Why

C

Cancel7

Banned
did Pelosi strip the langauge out of the supplemental spending bill that would have forced bush to gain congressional approval before attacking Iran? We're not going to attack Iran right? So why was that a problem?

I read an article in which a congressperson (a dem) was quoted as saying that she was against having that in the bill because "she doesn't want to strip the President of having that threat to use against Iran". Oh really. Seems to me that a lot of the dems who voted for the Iraqi war authorization have been busy claiming that they only voted for it to give Bush the "threat of force against Iraq". And golly were they ever shocked when he actually used it. They expect us to buy this again?

What a bunch of bullshitters.
 
Darla said:
did Pelosi strip the langauge out of the supplemental spending bill that would have forced bush to gain congressional approval before attacking Iran? We're not going to attack Iran right? So why was that a problem?

I read an article in which a congressperson (a dem) was quoted as saying that she was against having that in the bill because "she doesn't want to strip the President of having that threat to use against Iran". Oh really. Seems to me that a lot of the dems who voted for the Iraqi war authorization have been busy claiming that they only voted for it to give Bush the "threat of force against Iraq". And golly were they ever shocked when he actually used it. They expect us to buy this again?

What a bunch of bullshitters.
Click to expand...
I see. Pelosi did this because she is a Bush follower? Why did she strip that language from the bill? I think you should ask Pelosi, she is on your side.
 
I think she’s doing it out of political expediency and cowardice.

I am in no position to ask either Pelosi or bush why this was done. On my other board, we had this nut, who believed that Rush Limbaugh and other such “luminaries’ were reading his posts, and then incorporating his posts, into their talking points. I am under no such illusions.

I was wondering if anyone here had an opinion on why, if we’re not going to attack Iran, we needed to take this language out of the bill.

So I figured I’d post a thread asking…I thought that’s what you do on message boards.

But if I’ve offended anyone by asking for their opinions on a political message board, mea culpa.
 
Darla said:
I think she’s doing it out of political expediency and cowardice.

I am in no position to ask either Pelosi or bush why this was done. On my other board, we had this nut, who believed that Rush Limbaugh and other such “luminaries’ were reading his posts, and then incorporating his posts, into their talking points. I am under no such illusions.

I was wondering if anyone here had an opinion on why, if we’re not going to attack Iran, we needed to take this language out of the bill.

So I figured I’d post a thread asking…I thought that’s what you do on message boards.

But if I’ve offended anyone by asking for their opinions on a political message board, mea culpa.
Click to expand...
I think that they are doing it because they think that Bush will muck it up and they can get votes because of it later. Playing with lives for votes.
 
I don't think it is needed... Bush already does not have the ability or power to attack Iran without coming to Congress for their permission....

he got their permission for Iraq, through the Iraq resolution.

He would constitutionally have to do this AGAIN if he wanted to attack Iraq...I believe?????
 
Darla said:
did Pelosi strip the langauge out of the supplemental spending bill that would have forced bush to gain congressional approval before attacking Iran? We're not going to attack Iran right? So why was that a problem?

I read an article in which a congressperson (a dem) was quoted as saying that she was against having that in the bill because "she doesn't want to strip the President of having that threat to use against Iran". Oh really. Seems to me that a lot of the dems who voted for the Iraqi war authorization have been busy claiming that they only voted for it to give Bush the "threat of force against Iraq". And golly were they ever shocked when he actually used it. They expect us to buy this again?

What a bunch of bullshitters.
Click to expand...


We're not going to attack Iran right? So why was that a problem?


Darla, from what I've read, there are like about 17 "blue dog" conservative demmocrats who forced pelosi's hand on this. Its pretty cowardly, but they don't want to have to explain to their constituents why they "tied the commander in chiefs hands", when it comes to military action. Bascially, they're afraid of getting swift-boated. That's what I read anyway.
 
Care4all said:
I don't think it is needed... Bush already does not have the ability or power to attack Iran without coming to Congress for their permission....

he got their permission for Iraq, through the Iraq resolution.

He would constitutionally have to do this AGAIN if he wanted to attack Iraq...I believe?????
Click to expand...

In normal times, you would be right. These are not normal times, and this is not a normal administration.

There is an authorization, I believe it was about afghan, that mouthpieces for this administration have ALREADY claimed gives him the authority to go into Iran in the “war on terror”. Some sort of hot pursuit thing. It’s bullshit, but this administration has already demonstrated the constitution is something they use for toilet paper.

It was a stupid move on Pelosi’s part, and we don’t know at this time, what the cost of it will be
 
Cypress said:
We're not going to attack Iran right? So why was that a problem?


Darla, from what I've read, there are like about 17 "blue dog" conservative demmocrats who forced pelosi's hand on this. Its pretty cowardly, but they don't want to have to explain to their constituents why they "tied the commander in chiefs hands", when it comes to military action. Bascially, they're afraid of getting swift-boated. That's what I read anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that's it too.
 
Darla said:
Yes, I think that's it too.
Click to expand...
So do I. The reason Pelosi is speaker is that she's very good at keeping coalitions together by juggling favors and concessions. It's not very appetizing for those of us who want an actual Opposition in Congress -- Imagine that: what a concept! -- but it's what she does.
 
So what reason other than the attempt to do it the other way to connect the fix for the military hospitals to timelines for Iraq?

Playing with people's lives is playing with people's lives regardless of who is politicizing.
 
Cypress said:
We're not going to attack Iran right? So why was that a problem?


Darla, from what I've read, there are like about 17 "blue dog" conservative demmocrats who forced pelosi's hand on this. Its pretty cowardly, but they don't want to have to explain to their constituents why they "tied the commander in chiefs hands", when it comes to military action. Bascially, they're afraid of getting swift-boated. That's what I read anyway.
Click to expand...

Swift boated. LOL. "swift boated" means "having the truth told about you".
 
"This doesn't suprise me at all. The Democrats in washington basically lack a spine."

Democrats? A spine is the ONLY thing that cannot be bought at The US Congress and Mercantile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top