Nobody knows what will happen if we leave Iraq, but we do know that Iraqis overwhelmingly want us to leave and believe that our doing so will improve their security. We can hardly argue that we're there to help Iraqi democracy when we choose to overrule their will.

[ghostrunner]

Whatever you think of him, I don't know why he should approve a bill that amounts to Congress trying to enforce it's own foreign policy. Every president in history would have done this.

Why should foreign policy be made by only one man?

In any case, there is at least one President in history didn't do this. When Congress ended the Vietnam War, President Ford signed the bill.

That's a different situation. Forces has already been pulled when he took office. Why wouldn't he sign it? In this case, Congress knows the President doesn't agree and they're attempting to set a due date. No president in our history would agree to that.

You can't have a separate foreign policy from Congress than you have from the President. That's a recipe for disaster. He's the Commander in Chief and for better or worse he calls the shots. Imagine the Cuban Missile Crisis being dealt with in committee, in place of Kennedy's masterful handling of it.

If it's bad enough to impeach him and remove him from office, then Congress need to pursue that. As of now they won't have the votes and it would cost them politically.

[maddash]

Where's the evidence that leaving Iraq will necessarily make the violence there worse? It seems pretty clear that our actions in Iraq have helped to initiate the conflict there.

Nobody knows what will happen if we leave Iraq, but we do know that Iraqis overwhelmingly want us to leave and believe that our doing so will improve their security. We can hardly argue that we're there to help Iraqi democracy when we choose to overrule their will.

I agree that our presence is a contradiction to their democracy, but you a have an unstable country that was predominantly ruled by a Sunni minority, now ruled by a government that is predominantly Shiite. The Sunnis have the backing of Al Qaeda and didn't really the new constitution. The Shiite have the backing of Iran (albeit indirectly). That a recipe for disaster if you ask me.

I totally agree that our presence stokes the fire, but our absence could cause turmoil of Darfur proportions. It's a tinderbox in Iraq and I don't think it can be left unmitigated. The area is just far too unstable to be left without a military presence.

[StL Dan]

Where's the evidence that leaving Iraq will necessarily make the violence there worse? It seems pretty clear that our actions in Iraq have helped to initiate the conflict there.

Nobody knows what will happen if we leave Iraq, but we do know that Iraqis overwhelmingly want us to leave and believe that our doing so will improve their security. We can hardly argue that we're there to help Iraqi democracy when we choose to overrule their will.

[TimeForGuinness]

[Radbird]

[maddash]

Where's the evidence that leaving Iraq will necessarily make the violence there worse? It seems pretty clear that our actions in Iraq have helped to initiate the conflict there.

Nobody knows what will happen if we leave Iraq, but we do know that Iraqis overwhelmingly want us to leave and believe that our doing so will improve their security. We can hardly argue that we're there to help Iraqi democracy when we choose to overrule their will.

Linkage

A new WPO poll of the Iraqi public finds that seven in ten Iraqis want U.S.-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year. An overwhelming majority believes that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing and there is growing confidence in the Iraqi army. If the United States made a commitment to withdraw, a majority believes that this would strengthen the Iraqi government. Support for attacks on U.S.-led forces has grown to a majority position—now six in ten. Support appears to be related to a widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the U.S. government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq.

[StL Dan]

Where's the evidence that leaving Iraq will necessarily make the violence there worse? It seems pretty clear that our actions in Iraq have helped to initiate the conflict there.

Nobody knows what will happen if we leave Iraq, but we do know that Iraqis overwhelmingly want us to leave and believe that our doing so will improve their security. We can hardly argue that we're there to help Iraqi democracy when we choose to overrule their will.

Linkage

A new WPO poll of the Iraqi public finds that seven in ten Iraqis want U.S.-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year. An overwhelming majority believes that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing and there is growing confidence in the Iraqi army. If the United States made a commitment to withdraw, a majority believes that this would strengthen the Iraqi government. Support for attacks on U.S.-led forces has grown to a majority position—now six in ten. Support appears to be related to a widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the U.S. government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq.

Thanks for the link.

Looks like it's pretty old.