The dem's victory for Iran bill...after that, where to?

[Zkribbler]

Re: The dem's victory for Iran bill...after that, where to?

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Lancer
Or whatever they're calling it. You know, the one that cuts off funds for our troops in Iraq.
QUOTE]

Bottom line is...there is no such bill.
The Repugs keeps saying, "if you don't like our surge, cut off the funding to our troops," and the Dums say, "No way, we ain't falling for that!"

What's going on is a non-binding resolution to say the surge isn't a good idea. Big whoop.

Sen. Lieberman made a good point. What will the effect be on our troops if we send them into harm's way while saying, at the same time, we don't believe in what you're doing?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Re: Re: The dem's victory for Iran bill...after that, where to?

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Zkribbler

Originally posted by Lancer
Or whatever they're calling it. You know, the one that cuts off funds for our troops in Iraq.
QUOTE]

Bottom line is...there is no such bill.
The Repugs keeps saying, "if you don't like our surge, cut off the funding to our troops," and the Dums say, "No way, we ain't falling for that!"

Which was my original point. The Dems don't even have the balls of the French to surrender properly.

[Zkribbler]

Re: Re: Re: The dem's victory for Iran bill...after that, where to?

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Which was my original point. The Dems don't even have the balls of the French to surrender properly.

Repugs are always making up false choices:
First, it was stay-the-course vs. cut-and-run
Now, it's surge vs. surrender.

The Dums never called for cut and run
They've never called for surrender.

They've called, essentially, for implementing the Iraqi Study Group recommendations...which IMHO, offer the only hope for victory (albeit, not a big hope)

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Funny ISG was DOA and many of the naysayers were dems.

That being said since ISG wasn't well received by both sides of the aisle (unless of course you mean the orgasmic response lauded by MSM), a condemnation resolution of the surge serves what purpose if Dems don't offer a meaningful alternative?

[DinoDoc]

Re: Re: The dem's victory for Iran bill...after that, where to?

Originally posted by Zkribbler
What's going on is a non-binding resolution to say the surge isn't a good idea. Big whoop.

Why was General Petraeus confirmed by such a large vote in the Senate if the Senate truely felt that the strategy he had a hand in developing was a bad idea? I don't see the consistency in the two votes.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Additionally to DD's statment

Further why was Petraeus confirmed when he explicitly informed the senate that such a resolution would be harmful to his efforts and give encouragement to those opposed to Iraq success?

[Zkribbler]

Re: Re: Re: The dem's victory for Iran bill...after that, where to?

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why was General Petraeus confirmed by such a large vote ...

I'd guess it's because he's the best general we have.

[DinoDoc]

That doesn't really answer the question if you feel the strategy he had a hand in developing and is being sent over there to implement is a bad idea and not in the national interest especially if he called such votes harmful to his efforts and helpful to the enemy.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'd guess it's because he's the best general we have.

Why won't the Dems ****ing listen to him, then?

[Zkribbler]

Why won't he listen to himself??? His earlier estimate was that 120,000 troops would be necessary to control Baghdad. Even with the surge, the number of U.S. and Iraq troops station in Baghdad will be less than 90,000.

General Petraeus was stating at the hearings (a) that which would get him appointed by Bush to the position and (b) that which was in line with the limits of reality--there are no more troops available.

[Lancer]

Ahh well, another thread screwed up by the facts.

Zkrib, what's a power of attny? How much should it cost to get one?

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Why won't he listen to himself??? His earlier estimate was that 120,000 troops would be necessary to control Baghdad. Even with the surge, the number of U.S. and Iraq troops station in Baghdad will be less than 90,000.

General Petraeus was stating at the hearings (a) that which would get him appointed by Bush to the position and (b) that which was in line with the limits of reality--there are no more troops available.

Are there enough Iraqi troops to take up the slack?

[Zkribbler]

(Anyone else who knows something about this should feel free to jump in.)

Shouldn't cost that much. You can problem get a form from a law library.

Power of attorneys differ in scope--which can be really important. The scope should be laid out in the form.

Essentially, a power of attorney lets one person act for someone else. For example, if you granted someone a total power of attorney, they could sell you house by signing in place of you. (Then they could "handle the money for you.")

Powers of attorney can be limited to doing certain things -- but to be honest, it's been 10 -15 years since I've even seen one.

(Why don't you PM me with the specifics, & I'll try to do better this evening.)

[Lancer]

Papa Mente is going to have his Philippine social security returned from Bohol to Manila if the post office there doesn't get his power of attorney. Beyond that...I'd have to ask Dolores when she gets off work around 9PM.

[Zkribbler]

That just doesn't make sense. The post office wouldn't need a power of attorney to forward a check to him.

But! Once they get his power of attorney, they can do all kinds of evil things. Be VERY careful.

I googled "power of attorney" and found numerous places where you can download a form. Here's a LINK to one of them. (This one costs $9.99.) You can, of course, cross out and intial things you don't want. It'll give you an idea of what a "General Power of Attorney" can do.