His problem is that there is nothing to negotiate. Once he opens his eyes to the reality of what's happening in Iraq, there is no reason to stay even one more day.
2007-03-23 10:16:49 · 22 answers · asked by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bill - if Bush vetoes it, he still doesn't get his money.
2007-03-23 10:23:52 · update #1
Oh yeah Moltar, we're doing great in Iraq. The vice President almost got killed in Baghdad today, the UN general secretary almost got killed yesterday, etc. etc.
2007-03-23 10:24:51 · update #2
Dog Lover, you and the other neo-cons have been living in an echo chamber for too long. It makes you seem weird and demented. It is time for people like you to be quiet and LISTEN for a while.
2007-03-23 10:28:59 · update #3
Not a knock out punch, it showed a lack of courage to bring our troops home sooner. Just cancelling out the war spending doesn't really solve the problem. We need to spend the 500 billion to develop an alternative to persian gulf war, and stop killing our soldiers for Bush's sake. We need more courage from the democrats or we should vote in a third party that will solve the problem with courage.
2007-03-23 10:19:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 6⤋
There is nothing to negotiate. Bush is going to veto the bill and he coud do it because the House only passed the bill narrowly by 6 votes. It also doesn't help that the Democrats have practically bought votes with their pork bills along with some Republicans who are in it too. Is most likely going to fail in the Senate and I don't think withdrawal is a good plan right now and I'm against the war.
2007-03-23 18:59:04 · answer #2 · answered by cynical 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Pelosi didn't score a knock out - yet. If she does her job and LISTENS to the people - this stupid war might end. Also it isn't just Pelosi - the Senate also has to show courage as well and override any veto from the current occupier of the WH. The trouble with politics is that it is really flimsy - $$$$
are listened to and the people get scooted back a few hundred feet!
2007-03-23 17:25:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
No knock-out punch, just b.s. politics as usual in our nation's Capital. (unfortunately). Take a look at the Bill and you will see that it mostly addresses domestic spending. Once Bush vetoes, then the Democrats will have more fodder about what the President has done, not supporting the domestic agenda. I believe that Bush will not back down from his stance in Iraq, regardless of his approval rating, what the Congress does, or what the majority (or minority) of the country believes.
2007-03-23 17:24:42 · answer #4 · answered by Charlie L 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The problem with ANYONE reasonable trying to negotiate with Bush is that he listens to nobody except those who agree with him or line his pockets with "pork", as so many neocons keep saying about the Dems! Pelosi and like-minded people (including MANY Repubs) will have to mount an all-out, Congressional campaign against this useless war, and override
Bush & Co.
2007-03-25 14:30:56 · answer #5 · answered by RandomGonzo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The government, I hope, will shut down before Bush agrees with Pelosi. I think a month shut down would help the budget deficit.
2007-03-26 19:32:41 · answer #6 · answered by edward m 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I believe she did. It's been awhile in coming, and it's hard to bring a party together in a voting bloc - but it's something she's been adept at for a long time, that's one of the main reasons she was voted in as Speaker. This type of move is what the people voted for in November. The cons can scream that the Dems aren't supporting the troops until their faces turn blue. But the truth is that the ball is in Bush's court now, not the Democrats. He can deal with the reality of his situation, or he can veto it and see more bills of this nature come his way until HE starts screaming blue murder. His time of dictatorship is over, and it couldn't have come soon enough.
2007-03-23 17:32:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
Hippy as usual you have NO knowledge as to what you are talking about.
Lets start off with the bill...does the term VETO ring a bell...and there are NOT enough votes to over ride.
2 GW as the Commander in Chief and Pres. has the authority to BORROW money from other social programs to fund the war while awaiting Congress to pass the funding...That's the way it works....
That why the separation of powers and Congress CAN NOT FORCE the pres to do anything..without having the 2/3 voting block to over ride his veto...
I know Reality sucks...but it is better than the fantasy land you seem to live in
2007-03-23 17:29:59 · answer #8 · answered by Real Estate Para Legal 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Heh, if it were only that easy. Bush doesn't NEED to negotiate. He can and will veto the bill and that's the end of that.
Bush's war -- and that's what Iraq is at this point -- will probably cost the GOP the next few elections.
2007-03-23 17:20:02 · answer #9 · answered by Jack 1 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Unfortunately, the dumbocrats loaded the bill with so much pork (predictable but still unbelievable) that it will take a lot of the edge off of what they say they're trying to do.
Notice none of the left sided posters have any problem with the tactic.
2007-03-23 17:30:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋