Iraq & President Bush
Congress sent the President a bill that would have funded our troops and veterans while bringing a responsible end to this war...something desperately needed by the troops.
He wants a blank check for the war in Iraq without any accountability.
By vetoing this bill, he made this clear, eliminating benchmarks for success.
The President has also repeatedly ignored public opinion. The 2006 Congressional elections showed where the electorate stands.
Yet, the President continues to ask the American people for an open-ended troop commitment.
After four full years and thousands of lives lost, how many times must we s
This letter has not been edited.
So! Just beat your argument! No you didn't! "Did too!" I've seen better arguments on an elementary playground!
Posted by my name 2 on May 10, 2007 02:42 PMThousands of lives lost? Time to lose alot more...in Iraq lives. +
Posted by my name 2 on May 10, 2007 02:43 PMAll the Iraqis should die because og 9/11.
Posted by Rick on May 10, 2007 03:23 PMIn the 1970s the Democrats stopped funding the war in Vietnam and that cost the lives of 1000s of American GIs along with millions of lives lost in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. But of course those Democrats, most of whom are still in congress, refuse to take responsiblity for their actions. I can think of one timetable that I would support,....the impeachment and imprisionment of all members of congress for being terrorists and traitors to the country for which they supposedly serve...the United States.
Posted by Tim on May 10, 2007 03:28 PMWhen I was in college I had to write a paper. The instructor told us we could write about almost anything except one particular subject.
I, being the rebel that I am, wrote about that very subject just to be insubordinate. The instructor then quickly reminded me about the forewarning and gave me an F (spelled v-e-t-o) as promised.
It's to bad for all involved the dem controlled congress decided to rebel. Especially after Bush warned them not to include a timetable.
Posted by KW on May 10, 2007 04:43 PM"the impeachment and imprisionment of all members of congress for being terrorists and traitors to the country for which they supposedly serve...the United States."
Funny that these "terrorists & traitors" are supported by 75% of the people of the U.S. You small desperate little group of Wingnuts are getting smaller and more pathetic by the day.
And KW, with your lockstep-with-Bush political views, you don't strike me as someone who is a "rebel."
Posted by Drew on May 10, 2007 04:59 PMThat's ok Drew, you don't strike me at all.
Posted by KW on May 10, 2007 06:29 PMKW,
"It's to bad for all involved the dem controlled congress decided to rebel. Especially after Bush warned them not to include a timetable.:"
I realize you are an unapologetic Authoritarian Bush Cultist, and that anything done in defiance of Dear Leader is a sin, but there is this issue of negotiation and compromise that is supposed to take place between Congress and the Executive Branch.
Bending over for Bush like you want the current Congress to do is the position taken for the last six years by the Rupublican "what oversite?" Congress. Look where that's landed us.
Your boy King ain't the dictator anymore KW, he ain't the only decider and he's not gonna be the "Commander Guy" for long.
Congress should keep sending him the same bill until he capitulates.
Bush is a friggin moron, always has been and always will be.
He is the one who is stopping the funding for his oil war.
He is the one who doesn't care how many young people are killed because him and his crooked crime family want control of the Iraq oil fields.
His henchman, the other village idiot, Cheney, is the one who is responsible for our troops staying in Iraq without the proper equipment.
He and the rest of his crime family should all be sentenced to death for the hundreds of thousands of deaths him and his crime family have caused.
I hope the piece of garbage never sleeps a good sleep again.
The Congress of the 1970s was not to blame for the tragedy of Vietnam. The cause of every single death was Lyndon Johnson's 1960s decision to send combat troops to South-East Asia. There was no reason for the United States to go to war in Vietnam. It was a mistake from the beginning. The mistake belongs to LBJ and the members of Congress who voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
Likewise the 2007 Democratic controlled Congress will not be to blame. The Blame will be George Bush's and the members of Congress in 2002 who voted for this mistake.
Yes many members who are now serving in Congress voted in favor of the resolution in 2002. Many of them have acknowledged that this was a mistake.
Hmmm, acknowledging a past mistake. Seems like a level of maturity which our President and many of his supporters are lacking.
Posted by Dave II on May 10, 2007 07:19 PMGeneral Batiste for President. Pass it on.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 10, 2007 07:21 PMKW!
I agree that we didn't serve in Vietnam because we like most Republicaqns are traitors.
Can we just say what we all want to say?
I am a conservative, and I finally have to get it off my chest, I absolutely despise the liberal mantra, and being so I most likely would look on in disgust the people on this board (if I could ever meet them in person) who call themselves liberal. Now, I'm sure I'll get some replies stating the fact that this is how "cons" think, however I know for a fact that most people of different ideologies feel this way, but do not state. I'm going out on a limb here and saying it as a statement. All I ever see is the same 15-20 people going back and forth over their stance and it is getting to the point of ad nauseum. Let's just state what we already know, liberals cant stand conservatives and conservatives cannot stand liberals. That fact being said, all of you sad sack pansy give up libs are ruining this country. I hope, no.. in fact I know that you will all rot in hell. Have a nice roasting!
Posted by Super lib Sean Flam-Flim on May 10, 2007 09:55 PMPosted by Keith on May 10, 2007 11:09 PM
Posted by Keith on May 10, 2007 11:16 PM
Thanks, Keith, for those very civil posts; and they say you can't teach old dogs new tricks.
Posted by Keith on May 10, 2007 11:09 PM
Posted by Keith on May 10, 2007 11:16 PM
Thanks a bunch, Super. I love hearing encouraging words from my constituency.
Posted by Truth on May 11, 2007 08:33 AMCharles B,"Congress should keep sending him the same bill until he capitulates."
I hope they do keep sending the same bill of crap. Between that idiocy and their plan to raise taxes, the chances of a dem winning the white house on '08 will be nill.
We're coming up on 6 months of time wasted and the only bill they could hammer out failed. Is this the new direction they promised or do they still have to go back to compass class for a refresher course.
Can you you say self distruct Charles B? Sure you can, I'll say it with ya!
The only reason it "failed" is because bush "wouldn't give it a chance to work". Remember when he asked for his plan to have "a chance to work"? How is bush's "new direction" going? His new direction of doing everything the same as before and expecting a different outcome. You see KW, raising taxes happens when somebody didn't do a very good job calculating the expenses planned, and fell short of what was supposed to be. But I know you can find some way to blame somebody else for that.
Posted by Larry on May 11, 2007 09:42 AMTim, no facts allowed in this post.You will probably get deleted.
Posted by Keith on May 11, 2007 10:31 AM"You see KW, raising taxes happens when somebody didn't do a very good job calculating the expenses planned"
There is absolutely no economic need for a tax increase. The dems just want more to spend for pet projects. The tax revenues have increased more than expected after Bush's tax cuts yet the dems want to repeal everything.
You want to see this economy go bottom up? Then keep on with that line of thinking and walking lockstep with Pelosi and Co. It's just to bad nobody ask the dems to explain what a new direction meant before electing them to office. Now we're beginning to find out.
You got what you voted for and now the rest of us have to help you pay for these poor decisions.
Posted by KW on May 11, 2007 11:47 AMJust like how we've had to pay for this war for 6 years with no accountability. Oh but I forgot, you only want people to be accountable when it's somebody else. You say there is no economic need for a tax increase? I suppose your getting the benefits from this "great economy" we're in right? You're right, it is too bad nobody asked the democrats what they're new direction would be. But at least they had one. Instead of the usual "stay the course", "let's not include military spending in the budget", and my all time personal favorite "let's keep doing what we're doing and hope that things will go better this time around".
Posted by Larry on May 11, 2007 12:20 PMCan someone tell me of one policy the Democrats push that is not based on "cowardness"? Think about it ,the Dems. hide behind women and children just like the terrorists.Every issue they push they say it is for the children but the truth is they are fearful and hide behind the "children".
Posted by Ron on May 11, 2007 01:15 PM12:20,"Just like how we've had to pay for this war for 6 years with no accountability"
It's really just over 4 years but I'm use to liberal distortion of facts so don't worry.
Tell me, just how much have you had to shell out for our overthrough of Saddam? None, right? But when the dems raise taxes, take oil profits and repeal the tax cuts you'll be paying thru the nose, and the economy will go in the toilet all without any accountability either.
And you're defending that?
Posted by KW on May 11, 2007 01:18 PMAnd how are they hiding behind women and children ron? I've had to shell out the lives of my fellow Americans, but for a second there I mistook you for somebody who cared at all about our soldiers. Seeing as how the republicans are so concerned about where the oil profits are going, it's not the democrats that you should be worrying about. If the economy was to topple under the democrats, they would at least have the guts to acknowledge it and admit they made a mistake. Unlike your "I am perfect and make no mistakes" wonder boy. But it's good you have such a bleak outlook on everything that doesn't involve your hero.
Posted by Larry on May 11, 2007 01:28 PM"cowardness?"
Ron, are you really Keith using another name? They're still going to delete you, you know?
Posted by Drew on May 11, 2007 01:35 PM"the economy was to topple under the democrats, they would at least have the guts to acknowledge it and admit they made a mistake"
You're not expecting me to hold my breath, are you?
Posted by KW on May 11, 2007 01:37 PMI would hope you wouldn't. I would hate to lose another life just because your trying to prove a point about "how my dad can beat up your dad" politics.
Posted by Larry on May 11, 2007 01:47 PM"Just how much have you had to shell out for our overthrough (sic) of Saddam? None"
None? -- I don't think so KW - the Chinese and others have paid for Saddam's "overthrough" through the purchase of US treasuries - and that bill will come due to our kids and grandkids. But you won't be around so I guess you don't care - typical Republican "I'm alright, Jack" attitude.
When you buy a new Lexus with "no money down" do you tell your friends that you had to pay nothing for it?
And your friend Bush keeps giving tax cuts to his wealthy pals in a time of war and spiralling deficits - now I know what Bush I meant by "voodoo economics."
Posted by Drew on May 11, 2007 01:51 PMDrew - Why do you support the dems proposed tax increases?
Posted by KW on May 11, 2007 01:55 PMActually KW, I support stopping tax cuts for the wealthy. Its a simple concept really - if you spend more than you take in you get into a hole - even a 20 year old balancing a check book for the first time knows that-but then I suspect that W never balanced a check book (or a budget either, for that matter).
And please don't carry on about supply-side economics, etc. Bill Clinton managed the economy quite nicely (and had a surplus!) without "trickle-down."
Posted by Drew on May 11, 2007 02:13 PMPelosi has now changed the rules again after claiming she was going to make congress toe the line with unnecessary expenditures.
She eliminated several requirements so congress could use military aircraft over the Easter recess, 13 in all at a cost of $10,000 per flight.
She has also removed the newly placed ban (Jan 07) of congress accepting free flights from lobbyists saying as long as the congressman has a personal relationship with the person offering the flight then it's ok.
This was all done with a voice only, midnight vote that she hoped nobody would notice.
Unbelievable!
Here we go, "But Pelosi did this", "clinton did that", "stop paying attention to what our guy does and look at what everybody else is doing".
Posted by Larry on May 11, 2007 02:18 PMDrew - What's your explination for tax revenues increasing after the cuts were put into place? As predicted. And continuing to outpace predictions?
I'm ignoring the libspeak phrase "tax cuts for the rich" because anyone with half a brain knows the richest 1% pay the majority of the taxes in this country.
Posted by KW on May 11, 2007 02:20 PMKW, with the Republican history of malfeasance and criminal wrongdoing a la Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, lobbyists etc I wouldn't think you'd want to go there.
Posted by Drew on May 11, 2007 02:20 PMTypical for Drew to avoid the question.
No name - Aren't you worried about what ALL politicians are doing wrong? Or are you just a BushBasher.
That's what I thought.
Posted by KW on May 11, 2007 02:25 PM"anyone with half a brain knows the richest 1% pay the majority of the taxes in this country."
So who earns the majority of the money KW ?- people living in south central LA? And as for revenues outpacing predictions - I don't know what your sources are - but we're collecting revenue with the left hand and giving tax handouts with the right - while the deficit continues to grow.
And as for your rant about Nancy Pelosi changing regulations - if I had your party's record of malfeasance & CRIMINAL WRONGDOING a la Delay, Abramhoff, lobbyists and others I don't think i'd have the audacity to go there.
Posted by Drew on May 11, 2007 02:31 PMSame question for you Drew. Why do you want to give Pelosi a pass? Aren't we suppose to be demanding more from congress? Isn't that what they campaigned on. Or are you just another BushBasher?
That's what I thought.
Posted by KW on May 11, 2007 02:35 PMSee this is exactly what happens every time. I don't want to give Pelosi a pass, I want her to be accountable just as much as you do, the difference is, I want it to be applied to all polititians, not just the ones that don't agree with my personal savior. You are so blinded by the party aspect KW that you have forgotten what it's like to be an American. Everytime somebody comes up with an arguement that would shake your faith in your lord, you turn around and start talking about what Pelosi or clinton did.
Posted by Larry on May 11, 2007 03:05 PMA "pass"? A pass for what? Changing some arbitrary regulations that is her right as speaker? Did you give Delay a "pass" for his criminal behavior. As far as I can ascertain Nancy Pelosi's only crime in the eyes of conservatives is being a Democrat and an "uppity" woman - just like Hillary, whom you hate as well.
Posted by Drew on May 11, 2007 03:09 PMShe promised to reign in spending and does the opposite. And you're ok with that Drew?
Keith: I warned you. I suggested you employ premier scribes like god appoints to get his word out. You are reaping what you sow and you are not sowing anything but ridicule. Me, your friendly deicide.
Posted by Richard Grimes(Arisen Ape)r22037yahoo.com(ffrf.org) on May 11, 2007 05:19 PMKW: "tell me, just how much have you had to shell out for our overthrough of Saddam? None, right?"
KW is right. The good fairy is paying for it, alias our children and grandchildren. Where the devil does KW think the money is coming from, under the bed?
Posted by Truth on May 11, 2007 05:47 PMTruth doesn't know the difference between federal and household budgets. While the war is a drain on the federal budget, the current plan for payment does NOT include taking anything additional from my paycheck. In fact, my federal tax liability has gone down significantly under Bush rather than increase as it did all thru the 90's
Pelosi & Co want to change that. Not for repayment to the debt from the war, they just want more money for pet projects.
I guess if socialism is your desire, these kind of shinnanigans are acceptable.
Posted by KW on May 12, 2007 09:30 AM