And if Bush does veto, it will officially relagate the so called Republican/Conservative "revolution" to the dung heap it so richly deserves.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070329/pl_nm/...a_congress_dc_2

Bravo to the Senate! As to this Conservative Revolution, I think its already been beaten back into its little corner. It will never die, and maybe its good it doesn't, but it will be back in another form. David Brooks has an interesting op-ed in the Times today about the future of Conservatism. He argues that the small government platform is a real loser politically and they need to evolve. Conservatives evolving! LOL. Anyway:

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/opinion/29brooks.html

What, do you two have a timshare on the same thought or something? Siamese twins joined at the rant? Jesus...

Well ever since the takeover in '94 they just keep shooting themselves in the foot with one strategic blunder (shutting down the government, Lewinsky, Ken Starr, pre-emptive war, Terry Schiavo, Harriet Miers, Katrina, Conaleeza Rice etc) after another. You know it's bad for the conservative movement when a kook like Gingrich is revered. Didn't he once say women couldn't be in a fox hole because it's biologically unsafe? And this was once the leader of a party that still goes out of their way to debunk global warming.



Weird Science.

How could we possibly both have opinions about the most important issue of the day, namely, the war. Wow, what a the chances?

Tom, is the air pollution in DC clouding your brain?

They each own stock in Peanuts. They're pumped about that 25 billion.

Or was it...Peanut brains. Go figure.

Clever

It's more the giggling over it like little schoolgirls I'm talking about.

Hell, Coli's more anti-war than you two bozos...but he at least puts some thought into his opinions.

well, SOMEONE needs to make up for the void of retardedness since HA hasnt been around.

Don't be a toolbox Tommy and express your valued opinion on the Senate vote.

Same opinion I had on the House vote, albiet not as strong (since the timeline is March, not September, hence it's not as much transparent political pandering).

[wagging finger]Clinton didnt have sex with that woman![/wagging finger]

Ronnie Earle, anyone?


Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7 1/2 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The U.N. Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the U.N.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the U.N. that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the U.N. weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to U.N. Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though U.N. resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.

For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance. As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program." In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness.

Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors. This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East. That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction.

If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that.

May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

Elian Gonzalez?

Mark Rich?

Mr. Chocolate City" is a WHAT?

We know the concept of an independent person becoming successful bothers libitards like you, especially a BLACK WOMAN.....but what did SHE do that bothers you so much?


At least he didnt KILL HER. Tell us when he drowns his girlfriend and then runs from the scene like the guy YOUR party holds as the "gold standard" of your ideology.



So where did the "Church of Al Gore" get built, anyways? And most imprtant, is it "carbon neutral"???

HA's been around...he just refuses to hijack any more threads with us unless they've been started by JSP.

Um ok...can we accept that?


Our judges have conferred and after some deliberation it is pretty clear to them that your response is the usual cheese you sling up on a daily basis.


But thank you anyway.

How's that different then the former Secretary of the Navy who said, "Women shouldn't be in the miltary, they should be barefoot and pregnant at home". This was during the whole tailhook thing when he basically also said the female pilots got what they asked for and deserved.

Of couse he is now your new dem senator from Virginia.

What a guy? Guess it's okay for someone you elect but not the repubs elect. Of course I wouldn't vote for either one, but hyprocisy is thy name.

Run out of pasta, already?

Can you spare a synapse to think what the two chambers' bills really are? The House vote was a close one, and only happened after Pelosi stuffed it with pork to line up reluctant Dems. Reps from both houses didn't oppose nor filibuster because they know a veto is coming. If veto wasn't certain, these bills don't make it off the floor (or even our of committees), because Reps would block them and center-right Dems who were elected on more conservative platforms in Nov wouldn't back them.

But, carry on with your happy day.

You missed the point Gekko! Both house and senate have opposed Bush with a timeline by a majority. That's a first!
The old republicrap, rubber stamp congress is no longer the rule of the day as I hope you witnessed last November and government is slowly reaching the same point as the majority of people in this country. Oh happy day!

In the end though I think what will end this war is the same thing that ended Viet Nam.......a lingering feeling among the ranks that the situation is not only hopeless but pointless.

Your blatant ignorance of how Washington works shouldn't surprise anyone here. The bills are political pandering to the bases, and even Dems weren't going to support them if they weren't laden with pork. Nice way to eat the cake. Knowing that there's ZERO chance of becoming law, the Dem Hillpeople can go back to the constituents and tell the ignorant masses that they either fought against the war or tried to bring bacon to the home district, but evil Bush took it away.

Let's see what Pelosi & Reid drag to the floor that Bush signs, before you and the other dimbulbs declare victory in Congress.

Nice analogy to Vietnam. How did that one fare with respect to confidence in the military and the US?

And your inability to be unable to recognize a groundswell of anti-war sentiment among most in the country shouldn't come as a shocker to anyone here as well.

What, it's somehow less valid because it does not include schoolgirl giggling? Because I'm actually anti-war, whereas you're merely "anti-us-getting-involved-in-the-war", and you can't even comprehend the distinction? Because I realzie that an arbitrarily defined pullout not goal-oriented will further destroy our foreign policy even worse than has already been done, whereas you and your fellow retards somehow believe that, in leaving Iraq to the vultures, we'll somehow restore our standing in the international community and leadership position in the world...in all ignorance of the very obvious point that the first issue the international community would need leadership on is the disaster in Iraq we'd cause by pulling out arbitrarily!!!

Great plan. Have you thought any of your opinions through beyond their immediate ramifications?

Then Pelosi & Reid should have absolutely no problem in presenting Bush with a simple bill cutting off funding for the Iraqi theater, right? Once sentence, one figure $0.

No, they have to make it Bush's responsibility...so they can say "Look what we did!"

Politics...

Whats the Democrat plan after the troops leave? They told everyone they had a plan prior to the election. When are they going to share that little tid-bit? And do they have a back up plan if that one doesn't work, and then another, and another. Lets tell everyone in the world what their plan is. The terrorists are waiting. I'm glad the Democrats in the Senate and the House know how to lose a war. Makes me feel all giddy. And I'm sure the troops feel all giddy too.

<Please disregard the above post. Left leaning liberal Bloggers will be coming up with all the answers momentary. Crazy me >

1) Iraqi independence and self government, maybe?

2) Ya, it will really suck for them being home with their families and no raodside bombs to dodge

1) Thats what we've been telling them for 5 years. So pulling out the troops is going to make them do it faster?


2) So being in the Military means staying home with your family's. NICE JOB!!

It's not quite true that the House bill wouldn't have passed without the domestic emergency spending. There were at least 8 Democrats, possibly more, such as Maxine Waters who voted against it because they wanted to go farther and have a quicker timeline to stop combat operations. If it came down to them, they would probably vote for the appropriation. And where does it say an emergency spending bill has to focus on one emergency? The lack of funding for drought, flood, and Katrina relief that was promised by the Republicans but never appropriated is an emergency for those people waiting for that relief. And how many who oppose it would switch their vote if it was taken out? I doubt any would, it's just a red herring.

What I want to know is why after 5 years do the military still have to get emergency spending in such amounts? You can't believe the military and White House can't anticipate the need for additional hundreds of billions. By now it should be part of the regular budget, and hopefully will be after this one. Of course the answer is Bush and the Republicans want to keep using our credit card and not have to face paying the bill by giving up tax cuts or offering real offsetting budget cuts.

Bush will have quite a legacy of vetoes; denying funding for stem cell research and denying funding for the troops.

Actuall Joe, one of the last few Iraqi war funding budgets HAD Katrina money attached to it.

So, which one is it, an emergency domestic bill or Iraq funding bill? If there's such an overwhelming tide against the Iraq war, stop the funding, right now. Your party is in the majority. Let them exercise their Constitutional mandate. Send the message that the US and their constituents need to hear.

Ah, THERE'S the real question.

The real answer is probably: Republican Congress, Republican White House, so they could. By asking for supplemental funding, they could keep it out of the budget and claim to be fiscally responsible ("Look how good we are! We have all these extra costs, but the budget's not growing!")

And the most recent budget submitted (2008) actually does finally roll the war costs into the DoD budget...which went from about half a trillion to three-quarters of a trillion dollars largely on the strength of finally deciding to fund the war with a budget line item...I presume to dare the now Democratic Congress to cut funding so the Republicans could scream "Soft on defense!" before the 2008 elections ("They cut defense spending by 33% in one year alone. They don't care about your safety. Vote Republican.") Otherwise, by putting supplemetals before a Democratic Congress, the Dems get to scream "Look how much this damn war is costing us!" before the election.

Smart politics, really. Doesn't change the fact that they're playing a political shell game with hundreds of billions of dollars.

So why was it OK with Republicans then but isn't now?

Supplementals. It wasn't a budget.

Seems nitpicky, I know...but there's a huge difference.

It's an emergency spending bill, where does it say it has to be for one specific issue? The Iraq war ended when we toppled Saddam, this is now playing policeman to sectarian violence, with some actions against al Queda that came into the Al Anbar region after we invaded. A majority of Americans and Democrats don't want to just leave right now, they are mature enough to realize that it has to be a phased redeployment and want to put more resources towards training Iraqis, border control, and chasing al Queda in Al Anbar. So the Congress is already doing what the majority of Americans and Democrats want.

Here's another thing I'm not getting. Now "Mission Accomplished" is suddenly right??? Didn't we spend the past four years listening to everyone explain how much of a crock of sh-- that was? Now it's suddenly become the left's mantra...

Go find the other budgets, Joe. Then compare them.

Here's some of the sh-- tied into the war budget this time:


$25 million for spinach growers;
$100 million for citrus growers;
$25 million for livestock farmers;
$74 million for peanut storage; and
$283 million in milk subsidies.
$120 million for the shrimp and menhaden fishing industries;
$60 million for fisheries;
$35 million for NASA;
$5 million for those engaged in "breeding, rearing, or transporting live fish" ;
$6.4 million for additional salaries and expenses for the House of Representatives; and
$16 million for additional office space for the House of Representatives.

The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, for whose benefit this legislation was intended, have become merely a bargaining chip for an additional $21 billion in spending that could never pass on its own. Lawmakers are effectively telling President Bush that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot have their body armor unless Congress gets $16 million for additional office space for the House of Representatives. Is it any wonder that polls show 80 percent of Americans disapprove of Congress's performance on federal spending?

Very Orwellian, isn't it?

"Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia"

No problem, you're right. My bad. Hey? Hows my spelling?

I'm soooo confused. Which one is it?

What's in Room 101?

"Your greatest fear..."

Well, then...what's in Room 3.5?

You mean you're not confused by the "groundswell of anti-war sentiment" even though

I got tired of cutting & pasting.

Now you attributing quotes to me I didn't make? Where did that 2nd one come from, I never wrote that. I structure my sentences better than that.

Most people refer to it as the Iraq War, but in fact the war ended years ago, and the proper designation should be the Iraq Occupation. "Mission Accomplished" gave the mistaken message that the need for the large number of troops was over, and that we could bring the majority of troops home. That is what most people interpreted it to mean, and what the administration mistakenly thought was true.

He's right, GG. That one was Joey Ballless's.

My bad too, sorry.

I guess it's hard to keep track of all the Joe Pasta Balls

Jeezuz H Christ and belzeebub! I'm not Joe pasta, or molson export.


But I'm pretty convinced Gekko, Toolbox Tommy and Potsie Derwood are all the same character, throw mezza meatball in there too.


Dismiss the vote as some might (what with the pork and the riders and all that-as if the previous republican dominated congress never attempted such a thing goodness gracious no), scoff at the anti-war movement, or keep fighting for your neo-con world order.

Won't make a bit of difference...you've already proven your irrelevence

You may as well be molson. But Joey Spaghetti is smarter, I'll give him that.

Oh probably TT, nothing would surprise me anymore.


And this probably isn't saying much but he seems to have a leg up on you as well with his grasp of the US attorney scandal, something that seems to have flown over your noggin.

A fully regressed rat in a cage?

You are so brave with other people's lives. God, what a disgusting person you are