Bush vetoes troop withdrawal bill

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 1 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Bush vetoes troop withdrawal bill


news.yahoo.com

President Bush vetoed legislation to pull U.S. troops out of
Iraq Tuesday night in a historic showdown with Congress over whether the unpopular and costly war should end or escalate.
ADVERTISEMENT

In only the second veto of his presidency, Bush rejected legislation that would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

He vetoed the bill immediately upon his return to the White House from a visit to MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., the headquarters of U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, including Iraq.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 1 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Well, he did it. I'm watching his speech on TV and he's referring his veto as a response to Congress playing politics. Congress did what the people called for.

Let's see if Congress can get enough votes to override the veto.

Call/write your Representatives!

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Here's a quick letter that I just sent to Congressman Moran, Senator Roberts, and Senator Brownback.



I urge you to vote "yes" to override a veto by President Bush.

4 years ago, President Bush had declared the "War in Iraq" a success and promise our troops would not remain there indefinitely.

The American people have called for our troops to be returned home safely.

The veto issued by President Bush is a blatant disregard for what the American people say.

We Want Our Family Members Home!


I look forward to your vote to override and correspondence in regards to the same,


XXXXX XXXXXXXXX



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Bush said he would and he did veto the spending bill. I don’t really understand his problem with the pullout, ending the US involvement in Iraq dose not mean the terrorists win, it mean the US stops losing.
The Iraqi people have made it clear that they no longer want the American army in their country, they gave us a chance and we messed up. For the first year after the invasion the Iraqi people waited for us to come through with our promises of a better life and we failed to deliver on that promise. So for the last four years the people of Iraq have told us in a load and clear voice that we should leave, and we should honor the request.
We may have come as liberators but we have become occupiers and are no longer welcome by the people we wanted to set free.
Everything the government has said about this war has been a lie. WMD lie, terrorist links lie, wanting to free the Iraqi people from a brutal dictatorship lie. Iraq is arguably the most brutal government in the Middle East.
Our soldiers are used to prop up this regime given the choice of deserting where they end up in jail and leavening their fellow soldiers out to hang, or going out and killing innocent people just because most of the time they can’t tell who’s an enemy trying to kill them and the guy who’s just protecting his family from the criminals who are rife through out the country.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   
When a defense appropriations bill, which this, I believe, was; is loaded with the kind of pork this bill was loaded with, he should have vetoed it. If the Senate overrides it, fine; that's the way it works. For someone who is, supposedly, against the will of the American people, two vetos in his one plus term in office seems somewhat less than lots.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Bush vetos setting a withdrawal date for our troops in Iraq.

I'm sure there are a bunch of mad terrorists right now. Bush just ruined their vacations.

If Bush would have passed this surrender bill, terrorists just could have sat back and waited for victory.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
A few questions:

1) What's wrong with bringing our troops home?

2) How is this bill a "surrender" bill?

3) How do you see the terrorists achieved victory?



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
A few questions:

1) What's wrong with bringing our troops home?

2) How is this bill a "surrender" bill?

3) How do you see the terrorists achieved victory?


A few answers:

1) Bringing troops home without completing the mission is failure. Completing the mission requires a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq, a stabilized Iraqi government and a well trained Iraqi Army. We stayed in Germany for over 50 years after WW2, are you saying Iraq doesn't deserve the same?

2) Setting a withdrawal date is surrender.

3) By sitting back and waiting for us to leave, then they take over. Ask any terrorist if they would enjoy seeing the U.S. leave Iraq and they will tell you YES!



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
1) Bringing troops home without completing the mission is failure. Completing the mission requires a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq, a stabilized Iraqi government and a well trained Iraqi Army. We stayed in Germany for over 50 years after WW2, are you saying Iraq doesn't deserve the same?

Completing the mission? From the sounds of your post, you know what the mission is. I would say that to be very interesting considering the fact that absolutely no one knows what the mission is/was/will be.

You did know that there's not even been a declared war? With no declaration of war,(would have included an entrance strategy) there's no exit strategy.

There will never be a stabilized Iraqi Government. Everyone knows that.

The well trained Iraqi army, that's their problem, not ours.

This isn't anything like Germany. Sorry.


Originally posted by RRconservative
2) Setting a withdrawal date is surrender.

How do you get a surrender when a "win" was declared by Bush nearly 4 years ago? How can you win anything if you have no mission (refer to #1)?


Originally posted by RRconservative
3) By sitting back and waiting for us to leave, then they take over. Ask any terrorist if they would enjoy seeing the U.S. leave Iraq and they will tell you YES!

Terrorist? In Iraq? Please! That's sectarian violence... a civil war if you will. Let them fight their own fight and stop putting the lives of our family members on the line for being an occupying force (which the US is not) or a police force.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
1) What's wrong with bringing our troops home?


If the coalition was to leave Iraq under the proposed time table the fall of of South Vietnam would look like Sunday picnic in a park.


2) How is this bill a "surrender" bill?


The notion that it is a "surrender" bill is just partisan bricking. However a withdrawl at this time is still a unwise course state.


3) How do you see the terrorists achieved victory?


Iraq will be run by Islamic wack jobs and will become a greater threat then then the country was under Saddam. The coalition dug a giant hole now they have to get themselves out of it.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   


Iraq will be run by Islamic wack jobs and will become a greater threat then then the country was under Saddam

wasn't that the point?
an endless war,a war for 100 years...that is what they told us.
the american people voted in the midterms...the american people want our troops home.

[edit on 1/5/2007 by shooterbrody]



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Shooterbrody are you saying that the coalition wants Iraq to become a failed state that sponsors terrorism rather then a democracy that is something for other countries in the region to emulate ?
Cheers xpert11.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
If the coalition was to leave Iraq under the proposed time table the fall of of South Vietnam would look like Sunday picnic in a park.

So, you are suggesting that it's in the best interest to serve up life after life after life to fulfill the warmongering of President Bush? He declared "war won" back in 03'. Why must we be there any further?


Originally posted by xpert11
The notion that it is a "surrender" bill is just partisan bricking. However a withdrawl at this time is still a unwise course state.

Why? Are you afraid to save the lives of countless American soldiers?


Originally posted by xpert11
Iraq will be run by Islamic wack jobs and will become a greater threat then then the country was under Saddam. The coalition dug a giant hole now they have to get themselves out of it.

Greater threat to whom? The US? 9/11 should have closed the borders down tighter than any euphemism we could possibly come up with. Did the events of 9/11 (one of the 1st reasons Bush wanted to go to Iraq) really do anything to bolster the security of the US?


Originally posted by xpert11
...are you saying that the coalition wants Iraq to become a failed state that sponsors terrorism rather then a democracy that is something for other countries in the region to emulate?

Sorry for cutting in shooterbrody, but expert11....

For one second, do you honestly believe that what takes place in Iraq is "terrorism"? It's a civil war. When 9/11 took place, the immediate reaction from every single American citizen was, "We're gonna kick the heads in, on whomever was responsible." A knee jerk reaction, in light of facts made available later down the road.

You expect the Iraqis not to feel the same way? Someone comes in, blows the crap out of their nation, hangs around for 4 or 5 years, and you think their not going to continue to target our soldiers for the ill fated decision made by President Bush and his warmongering cohorts?

What are you thinking?



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I am suggesting that a means by found to ensure that the geographical area known as Iraq dose not fall into the hands of Islamic wack jobs.

Why?
Gee maybe I don't want the ME region to be worse off then it was before the removal of Saddam nor do we need another country that sponsors Islamic wack jobs. I shouldn't even have to answer the next question clearly any government or organisation that sponsors the enemy's of the free world is a threat.

Due to Bush being a poor communicator of ideas the reasons for going into Iraq are at best murky. Sheez the insurgents find new ways to murder thousands of civilians and seek to undermine the elected Iraqi government . I class that as terrorism.

Look Im no fan of the Bush admin but I would never condone the insurgents or there actions in Iraq. The insurgents have no interest in the political process and there actions are preventing the rebuilding of Iraq and giving people the chance to live under the umbrella of democracy.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Iraq began in the hands of Islamic "whack jobs"... that is the culture there. Let it be. There is absolutely no justifiable reason that you, or even President Bush could give to convince the American people that more of our own sons and daughters need die for their cause.

The Middle East is exactly what you wish to prevent it from becoming, today. Do you have one shred of evidence to show at all... even remotely close to show that the Middle East is better off today than it was 5 years ago?

If you truly believe anywhere else in this world to be a threat, then the terrorists have already won. If you choose to live in fear, then you've lost. Game over.

The "insurgents" find new ways to defend their homeland, just the same as you or I would ours. Don't kid yourself.


Of course they have no interest in the "democratic process" that Bush has tried to force upon them. It's not in their culture. They, those of the Middle East, have lived for over a thousand years under a type of dictatorship that Bush overthrew, and you expect them to give in to our ideals over night? That's completely ludicrous.

There is reasonable proof of millions, if not billions, that have been squandered in Iraq. And that money has been taken irresponsibly by others besides the people of Iraq, let alone the Government thrust upon the people. Who in their right mind would fly in pallets of cash into the middle of a "war zone"?

Umbrella of Democracy? You speak of the doings of the Bush administration as a God sent to the people of Iraq. You're hoping for miracles while the people burn in front of your eyes.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
Iraq began in the hands of Islamic "whack jobs"... that is the culture there. Let it be. There is absolutely no justifiable reason that you, or even President Bush could give to convince the American people that more of our own sons and daughters need die for their cause.


Really if the extremist solely made up culture of Iraq no one would have turned turned up to vote.



The Middle East is exactly what you wish to prevent it from becoming, today. Do you have one shred of evidence to show at all... even remotely close to show that the Middle East is better off today than it was 5 years ago?


You should read my posts properly I never said that the ME was better off at this time.



If you truly believe anywhere else in this world to be a threat, then the terrorists have already won. If you choose to live in fear, then you've lost. Game over.


I don't live my life in fear but you cant deny that terrorists can strike anywhere. The insurgents have no interest in defending Iraq there actions have proved this .





Of course they have no interest in the "democratic process" that Bush has tried to force upon them. It's not in their culture. They, those of the Middle East, have lived for over a thousand years under a type of dictatorship that Bush overthrew, and you expect them to give in to our ideals over night?


I have said in the past on ATS that power was handed over to the Iraqi government far to soon. I have also been questioned some of the Bush admin spending when it comes to the Iraq war.

Stop jumping to conclusions about my opinions .



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Really if the extremist solely made up culture of Iraq no one would have turned turned up to vote.

As well, the people that formed America voted, too. Some didn't like it, and it led to a civil war... exactly what's happening in Iraq. Why should we allow our brethren to die for their civil war?


Originally posted by xpert11
You should read my posts properly I never said that the ME was better off at this time.

I understand what you said, and what you said implied that you didn't want thing to get worse. You think they haven't gotten worse?


Originally posted by xpert11
I don't live my life in fear but you cant deny that terrorists can strike anywhere. The insurgents have no interest in defending Iraq there actions have proved this.

I, personally, do not believe in the bogeyman that the Bush Administration has portrayed, nor the rest of the world fed off of. It's a big bucket of bull. Again, if the threat from terrorism was so grand (as they've eloquently made it out to be), then why have they not closed to border and "sincerely" made the United States "secure"? We are no more secure that what we were pre-9/11. There's no reason to be.


Originally posted by xpert11
I have said in the past on ATS that power was handed over to the Iraqi government far to soon. I have also been questioned some of the Bush admin spending when it comes to the Iraq war.

It's not up to the United States to hand over power to the Iraqi Government... IF in fact they truly wanted a democracy there. The power should have been turned over immediately to the people (since that was another one of Bush's excuses *free the people*) and allow them to establish a nation of their own.


Originally posted by xpert11
Stop jumping to conclusions about my opinions.

I'll stop jumping to conclusions when you stop leading me in a circle.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 05:33 AM
link   
Its like Powell you broke it you brought it. The ME region is worse off since Saddam was removed from power however the region would be even worse off if Islamic extremists came to power in Iraq. As for the US being no more secure then it was before 9-11 you will get no argument from me.

The foundation of a democratic government weren't laid in place but I have dealt with that elsewhere on ATS.

Maybe you should have a read before you continue jumping to conclusions.

Is it really such a difficult concept that I don't follow party lines perfectly ?



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Bush only resorted to vetoing a bill 2ce because all the other times he threatend to veto something that was coming up, congress voted the bills he said he would veto, down. This, most probably, being because previously, untill the end of last year, congress had a republican majority and because the republicans that are currently in office have finaly woken up and heard the peoples voices instead of Bush's voice.

In reality, saying he only veto'd 2ce is false, because he threatend to veto bills alot of times before, but he never had to resort to it because he still had the blind and near complete backing of congress.

As for this bill, whoever sais it isn't right that they attached pullout orders to the appropriations bill, isn't that how it always goes when money is appropriated to someone?

When you goto highschool on a sports grant, in return for the money, you either have to have good grades or have exceptional sports results.

When you get a job, you get paid to do a specific job and are given a job desciption, telling you what you need to do in return of the money you'll earn.

Now that he veto'd this bill, I hope that congress will either overrule his veto with a decisive vote or that this will have repricusions severe enough to finish this madness once and for all.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Its like Powell you broke it you brought it.

Powell doesn't speak for anyone in the United States. President Bush is supposed to be the "foreign" voice for the American populous, but he's overstepped his boundaries of our representation, created more hatred for the US, and entered the US into something the people do not want to have anything to do with. And by show in this article, Congress gave Bush the will of the people. Bush defied that... the will of the people.


Originally posted by xpert11
The ME region is worse off since Saddam was removed from power however the region would be even worse off if Islamic extremists came to power in Iraq.

Islamic extremists are the same as patriotic Americans. They both will fight for their country. And back to my point, it's a civil war in Iraq. Let Iraq have it's civil war.


Originally posted by xpert11
The foundation of a democratic government weren't laid in place but I have dealt with that elsewhere on ATS. Maybe you should have a read before you continue jumping to conclusions.

President Bush has repeatedly stated "We are there to establish a democracy in Iraq." That's one of his many excuses for being in Iraq in the first place. Here's one of but many articles you can easily find Bush spouting about the Democracy he wishes to instill.

President Outlines Steps to Help Iraq Achieve Democracy and Freedom

I have read your political statements on your thread, and I don't care for your stance on Iraq in the least.





top topics
 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join