As I'm sure you are well aware by now, the Democrats have agreed on terms of surrender to the terrorists in Iraq. Of course, it's all grandstanding, because they know President Bush will veto the surrender bill, as he has continuously promised. And he told them again and again that he wants a bill to fund the troop, but the Democrats refuse to fund the troops they "support."
So, after the veto, what happens next?
Know what I'd love to see? A veto override. That would be an awesome Constitutional train wreck -- because it would be completely unconstitutional.
I'd love the see the Democrats screaming and yelling that they had demanded surrender and that Bush HAD to surrender -- and then have Bush absolutely refuse to do it. Of course, anyone who has actually read the Constitution knows that the Congress doesn't have that power, so even if this bill were to pass, it wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on -- not that Democrats care about such things.
But it sure would be fun to see the show of Democrats complaining and whining (more than usual). I would so love to see that override vote.
1
Your scenario also suggests a potential disaster for Dems.: a veto over-ride would force them to come up with a real policy, not merely grandstanding obstructionism in order to win votes. Their greatest fear would be to succeed and then be forced to propose a detailed policy replacement. What an intriguing thought as Schumer, Levin, Emmanuel et al slowly twist in the public policy wind as the hunters become the hunted.
Posted by: Jeff at April 24, 2007 01:38 PM (2nDll)
2
These are Democrats. Their ONLY policy is anything that is anti-Bush, period. If you really want to see twisting in the policy wind -- let the Democrats win the Presidency and the Congress in 2008. They will have no idea what to do. I bet they'd still be busy attacking Bush.
Posted by: Ogre at April 24, 2007 01:55 PM (oifEm)
3
All the grandstanding has it's own goal. Stall,stall,stall...the longer they stall by wrangling over the bill, the more likely Bush will be forced to withdraw without the Democrats having to bother to defund the war or set timelines while still keeping the blame on the President. They know he won't sign those bills and are counting on it.
They have placed the President between a rock and a hard place because he's damned if he signs and damned if he doesn't. Congress doesn't care and were willing to commit treason several times over to accomplish it but accomplish it they did. This is something they hope won't become apparent until after the fact. They won't care then because they will be able to rewrite the Constitution and rain chaos upon the country they swore to serve. If they can commit treason so easily what good are their oaths?
Ladies and Gentlemen, as disgusting as it feels and sounds we have to think like they do. Otherwise we are sitting ducks.
Posted by: Steph at April 24, 2007 02:28 PM (AC9Dc)
4
I don't think Bush will allow them to be defunded. I think he'll keep spending the money no matter what Democrats do. If I were Bush, I'd start shutting down other areas of government to ensure there's enough money-- starting with the useless Department of Education.
Posted by: Ogre at April 24, 2007 02:36 PM (oifEm)
5
I believe Bush will try but there is only so much money he can find to use... there are laws about raiding some programs to pay for others... he'll be stuck... I believe he'll find some funds for a little while but eventually Congress will force his hand and he'll have no choice and will still wind up with the blame... and later when we are over run by the enemy in our own lands... it will still be his fault... disgusting isn't it?
Posted by: Steph at April 24, 2007 03:04 PM (AC9Dc)
6
Oh, it's always his fault, no matter what. That's the Democrat platform.
Of course, another outcome would be interesting to see -- if the Democrats did manage to defund the war and the troops were then really in trouble. The Demos sure would look dumb as they complained about the lack of body armor -- that they themselves refused to provide.
But no, I don't expect the Democrats to see the obvious.
Posted by: Ogre at April 24, 2007 03:46 PM (oifEm)
7
i have suspicions that the reasons that the republicans are being gutless morons is that they are giving the dems enough rope to hang themselves... wouldn't it be grand if they are given 6 to 8 months more to act like total idiots and then all of a sudden the case files documenting massive WMD stockpiles and/or extensive al quedia-Saddam ties were declassified...
Posted by: chris at April 24, 2007 04:07 PM (qz/By)
8
I certainly agree with giving Democrats the rope to hang themselves -- I just hope the Republicans, when election time appears, really jump out and show people what they stand for.
Posted by: Ogre at April 24, 2007 05:04 PM (oifEm)
9
Congressional policy might go one of two ways:Wall St. Journal reports tribal chiefs increasingly look to Baghdad for protection against militias, a positive and Dems are increasingly moving into a position of responsibility for whatever happens. Bush seems wedded to Iraq policy but there comes a time when he will be undermined by Dems and be forced to let them have their way. It's their "fish to fry" at that point.
Posted by: Jeff at April 26, 2007 04:02 AM (vYIIh)
10
Did you really just put "Dems" and "responsibility" in the same sentence?
Posted by: Ogre at April 26, 2007 11:53 AM (oifEm)
11
You americans, thank you democrates for helping us take over your coumtry. giving us free money,food, foot dishes, education for making engineering stuff.
Posted by: Almad Asfaseri at April 30, 2007 11:12 AM (Zwsx5)
17
What about my 1st amendment right s to free speech.
Posted by: Almad Asfaseri at May 04, 2007 10:19 AM (tIyxL)
18
Clearly you are confused about those rights, much like the Democrat Party of today and all of the left. The first amendment applies to GOVERNMENT and to nothing else. And the first amendment doesn't grant those rights, it states the the government can't take them away. So if I were a government agency trying to force you to be quiet, you might have an argument.
However, I'm not a government agency, nor am I trying to force you to be quiet -- so my statement has absolutely nothing to do with the first amendment in any way, shape, or form.
19
Ogre, you oght to be tolerent of our brothers feelings. Why can't we type in other languages on this site. Some of our brothers can;t write or read english. thank you for your time.
Posted by: Jon Edwards at May 04, 2007 12:44 PM (tIyxL)
20
Heh. I'm tolerant of it. I'm just letting him know that he's not communicating with me or others on this site if he chooses to be intolerant of English.