help, help, Help, HELP!!

[patrice]

Is it just me??? The fact that the timeline was ONLY non-binding seems like an extremely important fact.

Why doesn't it seem to matter to anyone, especially Democrats, that the timeline in the appropriations bill was NON-BINDING???

I've listened to and read dozens of stories, even on AAR, and I've heard the word "non-binding" only a couple of times.

Bush vetoed a bill that placed absolutely NO restrictions on him whatsoever and NO ONE is saying that!!! He denied funds to the troops for NO REASON.

He said Democrats were interfering and he got away with it. Their timeline was NOTHING more than a suggestion - and there was NO REBUTTAL.

WHY?!!!

Please, I need an answer.

[slackmaster]

1. I suggest you turn off your TV, log off, and take a walk outside

Hug any children or pets and play with them for a while.

[WCGreen]

2. Good Advice .....

[patrice]

4. Oh, the other brand of kool-aid . . . The blue stuff . . .

"Trust 'us'." Is not an answer.

Thanks for the "help".

[slackmaster]

7. It's your health

I support your right to worry yourself sick over things you have no real control over.

[patrice]

10. Control is not the objective. Doing the right thing IS the objective,

whether that results in control or not and you have to know what is actually going on in order to figure out what to do.

I can't figure out what to do if I don't know what the reality is. Reality matters. Whether the timeline was or was not binding is an important factor in this particular subset of reality and, therefore, relevant to what I do.

[slackmaster]

11. I think a perceived reality is being engineered with the goal of keeping us on edge all the time

By allowing yourself to fret over it, you are handing them a victory.

[Duer 157099]

3. Randi Rhodes was saying the opposite, that it was binding

And I still don't know what the actual fact is

[patrice]

9. I just double-checked with my Representative's office.

There was a binding timeline in the original House version of the bill, which was passed by the House.

There was no timeline in the original Senate version of the bill, which was passed by the Senate.

The Conference version kept the timeline, but made it NON-BINDING to help the Senate out.

So the pResident has prevented funding from getting to the Troops for NO reason whatsoever, since the timeline was nothing more than a suggestion in the first place.

We need many LTTEs and radio talk-show call ins on this fact.

[lyonn]

13. On one of your other post on this a couple of days ago, someone

gave the site to go to. I read the bill and at the beginning it stated some conditions that were not clear. Something about if the Maliki govt. did certain things then we would start removing troops. It was in a form that couldn't be copied as I was going to put it on DU and see if others were as confused as I was with the wording of getting the troops out by a certain time frame.

Bottom line is that bush's veto wasn't going to be over ruled no matter what it said, binding or non-binding.

[sinkingfeeling]

14. Not what my Senator's office says of the conference report. See the wording taken

directly from the bill that was vetoed.

[DawnIsis]

5. The Bush admin uses UN non-binding resolutions they pass as an excuse

for all kinds of action they take. So non-binding has meaning for sure.

[ejbr]

6. From what I can tell

It wasn't the fact that it was binding or non-binding that set him off. It was the fact that there was any Congressional input on how to conduct the war at all. In his deluded world, he is the decider and even a SUGGESTION of him considedring the wisdom of anyone else will set him off. So even his apologists refused to focus on whether it was binding or non-binding, but that the Dems had the gall to actually provide a suggestion to the commander-in-chimp, be it a reflection of the will of Iraqis, American Troops or the American people or not.

As you know, the "liberal" media has given this goof ball much wiggle room, thereby also ignoring the will of Iraqis, American troops and the American people, so they take chimpy at his word and hope we don't think too hard about what he is saying. Heaven forbid that a journalist would actually pursue this very obvious line of questioning so that their viewing public would not need to ask. But alas, this is where we are and why you have to ask.

Not that I would think this would necessarily work, but if you emailed this question to Keith Olberman (whom I HOPE you watch), he may throw the question out at one of his guests so that it can finally be clarified for those of us who want to know why the president is keeping funds from the troops for NO REASON WHATSOEVER!. Even if he has already asked a previous guest, he could get another perspective from another guest, demonstrating the inanity of it all. Also, you could google the question and see what you find online regarding the matter.

All I know for sure is that Joe Lieberman is an ass.

[sinkingfeeling]

8. If Bush had signed the bill, it would have been a binding bill including the following:

Note the last two paragraphs:

Emergency Supplemental Bill of 2007 Conference Report: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-...


SEC. 1904. (a) The President shall make and transmit to Congress the following determinations, along with reports in classified and unclassified form detailing the basis for each determination, on or before July 1, 2007--

(1) whether the Government of Iraq has given United States Armed Forces and Iraqi Security Forces the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias, and is making substantial progress in delivering necessary Iraqi Security Forces for Baghdad and protecting such Forces from political interference; intensifying efforts to build balanced security forces throughout Iraq that provide even-handed security for all Iraqis; ensuring that Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces; eliminating militia control of local security; establishing a strong militia disarmament program; ensuring fair and just enforcement of laws; establishing political, media, economic, and service committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan; and eradicating safe havens 2) whether the Government of Iraq is making substantial progress in meeting its commitment to pursue reconciliation init
iatives, including enactment of a hydro-carbon law; adoption of legislation necessary for the conduct of provincial and local elections; reform of current laws governing the de-Baathification process; amendment of the Constitution of Iraq; and allocation of Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects 3) whether the Government of Iraq and United States Armed Forces are making substantial progress in reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq; and(4) whether the Government of Iraq is ensuring the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi Parliament are protected.

(b) If the President fails to make any of the determinations specified in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq no later than July 1, 2007, with a goal of completing such redeployment within 180 days.

(c) If the President makes the determinations specified in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq not later than October 1, 2007, with a goal of completing such redeployment within 180 days.

[patrice]

15. The link doesn't work.

Please and thanks in advance for fixing it.

[ljm2002]

12. It's not just you...

...I scream regularly, like at least once a day and often more, for similar reasons. The level of political discourse in this country is sadly deficient. It feels to me as though that has been done by design. Any salient points are left out of the discussions -- so people who do not dig for themselves, are left wondering what all the fuss is about, or having an inaccurate view of the issue, or in any case, unable to form a legitimate opinion nor make an accurate calculation of their own self interest in any given issue.

It drives me nuts.

Taking walks, etc. to clear the mind helps. But what we really need to do is to continue raising the level, and clarifying issues so that there can be some honest dialogue. I think lots of us do this, too, whether it takes the form of talking to family, friends and colleagues, or posting on our favorite forums on the Web, or writing letters to the editor, or of course directly communicating with our representatives.

But yes it is infuriating.

[patrice]

16. It is wearing to have to do a Reality Check on Everything.

At minimum it makes you wonder about everybody else (the sources of the information, elected and annointed by the f-ing MSM). At maximum it makes you wonder about yourself!!

[sandnsea]

17. And it's an Emergency Supplemental

That we pass every year, war or not, for emergencies. It's not an Iraq War on Terror shoot money out our ass bill. I get really mad when they let them characterize the emergency spending as pork and say we should send the Emergency budget through without funding any of the Emergencies of the last year. Some of our people are either brain-dead or don't understand how this stuff sounds to people.