knbber2: Nothing but an effort to make sure we can not support sufficient troops in Iraq.


The entire U.S. Army & Marine Corps active & Reserves, plus National Guards, all at once, would be insufficient manpower to do the job that needs doing.

They joined the military to get away from their families anyway, so the Preznit has the right idear.

Subby needs to learn a wee bit more about troop levels and force sustainment before opening his/her farking mouth.

Draft College Republicans....that'll fix it one way or the other - more troops or total collapse of support for this farked up Bush ego trip.

I find it curious that Republicans are able to "focus on families" while extending troop deployments oversees at the same time. Do Republican Americans assume that our soldiers don't have families that need them?

Family values my ass.

/oh, and it's also nice that the president won't pay our troops well
//dink

The president is such a stubborn A-hole it makes my head hurt. He's only worried about how he looks, and it's really really sad.
(Mostly cause he can't even do that well.)

REVOKE THE AUTHORIZATION

Cut this half-ass crap. It was unconstitutional to transfer the authority to declare war to the President- it's time to fix that mistake.

Yep, this is the very reason why olny 3% of people polled approve of the job Congress is doing with the war. Because when you try to build up the morale of our troops, you are sympathizing with the enemy!!!

Scuba_Steve: Draft College Republicans....that'll fix it one way or the other - more troops or total collapse of support for this farked up Bush ego trip.

I don't believe that exists. Apparently most Republicans just move on from brain damage.

Haven't we bombed them to democracy yet?

Let's make the president look bad and use our troops' morale as the ammo!

Seriously, I hate this. This is like the time the Republicans told Clinton that they would suspend the impeachment hearings if he attacked Iraq (or was it Serbia). Of course, he did, and it made the troops wonder if he did it just to buy time.

Scuba_Steve: Draft College Republicans

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

doyner: stolibro

Just keep drinkin' that cool-aide, man

It's only cool-aide (sic) if you agree with it. I do believe that a change is needed, but this is not about change, it is about political points. I think we need to be out of Iraq as much as most folks. However, stunts like this will not get us there.

My point wasn't that "Bush was right" or any of that BS, but instead that this was a waste of legislative time, since it can not effect the change that is needed.

The troops are stretched too thin! But only if the Republicans do it, right, submitturd?

nuff said

Why do democrats hate America?

FTA The legislation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., ordered brought to the full House during the day was largely symbolic, allowing Bush to disregard the required intervals between troop deployments in the interest of national security.

/this seems to be the problem with most most bills, vetoed or not
//Iraq has nothing to do with national security

NewportBarGuy: Eh, that is dangerous legislation with an all volunteer force. I know what they are trying to do, and I support it, but having it codified in law is really dangerous. They should go with the "having a soldier adequately trained for deployment" tactic they tried before.

There is no way a raw recruit should go from boot to the battlefield without train-up time. Unless our entire nation is under attack that is just bad policy.

If they want to really take away the War Powers of the President, do the training thing. It will take away tens of thousands of troops from his plan and throw the whole thing into chaos. Very risky, but that seems to be what they want to do. It's the most effective option.

Why can't they do the training thing after this thing?

knbber2: Gwendolyn: I'm sorry what's the problem with this?

It's BS propaganda, if they are concerned with troop time at home, why doesn't it apply to Afghanistan? This will limit the ability of commanders to deploy troops based on need.


Becuase on 9/11 Afganistan attacked us, and we need to stay the course, and you're soft on terror! You're coddling the enemy! Don't you support the troops? Why do you hate America?

Remember all that stuff? Good. Are you choking on it? Good.

I'm just a bill so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

knbber2: Nothing but an effort to make sure we can not support sufficient troops in Iraq. It has nothing to do with troop morale.

Easy for you to say when you haven't missed the birth of your child, etc. Easy for you to say when you don't have the image of children the age of your own with half their heads blown off. Easy for you to say when you aren't suffering PTSD and getting shafted before AND after you get home.

YOu chickenhawk coont.

Oh, wait, you'd love to sign up but you have a boil on your ass?

The legislation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., ordered brought to the full House during the day was largely symbolic

And the Democrats wonder why this congress is do-nothing. Yes, let's pass symbolic suggestions and comments, and while we're at it, let's debate voting on a vote to force a vote of no-confidence!

knbber2: Nothing but an effort to make sure we can not support sufficient troops in Iraq. It has nothing to do with troop morale.

I disagree. If Republicans support the president and the war so much, I'm sure they will all be willing to enlist themselves and their children to fight in such an important battle. We have plenty of Republicans to fight the war, just too bad many of them don't have time to fight in Iraq because they're too busy whining about illegal immigrants and begging for tax cuts.

2 years mandatory military service at age 18 for everybody!

Problem solved.

Damn straight! The only one who gets to have as much vacation time as work time is the President.

knbber2: Nothing but an effort to make sure we can not support sufficient troops in Iraq. It has nothing to do with troop morale.

I'm curious...how many tours have you done?

NewHere: I'm just a bill so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

Are you the "SchoolHouse Rock" version or "The Simpsons" version of a bill?

Seriously, why do this to our troops? They know Bush will veto it, and that it would be demoralizing, but they went ahead with it anyways just to make him look bad. Goddammit.

Although, maybe I'm not putting enough faith in our fighting men and women. Most of them are probably smart enough to see through this.

doyner: NewportBarGuy: Eh, that is dangerous legislation with an all volunteer force. I know what they are trying to do, and I support it, but having it codified in law is really dangerous. They should go with the "having a soldier adequately trained for deployment" tactic they tried before.

There is no way a raw recruit should go from boot to the battlefield without train-up time. Unless our entire nation is under attack that is just bad policy.

If they want to really take away the War Powers of the President, do the training thing. It will take away tens of thousands of troops from his plan and throw the whole thing into chaos. Very risky, but that seems to be what they want to do. It's the most effective option.

You're probably right on this. No matter, though--it will be vetoed. If nothing else, I'd love to see the Republican spin on how this supports the empty words about supporting the troops. How exactly can the Republican Presidential candidates slap a yellow ribbon magnet on this one?


Wow, the democrats whom I didn't figure could whip together 75 IQ points between them all came up with something downright devious. I am mildly impressed at their cunning. Maybe they do remember that the US federal governing system and elections system is, as mentioned in another thread based not on a platform's merit, but on undercutting the other party. No matter what happens on this bill, the republicans lose. It either passes and they look humane or it fails and the repubs look like slave-drivers. The republicans have had this market cornered for so long that this is really quite a surprise to me.

Oh yeah, and who else loses no matter what happens to this bill? Americans, but who really cares about them as long as they keep our elected representatives rich and in power.

Pincy: Damn straight! The only one who gets to have as much vacation time as work time is the President.

Or zee French... Ooo La La!

sseye: Easy for you to say when you haven't missed the birth of your child, etc. Easy for you to say when you don't have the image of children the age of your own with half their heads blown off. Easy for you to say when you aren't suffering PTSD and getting shafted before AND after you get home.

Holy shiat dude. Did you serve over there?

NewportBarGuy: Hey, both sides are terrified for the Legislative Branch to rule on the War Powers Act, they both think they'll lose.

Ron Paul has specifically called for getting rid of the War Powers Act. When the Iraq War Authorization came up before his committee, he offered an amendment to instead declare war. He voted against it, of course, but was making the point that if Congress wants America to go to war they have to do it, not pass that responsibility off on the President.

doyner: Get back to me after you have a few deployments under your belt, kiddo.

Oh, I'm a poor tiny kid because I disagree with you! Teach me the ways of the world, doyner!

Time to mobilize the Boy Scouts.