ForumGarden

October 23, 2007

Bush’s Request for Wars Increases to $196 Billion

By STEVEN LEE MYERS

WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 — President Bush asked Congress on Monday to approve $196 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other national security programs, setting the stage for a new confrontation with Democrats over the administration’s handling of Iraq.

Mr. Bush’s request increased the amount of the proposed spending by $46 billion over the $150 billion already requested this year. Much of the added spending would pay for new armored vehicles designed to withstand attacks by mines and roadside bombs, and a rise in operational costs because of the increase in the force in Iraq, now at more than 160,000 troops.

The spending request — declared an emergency under spending rules, even though the need for the money was never in question — comes in the middle of the White House’s fight with Congress over a series of spending bills for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. None of those bills has been completed so far.

Democrats on Capitol Hill, having failed last week to override Mr. Bush’s veto of an expansion of a children’s health insurance program costing $35 billion, reacted with dismay and anger that reflected a broader frustration over the war in Iraq. They also said they believed that Mr. Bush delayed his formal request to avoid unfavorable comparisons between his veto and the spending on the war.

House and Senate leaders have warned they would not take up the president’s request until they resolve differences in the spending bills that Mr. Bush has vowed to veto. Those differences amount to $22 billion, a fraction of the spending for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Representative David R. Obey, Democratic of Wisconsin, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, criticized Mr. Bush for pushing the extra financing even as the president attacked Democrats as spendthrifts.

“It’s amazing to me that the president expects to be taken seriously when he says we cannot afford $20 billion in investments in education, health, law enforcement and science, which will make this country stronger over the long term, Mr. Obey said in a statement.

“But he doesn’t blink an eye at asking to borrow $200 billion for a policy in Iraq that leaves us six months from now exactly where we were six months ago.

Mr. Bush, appearing at the White House with veterans and relatives of soldiers, warned Congress to move quickly to approve the added spending, though he did not make his final supplemental proposal until three weeks into the fiscal year.

“Congress should not go home for the holidays while our troops are still waiting for the funds they need, he said.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, criticized the tactic that allowed the White House to pay for the war with emergency spending, keeping the costs off the budget. “The entire war has been paid with borrowed money, he said in the Senate.

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said that the cost of less than 40 days in Iraq would pay for health-care coverage for 10 million children for a year.

The Democrats, however, lack enough votes to force any meaningful change in the administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq or the way it is paid for.

While the bulk of the money requested would go to the Defense Department, the proposal also includes nearly $800 million to support a United Nations peacekeeping mission and elections in Sudan; $106 million for fuel oil under a deal with North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program; and more than $400 million in assistance to the Palestinians as part of the administration’s efforts to nurture a peace treaty with Israel.

Give it to him, please give it to him. Whoever follows him in office is going to be no less in the pocket of his backers than he is. The only way to bring this killing-machine down is to break it from within and $196 billion is another small step in that direction.

Spot, how do you mean? I want the war to stop too, but how will giving Bush more money do that?

How is refusing the money going to bring this willingness to fight overseas to an end? If the Iraq war is scaled down because a Democrat-led Congress refuses to make the full payments demanded by the White House, you'll have a generation of Republicans saying that but for Congress they'd have won. Hell, that's said by people today still about Vietnam, remember?

They ask for a dime, you give them a dime. They ask for $800 billion, you give them $800 billion (and that, incidentally, is what the $196 billion takes the cost to since the "liberation" was put in train). You're $2000 out of pocket, RG, and so's every man woman and child in your neighbourhood, all of it poured into the pockets of your owners.

Pay them the rest and then, when they finally lose, put them all on trial. You need to be very angry to do that. I want to see you angry.

Just to remind everybody what actually happened and how saddam went from no threat at all to number one bogey man. wonder why?



Not sure of the source of this second one but the one above is from a bbc documantary



Personally I have nothing bit contempt for Tony Blair and the MP's that let him away with it. GW is somebody elses problem

gmc;712866 wrote: Just to remind everybody why Saddam had to be ousted.



Not sure of the source of this second one but the one above is from a bbc documantary




There is no doubt in my mind that Suddam was an evil dictator, but he was an evil dictator that was supported by the USA, armed by the USA, and used by the USA. He needed to be ousted the same way dictators of other countries need to be ousted, but they are no oil rich so no bother going after them. How much better off is Iraq now?

I know what you're saying spot but still have trouble with how easily the statements disregard how many lives are lost for every dollar sent. If the lives were ones that mattered to you, you wouldn't care who ends up looking bad, you'd just want it to end.

koan;712869 wrote: I know what you're saying spot but still have trouble with how easily the statements disregard how many lives are lost for every dollar sent. If the lives were ones that mattered to you, you wouldn't care who ends up looking bad, you'd just want it to end.


My sole concern is the lives lost which is why I want the Iraq campaign to be the morass which confounds the Coalition rather than see their aggressive self-serving intervention spread further down the years. If they come out of their current adventure feeling cocky there'll be another and another such intervention. The need is to stop them in their tracks where they stand while making it clear that it's the nature of the fight that's the cause of the problem, not the level of funding. The only armed force incapable of further aggressive deployment is one that knows it's been beaten, not one that thinks it was cheated out of victory by a lack of commitment back home.

Either they're stopped on those terms or the deplorable deaths will be far more extensive.

Perhaps if we could convince them England is their enemy you could spend your own countrymen to test your theory.

The roll of honour is a long one, now there's Iraq alongside the Sandanistas in this one-sided application of death and repression. Who's next to be labelled "evil" so people can be killed without domestic protests? The wretched nonsense of "you're only safe because we're out there protecting you" has always rung hollow. This drivel about advance radar protection based in Eastern Europe is just as much a lie as what's gone before it. We're under an umbrella so we should be thankful? Was I asked? Where do I sign to say no thanks?

As for Mike's There is no doubt in my mind that Suddam was an evil dictator, that "dictator" is reasonable enough though it could be argued that he led his party at least by majority consent, and it wouldn't surprise me if he ruled Iraq by majority consent as well. Evil is one of those words that gets applied to people we disapprove of. I don't disapprove of him on balance. He secularized what has now irredeemably become a fundamentalist state. He enabled women's education and their workplace opportunities, both of which are dying as we watch and won't come back. Iraq was put under sanctions pressure with the consequence that nobody inside Iraq could stand up and replace him. The sanctions forcibly continued his control of the country a decade beyond where internal politics could have dealt with him once he'd become an embarrassment, assuming he ever did. Now that he's been executed at the behest of the military victors he's out of the equation. Iraq is going to be rigidly anti-Western for as long as there are Iraqis alive to remember what was done to their country. Iraqi women no longer have the secular options he gave them. I'd rather he'd been left to get on with things.

Very lovely rant, spot. All it does is explain why you choose an extraordinary point of view on justifying the loss of life now for the theory of saving them later.

It is just a theory.

I'm pretty sure the people who are dying aren't interested in your theories.

koan;713078 wrote: Very lovely rant, spot. All it does is explain why you choose an extraordinary point of view on justifying the loss of life now for the theory of saving them later.

It is just a theory.

I'm pretty sure the people who are dying aren't interested in your theories.


What's your alternative? A majority of the US/UK electorate saying "it worked last time, they want to do it again elsewhere, that's fine by me"? Each state-destruction costs a million civilian lives in the target country chiefly through the loss of infrastructure causing disease, shall we pick that as an order of magnitude? If preventing another such intervention requires that the Coalition gets bogged into impotence then that's what it costs.

The people who are dying already coped with a US-fed war with Iran, a US-inspired blitzkrieg in Gulf 1, ten years of US-led sanctions and now a million dead from the "liberation" and its aftermath. There are five million displaced Iraqis as a direct consequence, and that's just those outside of the national borders. The idea is that there's a new regime in Iraq with a majority public support which should at this point say thank you very much, please go and do it to someone else now? I can't see the advantage of that to anyone, least of all the long-suffering citizens of the US.

Hey all I know is that there hasn't been a second attack on the US since 9/11 and I believe its because we sent a very stern message...don't f#$% with us! And the human lives lost is very sad...but that is the nature of war...and soldiers die...not to sound insensitive...but soldiers are there to serve and protect our country..even at the cost of their lives..when you are the biggest superpower in the world it costs a lot of money to stay on top...

drumbunny1;713086 wrote: Hey all I know is that there hasn't been a second attack on the US since 9/11 and I believe its because we sent a very stern message...don't f#$% with us! And the human lives lost is very sad...but that is the nature of war...and soldiers die...not to sound insensitive...but soldiers are there to serve and protect our country..even at the cost of their lives..when you are the biggest superpower in the world it costs a lot of money to stay on top...


In what way had Iraq attacked the US? Or had any capacity to attack the US? Or shown any desire to attack the US? When did any Iraqi set foot in the US Homeland with hostile intent, or send anyone to the US Homeland with hostile intent? Where's the "imminent danger" to the US Homeland that justifies a million civilian casualties?

The US couldn't have sent a very stern message regarding 9/11 by bombing Saudi Arabia instead? Or Pakistan? Countries demonstrably involved, rather than Iraq which wasn't?

koan;713020 wrote: Perhaps if we could convince them England is their enemy you could spend your own countrymen to test your theory.


Actually there are quite a few British soldiers getting killed as well-by friendly fire as well as unsurgents. There are canadian troops being killed as well.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afgha ... total.html

Our armies are professional and yes they did join up to fight but that doesn't mean their lives are worthless and why they die doesn't matter. Before you go to war make sure there is no alternative and go for the right people. You owe it to the troops to any government to account.

posted by drumbunny.

Hey all I know is that there hasn't been a second attack on the US since 9/11 and I believe its because we sent a very stern message...don't f#$% with us! And the human lives lost is very sad...but that is the nature of war...and soldiers die...not to sound insensitive...but soldiers are there to serve and protect our country..even at the cost of their lives..when you are the biggest superpower in the world it costs a lot of money to stay on top...




Maybe that's because the world wide conspiracy was not as widespread as you have been led to believe. Terrorists don't need weapons of mass destruction to cause terror. car bombs, hijacked petrol tankers exploded in the main towns putting things in the water supply-heck they don't even actually have to do it just tell you they have and people would be terrified. The 911 attack was a high profile one but if there really had been a network set to attack the US it would have continued. The idea that you need a super leader to run a terrosist campaign is ludicrous. Spending time trying to set off a nuclear explosion is a waste of resources. there is enough nuclear waste lying around in rubbish dumps to make a very nasty "dirty" bomb and plenty other things they can do to cause havoc if they's wanted to.

If there is a WMD set off in the US it will probably be Paskistani supplied and saudi Arabian delivered. Iran is no more a major threat than Iraq was after the 1st gulf war. That would have been the time to take out Saddam rather than encourage revolt against him and then sit back and watch as he crushed it.

when you are the biggest superpower in the world it costs a lot of money to stay on top..


So are you saying then it is not all about making the world free but making sure the US maintains it's position as the biggest superpower? If it is why not come out and say so?



http://foxattacks.com/iran

As far as ME personally...yes, I would rather have the US stay on top....The world will NEVER be completly free...or peaceful...the world is full of different people with different religious backgrounds, government, and beliefs...until we can all see eye to eye there will be fighting...and I would rather keep my own butt safe and on top then the alternative. And no, soldiers deaths are not meaningless...but when your in the military you are government property...and this should be well understood when the soldier enlists...who else do we send to war? Civilians? Also...what would have happenend if we hadn't gone to the middle east after 9/11? No one can say that we wouldn't have been attacked again....

drum, stop giving spot excuses to say he's right.

drumbunny1;713197 wrote: until we can all see eye to eye there will be fighting...and I would rather keep my own butt safe and on top then the alternative.It'll be interesting to see whether the US can ever regain its former majority public trust among the 95% of the world population who aren't American. They had it, the Bush administration blithely chose to treat it as worthless and I don't see it returning.

There was a tool called diplomacy which coped "until we can all see eye to eye" and it was was replaced by big-lie propaganda. Those lies are clearly lies now. You do remember those lies? The reiterated multiple absolute proofs of Iraqi WMD? Nobody outside of the US is ever going to fall for a US President asking for the benefit of the doubt again. The Bush administration wanted US armed forces in the Middle East (and look up the PNAC report if you doubt the truth of that assertion), it got the required New Pearl Harbour moment by fair means or foul (and deliberately looking the wrong way is quite foul enough regardless of other suspicions) and it - the administration - tore Iraq apart for entirely selfish reasons which have nothing whatever to do with the security of the US. The reasons are to do with corporate plunder and get-rich-quick ambition. It's not even stealing from Iraq, it's stealing from future US domestic taxation.

I think the Iraq war is illegal,first they go in because of weapons of destruction,not finding them it turns into liberating Iraq.Did that happen answer no.In the meantime countless thousands dying on both sides to achieve exactly what?Bush had it in for Sadam because his dad could not get him.Blaire followed blindly end of story>

All I meant to say was that if we have $196 million to put into a military mission, then we have $196 million that should be used to keep Americans from eating cat food and dying for lack of medication and treatment.

RedGlitter;713263 wrote: All I meant to say was that if we have $196 million to put into a military mission, then we have $196 million that should be used to keep Americans from eating cat food and dying for lack of medication and treatment.


Those Americans eating cat food and dying for lack of medication and treatment have no means at all of influencing their owners. None whatever. They're allowed to vote, and they can vote Republican, Democrat or Wasted. Republicans will keep US Armed Forces in the Middle East. What will Democrats do? Pull out the troops and show they've no backbone? Of course they won't, they'll Support Our Boys, it's what they have to do to satisfy the ruling class who actually profit from the flood of cash the war's generated.

So who are you relying on spending the money wisely? The Republicans? The Democrats? Revolutionary armed struggle against the repressive State? None of the above? You're stuck in a failed capitalist plutocracy and there's no way it's going to get any better while there's money still to be drained out of the pockets of tomorrow's taxpayers.

drumbunny1;713197 wrote: As far as ME personally...yes, I would rather have the US stay on top....The world will NEVER be completly free...or peaceful...the world is full of different people with different religious backgrounds, government, and beliefs...until we can all see eye to eye there will be fighting...and I would rather keep my own butt safe and on top then the alternative. And no, soldiers deaths are not meaningless...but when your in the military you are government property...and this should be well understood when the soldier enlists...who else do we send to war? Civilians? Also...what would have happenend if we hadn't gone to the middle east after 9/11? No one can say that we wouldn't have been attacked again....


By trying to stay on top the US is atguably taking actions that make warfare more likely. If you constantly behave in an aggressive manner to others then sooner or later people get fed up and are aggressive back. The US has turned it's back on the international community, tells the Un it is irrelevant, refuses now to even accept the Geneva conventions or the jurisdiction of international courts unless it agrees with their point of view and made it clear it intends to go it's own way regardless of the attitudes of other nations and them complains about the lack of international support for what it does. Even your allies are getting fed up.

On top of what? The days of competing empires are long gone so who is it you think is trying to do America down? The idea that America will be turned in to a muslim state by islamic fundamentalists is preposterous. Christian fundamentalist i could almost believe but even that is a stretch I think.

I think it doesn't really matter what president we have...there will always people right there to knock him or her down...everybody wants to complain about something they can't do anything about. what I want to know is if you think you have these grand plans that are so much better than what our government is doing...then why not run for president yourselves? Then maybe you'll make the world the peaceful happy place we all wish it was.

Are either of you spot or gmc even from the US?

RedGlitter;713263 wrote: All I meant to say was that if we have $196 million to put into a military mission, then we have $196 million that should be used to keep Americans from eating cat food and dying for lack of medication and treatment.


Red, you should have said "could have been" instead of "should be". Otherwise I'm in total agreement. But. That money has disappeared forever from the United States (but not from certain American bank accounts).

Drumbunny1, does it really matter where Spot, GMC or myself live? Due to the behaviour of the US government we have as much (or more) right as you to be worried by the actions of the cretin who is currently inhabiting the White House.

Oh Iraq, I think this is one of those classic cases of riding the tiger. Everyone wants to get off now, but once you have gotten up on the beast its safer to stay on than let go unfortunatly.

To get back to RGs original point, its very understandable that ordinary Americans would despair at the thought of the continuing cost both human, financial, political, and otherwise that this insane war continues to cost. But what is to be done? There are no easy choices now, of course ending the war is highly desirable, but there is no easy way now for the U.S. to disengage, as its gotten itself into a position where it can not easily leave, or easily stay. Certainly the recent tactics that have been deployed by the U.S. military have stabilized the security situation in Bagdad, but the resources required to continue that indefinetly do not exist, and thats just Bagdad, so eventual withdrawl of the military is inevitable, but even that is not going to very easy and will not be quick and it will certainly mean leaving a large amount of equipment and armour in iraq, at an astronomical cost, you may even find that when the U.S. military does withdraw it may well have to fight its way out of the country, of course what happens after that is not hard to imagine.

Aside from the continuing costs, the actual position in the region is now very bad, the war drums are being rolled out again as the Iranians now see their chance to increase their power in the region and discomfit the U.S., war with Iran is now very likely, Turkey is being dragged into this situation in Iraq because of the Kurds (and that is very, very bad for everyone), and Pakistan is continuing to destabilize, thats also very, very bad, and whats being set in motion now may well drag all of us into a general conflict in the region, you might not believe that, but trust me I am being quite serious. One of the basic facts of all previous western policy in the Middle East was that the region was too much of a political basket case, too unstable, too inimical to the west, and that oil was too important to do anything too radical in the region, (cynical perhaps, but now the wisdom of being cynically cautious about getting involved in any grandiose schemes to reshape the middle east becomes all too clear). Well, Blair taked about the Kaliedoscope being shook up, that's certainly been achieved, I hope he is pleased. I have a feeling that the next ten years are going to be dangerous ones for us (aside from the problems we have with the climate, Russia, energy, and of course not forgetting China).

I would also say that as Britain also is involved directly in this war and has been from the start, and that the British government are directly responsible for this debacle (whatever crap they might try to spin) means that British public opinion on its validity and prosecution is highly relevant indeed.

Drumbunny, I know how frustrating it is to hear non-Americans criticize the place we live in, our home soil, but they do often have valid points. I don't always agree of course, but there are times when I have to.

We'll never have a peaceful happy world just because of the nature of all of us being different. I think the most we can hope for is some form of tolerance. For the most part anyway.

I have never liked or supported Bush and I don't feel bad criticizing him. After all, we as a collective unit, put him in office, we have a right to critique him. I personally think he has shown us that he is a buffoon but that is only my opinion. I think other countries have a right to criticize him because his actions affect them too, either directly or indirectly. I get tired of America-bashing too, believe me, but in this case, I don't think that's what it is.

I think Galbally is right and it's unfortunate. We're damned if we leave and damned if we stay. We aren't going to win either way and at this point, I think even just saving face is a lost cause.

I'm not big on the military but I do see it as a necessity. Yet when I'm behind someone in the pharmacy who can't afford their pills and I come home and read about Shrub wanting yet more money for what amounts to a glorified game of cowboys and indians, and he'll probably get it, it makes me very angry and resentful.

I must say I still don't understand Spot's reasoning behind giving Bush more money. What am I missing?

drumbunny1;713530 wrote: I think it doesn't really matter what president we have...there will always people right there to knock him or her down...everybody wants to complain about something they can't do anything about. what I want to know is if you think you have these grand plans that are so much better than what our government is doing...then why not run for president yourselves? Then maybe you'll make the world the peaceful happy place we all wish it was.


Because in order to run for President you need a personal fortune running into the tens of millions - this is what's called democracy.

drumbunny1;713531 wrote: Are either of you spot or gmc even from the US?


Whilst the US interfeers in world affares to the extent it does, it cannot object if prople othr than Americans take an interest and pass comments on its actions.

drumbunny1;713531 wrote: Are either of you spot or gmc even from the US?


The wee flags under the name should be a big clue. He's Welsh I'm Scots and both of us are British.

Or he's a North Briton and I'm a West Breton. There's lots of names for these things.

spot;713712 wrote: Or he's a North Briton and I'm a West Breton. There's lots of names for these things.


Or he's a Pict and you're a - well maybe a? Nah, your a Spot, no other category for you :wah:

posted by galbally

Aside from the continuing costs, the actual position in the region is now very bad, the war drums are being rolled out again as the Iranians now see their chance to increase their power in the region and discomfit the U.S., war with Iran is now very likely, Turkey is being dragged into this situation in Iraq because of the Kurds (and that is very, very bad for everyone), and Pakistan is continuing to destabilize, thats also very, very bad, and whats being set in motion now may well drag all of us into a general conflict in the region, you might not believe that, but trust me I am being quite serious. One of the basic facts of all previous western policy in the Middle East was that the region was too much of a political basket case, too unstable, too inimical to the west, and that oil was too important to do anything too radical in the region, (cynical perhaps, but now the wisdom of being cynically cautious about getting involved in any grandiose schemes to reshape the middle east becomes all too clear). Well, Blair taked about the Kaliedoscope being shook up, that's certainly been achieved, I hope he is pleased. I have a feeling that the next ten years are going to be dangerous ones for us (aside from the problems we have with the climate, Russia, energy, and of course not forgetting China).


How long would you give saudi arabia?



http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politi ... 106888.ece

n order to appease their own internal Wahabbi-Islamist extremists, the Saudi dictatorship is handing them tens of billions of oil-dollars to promote their vision across the globe. As the dissident ex-CIA agent Robert Baer says: "Never forget that it is the al-Saud who sign the cheques for these extreme mosque schools all over the world. It's hush money to divert Muslims' attention from the [activities of] the al-Saud [royal family]." The Saudi dictatorship is slowly poisoning global Islam, ensuring the most austere and fanatical desert vision liquidates the softer, more mystical strands – and we are already seeing this backfire on to the streets of London and New York.


Just remember where the 911 terrorists came from, and a clue for those who have forgotten it was not Iraq.

I would also say that as Britain also is involved directly in this war and has been from the start, and that the British government are directly responsible for this debacle (whatever crap they might try to spin) means that British public opinion on its validity and prosecution is highly relevant indeed.


It's not something most in the UK are exactly happy about.

I didn't mean any offense about what country you guys were from...didn't see the little flags...I was just curious as where the info was coming from! Everyone is entitled to their opinion ofcourse.....sometimes I just get defensive with all the american bashing......

drumbunny1;714402 wrote: I didn't mean any offense about what country you guys were from...didn't see the little flags...I was just curious as where the info was coming from! Everyone is entitled to their opinion ofcourse.....sometimes I just get defensive with all the american bashing......


Why would we take offence? It was a reasonable question I didn't realise you couldn't see the flags and I couldn't resist the wee dig. You'll find most of the posters from the UK won't take offence if you "have a go" at the UK. If you're wrong we'll tell you why if you're right we might even agree with you.

For example you might say Tony Blair is a tosser- we might agree with- you on the other hand if someone from the UK disagrees they can argue the toss about how he's not as big a tosser as you say he is. No one will assume you are being anti british per se.

Why do so many Americans get defensive and think any comment is just American bashing? If you think you are in the right then why be defensive? Are you insecure? have a guilty conscience? Embarrassed about being American? Don't be it's not your fault:sneaky: Is it because you are not allowed to criticise your government at home and you're not used to it?

It does get a bit wearing being unable to discuss things without some numpty coming out with you are just American bashing for the sake if it. If it bothers you try and adopt a more British attitude Even if a comment is meant to be offensive who cares what johnny foreigner thinks anyway they're all pillocks!

Just get me a god dang cheesburger and a Budweiser and i'll be fine.... Ha ha ha! Pillocks thats a good one!

gmc;714445 wrote: Why would we take offence? It was a reasonable question I didn't realise you couldn't see the flags and I couldn't resist the wee dig. You'll find most of the posters from the UK won't take offence if you "have a go" at the UK. If you're wrong we'll tell you why if you're right we might even agree with you.

For example you might say Tony Blair is a tosser- we might agree with- you on the other hand if someone from the UK disagrees they can argue the toss about how he's not as big a tosser as you say he is. No one will assume you are being anti british per se.

Why do so many Americans get defensive and think any comment is just American bashing? If you think you are in the right then why be defensive? Are you insecure? have a guilty conscience? Embarrassed about being American? Don't be it's not your fault:sneaky: Is it because you are not allowed to criticise your government at home and you're not used to it?

It does get a bit wearing being unable to discuss things without some numpty coming out with you are just American bashing for the sake if it. If it bothers you try and adopt a more British attitude Even if a comment is meant to be offensive who cares what johnny foreigner thinks anyway they're all pillocks!


Totally unfair to suggest Tony Blair was a tosser - maligns tossers the world over.

drumbunny1;714451 wrote: Just get me a god dang cheesburger and a Budweiser and i'll be fine.... Ha ha ha! Pillocks thats a good one!


Ah Budweiser, but that will be that poor american imitation of the original czech beer whose name they had the temerity to try and claim as their own. Having tried both I can tell you that the czech is definitely the better of the two. Good grief the yanks out rice in it for goodness sake.

That's not anti american by the way-I merely offer you my sympathy because you can't go down the off licence and get the real thing (no i don't mean coke) . In the interests of balance I would concede scots beer is so bad I was teetotal for many years as projectile vomiting always seemed to be the result no matter which crappy brand I went in for. That's why we make whisky- our beer is rubbish.

Now if muslims would learn to drink and americans learn how to play football properly and stop playing rugby in body armour there might be some hope of peace in the middle east.

gmc;714461 wrote: Ah Budweiser, but that will be that poor american imitation of the original czech beer whose name they had the temerity to try and claim as their own. Having tried both I can tell you that the czech is definitely the better of the two. Good grief the yanks out rice in it for goodness sake.

That's not anti american by the way-I merely offer you my sympathy because you can't go down the off licence and get the real thing (no i don't mean coke) . In the interests of balance I would concede scots beer is so bad I was teetotal for many years as projectile vomiting always seemed to be the result no matter which crappy brand I went in for. That's why we make whisky- our beer is rubbish.

Now if muslims would learn to drink and americans learn how to play football properly and stop playing rugby in body armour there might be some hope of peace in the middle east.


Well the Eighty Shilling had some promise had they continued to develop it but I see no redeeming features in rugby matches lasting six hours :p

To go back on topic. Bush doesn't have long before he has to leave the white house. Do youreck0n he will start a war with iran while he still can? Who can stop him as in can the president just decide to go to war? I thought he couldn't but who has the final say, congress or the senate?

Pelosi: Bush 'must come to Congress' before attacking Iran

Sunday October 14, 2007

In an interview on ABC's This Week, Speaker Pelosi tells George Stephanopoulos that President Bush must get the approval of Congress before proceeding with an attack on Iran.

Just this week, the Senate passed a non-binding resolution designating Iran's Republican Guard as a terrorist organization in a move many observers fear will give President Bush the authority he needs to attack Iran. Pelosi disagrees, and doesn't plan on bringing up such a measure in the house.

"We don't believe that any of the authority the President has would allow him to go in without an act of Congress," she said, adding that the War Powers Act of the 1970s gives any president the power to retaliate against a country that has attacked the US. "But short of that," Pelosi said, "he must come to the Congress."

When asked about the Senate vote, Pelosi noted that it is unprecendented to declare a piece of another country's military a terrorist organization. She said, "Whatever Iran's impact is on our troops in Iraq should be dealt with in Iraq."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071014/pl_nm/iran_usa_dc

(Reuters, really. But she ought to know if anyone does.)

Yes Congress can stop him...theres really nothing the President can do without Congress approval...checks and balances....

drumbunny1;714678 wrote: Yes Congress can stop him...theres really nothing the President can do without Congress approval...checks and balances....


What happens with things like that healthcare bill that the president vetoed. can congress overrule him?

gmc;714701 wrote: What happens with things like that healthcare bill that the president vetoed. can congress overrule him?
They can but they won't in its present form. They can't get enough crossover votes.

drumbunny1;714678 wrote: Yes Congress can stop him...theres really nothing the President can do without Congress approval...checks and balances....


What about attacking Iran, can they stop him?

Yes....they can....Congress has to approve....even though the President is the "Executive" branch he has to have the majority of Congress approval....he can also veto a bill congress comes forth with....its designed to keep too much power out of one persons hands...

drumbunny1;715057 wrote: Yes....they can....Congress has to approve....even though the President is the "Executive" branch he has to have the majority of Congress approval....he can also veto a bill congress comes forth with....its designed to keep too much power out of one persons hands...


Hypothetical question for you. If Bush was able to stand for a third election do you think he would get elected again?

gmc;715065 wrote: Hypothetical question for you. If Bush was able to stand for a third election do you think he would get elected again?
Not a chance. At least I hope he wouldn't have a chance.

I doubt it....I doubt any president would stand for a third time....after 8 years people usually want to see a fresh face and hope the new one will save them all! I doubt he'd WANT to go at it a third time..the man is looking haggard from stress!

drumbunny1;715404 wrote: I doubt it....I doubt any president would stand for a third time....after 8 years people usually want to see a fresh face and hope the new one will save them all! I doubt he'd WANT to go at it a third time..the man is looking haggard from stress!


Now that's worrying. I'm not american and even I know a president can only stand for two terms.