Don't be surprised if Bush* SIGNS this bill.

[bvar22]

This bill gives Bush/Big Corpo everything they want.

The Democrats get to pretend like they are actually doing something to end the WAR.

The Republican Party gets to pretend that they are opposing a bush* administration.

The Global WAR Corporations get $Billions$ more of American Working Class money transfered to their already rich pockets.

* $100Billion$ Dollars to keep the money flowing into the profiteers' pockets courtesy of The Democratic Party

* 18 months to string out the WAR until his term expires. Bush* will have 18 uninterrupted months to keep the killing and looting going as long as he says he is making progress (and he really doesn't have to do that. RE: The Iraq War Resolution). Bush* can easily string out the WAR until he leaves office courtesy of The Democratic Party.

*This bill establishes the precedent for a PERMANENT PRESENCE of US MILITARY in Iraq. This provision codifies the PERMANENT Bases to protect Corporate Commercial interests for the future looting and privatizing of Iraqi national resources. Thank You Democratic Party

*There are NO changes in the actual mission for Military assets currently in Iraq. Wouldn't want to get in the way of the looting of Iraq, the REAL reason for the occupation. Cui Bono?

*Bush gets a great Video Op to pretend like he is listening to Congress without actually giving up ANYTHING.

There is a VERY REAL possibility (likely?) that bush* will sign this bill in spite of the political theater from the White House. It gives him everything he wants, and covers his ass until his term expires. The Democrats will look pretty stupid (like after the IWR) if bush* signs it.

This scenario is WIN/WIN for both Political Parties. The only losers are the American Public, The Iraqi Civilians, and our children who will have to pay the bill for this.

You heard it here first.
Feel free to Bookmark this thread, and make me eat this post if Bush* vetoes the bill.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[global1]

1. And Don't Forget This - The Surge Is Working.......

that's according to Joe Scarborough.

[Ninja Jordan]

2. Or signs it, and simply ignores the timeline provisions.

Or issues signing statements.

[jaxx]

3. Takes the money and runs?

I could see him doing that.

[youngdem]

4. Sure, he'll sign it with a signing statement attached cancelling the withdrawal timeline provision

[job777]

22. Thanks

I hadn't thought about all those pesky little signing attachments that are so popular.

[sampsonblk]

23. Very astute

If I were Bush, and I am not, that's what I would do. This may be the best deal he is going to get. It only gets worse for him after this.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. I'm hoping he does that

it puts the signing statemetns right front and center for consittutional crisis part whatever

[mmonk]

5. I've been told its about steps (or something like that) when

I complained about it around here. In fact, I said I supported DK's position and was called a Nader supporter, purist, and traitor.

[DemBones DemBones]

6. Ooh, a Nader supporter, purist, and traitor?

What about "ultra left fringe"? I'm still pondering that one. . . DK is the only one in Congress who I think isn't lying whenever his/her lips are moving.

[mmonk]

8. Yeah

Always "fringe" whatever that means.

[GeorgeGist]

24. In this context, it appears to mean...

cutting edge.

[Generator]

13. Don't you just hate being called pure?

It makes you feel so dirty. OH the irony. (purity is something good..last I checked...but not since the Clinton wing took over our party and turned it too shit...oops I got angry and I was being funny!)

[bvar22]

9. Yeah, I saw some of that.

For some here its Party above Principle. Some easily forget the lesson of the IWR, and STILL excuse the enablers because they were trying to put toothless restrictions on Bush*/Profiteers.
What they (the enablers) were trying to do was have it both ways.
Same this time.


I stand with Dennis.

[Canuckistanian]

7. Hmm, you make some good points

But you forget a big one - his ego. He's practically made a career out of being a stubborn, pig-headed mule, even when common sense makes it obvious that he should back down.

This narcissist would rather cut off his own arm on live TV rather than admit he made a mistake.

After all, he knows better than the foreign policy experts, Generals, troops in the field, statisticians - and 70% of the American population.

And why?

Because Cheney told him so.

[whistle]

10. Bush will veto it because it is his nature to be defiant

...so then congress will own his ass because they will send it right back with even greater restrictions and more support

[Big Pappa]

11. I don't

buy that. I think it is his nature to be dumb.

[ToeBot]

12. That's what should happen, but...

If this turns into a case of who's going to fold first, I'd have to put my money on the Senate Democrats. They are the weakest link.

[whistle]

18. The weak link for the democrats is Senator Joe Lieberman

...and their absolute insistence that they maintain his seniority with the party. He wears the democratic garments but is a fascist neoconservative tied to William F. Buckley Jr's purse strings and trades secret insights to the ultra-right wing in the country. Lieberman should be dropped from the party and expose him for the turncoat that he is.

[Generator]

14. That would be brillance on Bush's part

However that word never comes into his world.

[shance]

16. Brilliant? Is it really brilliant when you have to bully others to give you what you want?

Coersion and force by theft are not traits that warrant too much respect in my book.

Being dishonest, evasive, invasive, vicious, sneaky and arrogant are often the paths of least discipline and/or resistance.

That said, so is not standing up to this Administration.

[Rusty MacHenry]

15. Where are you getting this infomation

Cause this isn't the spending bill I read.

If you excuse me i'm going to support my party

The bill Congress passed is a good bill, it's a bill that will get the troops out of Iraq and will provide money for Walter Reed for example.

[ComerPerro]

17. and what bills have you pushed through Congress?

[sampsonblk]

25. Phony argument alert

The heavy lifting was done during the election. Now those we elected work for us. I personally don't want to hear how hard it is to pass a bill or that I should be satisfied with unsatisfactory efforts. If they didn't want to work for us, they should not have run.

[ComerPerro]

26. then you must not know jack about how politics actually works

maybe you should have done more "heavy lifting" during election season, because we barely have the Senate at all. We pass what we can. And the all or nothing mentality of some DUers here suggests that they are immature or very politically naive.

[sampsonblk]

27. Another phony argument, friend

Claiming someone is naive about how politics works usually accompanies a lame excuse for doing something wrong, or for doing nothing at all. I know how it works. I just don't like it.

[ComerPerro]

28. if you do, then you must know that a bill can't pass without compromise when neither side

has a clear and solid majority.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. And we don't particularly in the Senate

;-)

[ComerPerro]

31. not even close to one

[sampsonblk]

32. No third grade civics lesson, please

Just because you came across me on the internet does not mean I am a child or that I am ignorant. Disagree with me if you want, but please do not give me a third grade civics lesson. I promise you I don't need one.

Your view seems to be that this is 'good,' based on what was possible. My view is your argument is complete garbage. Doing something wrong in order to get a compromise is NOT okay, no matter how frequently it happens. A better alternative is to do nothing, or to insist on doing what's right or nothing at all.

[ComerPerro]

36. yeah, all or nothing. I mean, why try to help where you can and keep working?

Shit, if you can't fix the world in one sweeping bill, then just write it all off.

[sampsonblk]

39. Third time's the charm

How about if you can't fix it all in one sweeping bill, then you fix ONLY the parts you can fix and work on the others later. That's not what just happened.

[ComerPerro]

42. those handouts? Those were happening anyway. At least this is an effort

granted, the Dems in Congress aren't quite the masterful politicians that you obviously are, but this measure is at least a movement in the right direction.

[sampsonblk]

45. Well thanks

Been 3 days since anyone pointed out how masterful I am.

It sounds like you lean toward politicians who show genius. I lean toward politicians who do the right thing. Principle over prowess. I can see where we got off on the wrong foot now.

Anyway, to each his own.

[MiniMe]

19. Signing statement

[Vinca]

20. The royal ego/mental illness won't allow him to sign it. nt

[onenote]

21. I wouldn't bet on it

The rhetoric against it has been too strong. He is looking for a victory and he'll claim one when his veto is sustained. There is no political downside for him in his strategy since he's already lost the support of anyone who supports the bill.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. The funny thing is that he won't do it

Bush thinks that he can force the Democrats to cave on a provision that he would otherwise just ignore so he's going to play political hardball. His own arrogance is going to making it extremely difficult for any Republican to get elected in '08.

[Sapere aude]

34. If Bush signs this bill the Dems own the war. Repukes are off the hook.

I am for ending the war so I like the time table.

[ncteechur]

37. Veto or not, this is bush's war. Trying to put in on the dems

will not hunt with 70% of the country.

[ncteechur]

38. Veto or not, this is bush's war. Trying to put in on the dems

will not hunt with 70% of the country.

[ShortnFiery]

35. Even if it destroys the Republican Party, Dear Leader will NOT sign this bill.

Why? He's too selfish and stubborn. Like a child being punished, he's going to continue with this seemingly never-ending tantrum / hissy fit. Since Dimson IS "The Decider" ... well ... Sadly, he's not flexible enough (or bright) to change his position now. :(

[Countdown_3_2_1]

40. Whats to keep * from signing the bill and IGNORING THE PULLOUT?!!!

All * has to do is ignore the pullout and do whatsoever he pleases.
---without 67 votes in the senate, there will be NO impeachment...

This bill funds the war for another year...whats in it to stop the president?
He's got the money, who gonna enforce it?

Besides * can then blame the Democratic party for not supporting the troops.
For the GOP, whats the downside?

[tiffane]

41. You give the Dems way too much credit

Look up PNAC and ask yourself how it promotes the Globalist elitist takeover of the planet. Then ask yourself why it took you soo long to figure out that it isn't just for Republicans anymore.

Clinton's unwavering support for NAFTA helped pave the way for the North American Union to replace the USA which is being done under our President now.

We can't just vote red or blue anymore, not that we EVER should have but we've been trained to. This goes way deeper than one party vs the other. We are the New World Order and it's both parties.

[Morgana LaFey]

43. Very well articulated

I have had a feeling about it, and couldn't quite put my finger on all of it. Fortunately, you COULD, and I thank you.

Edited: I think my curiosity and suspicion arose when the Repugs didn't fight. There was something more there than was obvious, I thought. Something of a secret ploy. That fits your scenario very well.

[Flabbergasted]

44. Hungry?