Now Bush is playing politics with troops
President Bush’s prompt veto of the Iraq spending bill signaled his willingness to play politics with the future of our armed forces in Iraq. Of course, he has accused Democrats of doing the same.
The Democrats should refuse to send anything but the same bill (maybe with special projects removed) which would force the president to begin planning the withdrawal of troops now. We could implement the rest of the Iraq Study Group’s suggestions, establish diplomatic talks with neighbors in the region about planning the security of Iraq, and a solution that will guarantee that Iraqis maintain control of their national resources, and the right to govern themselves without outside influence, including that of the United States.
We could get about the business of establishing responsibility and accountability for the deceit and corruption involved in our invasion and occupation of Iraq. After the Bush administration is removed from office, we can return to being a nation governed by our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as our Framers intended, and truly be a nation of the rule of law, liberty and justice.
It would be the perfect end to this nightmare of deceitful madness.
Mark D. Benner, Anton
Listen....it takes two to tango. The congress knew months ago that Bush would veto any bill with a timeline in it. And what did the dems do? Not only timelines were in it but pork to the tune of billions. Get off your high horse and tell you 'leaders' if they truely support the troops , they'll give them the money they need for the right equipment to bring them not only home sooner...but with more body parts than without this equipment. Stop playing with lives that are there doing what they've been asked. Shut it and help or just shut it.
Posted by Ann on May 14, 2007 05:47 AMPart of the pork in the dems bill has millions of dollars going to peanut farmers. Tell me that's not politics. The pork non-military related items should never have been in that bill.
Posted by CP on May 14, 2007 06:02 AMMark,hopefully tou don't have childrenyou are a wacko.You have shown you can't tell the defference between reality or fantasy.Commit yourself for the good of society.
Posted by Keith on May 14, 2007 07:52 AMUm...let's remember that the King of Pork is the republican senator from Alaska...or haven't you heard about him fighting for..natch that...threatening that he would "quit or be taken out of the senate on a stretcher" if he didn't get $452 million dollars for a couple of bridge projects in his state. One of those bridges would connect the city of Ketchikan, population 8900, with the island of Gravina, population 50!
Peanuts are a major crop in this nation and like it or not, but the entire farming industry is extremely subsidized by the government to either grow or not grow produce.
The point is that if we're going to talk pork...there are a hell of alot more people who are going to benefit from the millions of pork dollars going to peanur farmers than the millions that would make it a little more convenient for less than 10,000 people to drive between a couple of remote places in Alaska.
And just regarding this whole issue...of who is using the troops for political gain...let's remember Bush standing in a flight suit he never earned the right to wear on the deck of an aircraft carrier with a big sign that said "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED". That was more than 3 years and 3,000 American troop's lives ago.
The difference between the dems in Congress and Bush regarding the troops. The Dems want to bring them home and Bush wants to keep them in harm's way to fight in what is now another country's civil war.
On the other hand, maybe we should think about why the president wants to keep our troops in Iraq. He started a war that has evolved into a civil war. For once in his miserable life he's actually taking responsiblity for something and trying to finish what he started...unlike his mediocre Yale accomplishments (straight C student who only got in on his dad's legacy connections), his shameful national guard "service" (which he got into because of his dad's connections and then went AWOL and refused to take a mandatory physical - sniff, sniff - and then resigned so he could work on a political campaign) or his multiple failed businesses...(he is an oil-man who has never actually hit oil...well, not till he took us to war in Iraq).
Maybe we should be impressed that our petulant, Napoleonic president is finally growing up and trying to become a man.
Nah...it's too little, too late.
Posted by Thomas on May 14, 2007 07:55 AMtommy,"CHILD LEFT BEHIND" go sit in the corner now.
Posted by Keith on May 14, 2007 08:27 AMtommy,"CHILD LEFT BEHIND" go sit in the corner now.
Posted by Keith on May 14, 2007 08:27 AMkeith absolutely hates it when you take away his talking points.
Posted by Hank on May 14, 2007 08:54 AMKind of funny Keith talking about being committed. If ever there was a case for that, he's a prime example...
And certainly prima facia evidence of a Child left waaaaaaaay behind.
Posted by Ah well... on May 14, 2007 09:00 AMTHOMAS
If you pull up the speech that President Bush gave on the deck of the carrier, you would realise that the US Navy requested the White House for that sign and it was for the men and woman on that ship who just accomplished their mission and were returning home after around 18 months of duty. However, the media seemed to forget that part of the speech. If you would read the speech, President Bush states that the mission is not accomplished in Iraq but no one reported that part of the speech. i am so tired of the arm-chair quarterbacking when it comes to this war. It doesn't matter anymore why we got there (and they were legitimate reasons-14 years of non compliance with the UN inspections for one). all the finger-pointing is not going to bring and end to this war.
We have won the war in Iraq but true to American form-we have lost the peace because suddenly...it's too hard. well, freedom for some has been hard to achieve...it doesn't happen overnight.
Now this has become a war between fanatics and the infidels. the fanatics want to kill the infidels and they don't care what it takes to achieve that goal and all the spin the media gives them just strengthens their purpose. they think we are all weak and the media and the socialist liberals prove it.
Posted by DMW on May 14, 2007 10:37 AMGreat strategy Dimmicrats. Appeasement, surrender and withdrawl. Refusal to confront and work towards the defeat of the enemies of America and western civilization.
Peace.through.weakness.
It's never worked before. Maybe this time?
Posted by RU Serious on May 14, 2007 11:17 AMThere you go again Keith: Being nasty to a letter writer demonstrates your lack of civility. I am trying to wean you from the high value that you place on your personal opinion that you are willing to roast men and women on account of it. Be Christian, Keith, and turn the other cheek and simply post your opinion. Me, your friendly deicide and now your mentor.
Posted by Richard Grimes Risen Ape r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org) on May 14, 2007 11:20 AMKeith: You have been labeled as follows by the commentator. You need to clean up your act. We do not want to lose you. I will remain anonymous.
The insufferable Keith (can he be more than 14 years old?) has included you among the commenters he accuses of being prostitutes -- as long as he keeps his language clean, I'm leaving those comments, but if you think it is worth objecting to, let me know.
If the Dems would stop the posturing we could get something accomplished. I have absolutely no respect for the Dems anymore. "They" are the ones playing politics.
Posted by on May 14, 2007 12:11 PMHate to spoil all your fun, but politics is exactly what needs playing now.
Prior to November, this country was subject to a one-party government and the legislative branch rubber stamped whatever the executive wanted to do, with trivial oversight. And this country is the worse off for it, the failed Iraq policy being only one of many examples.
Public opinion reached a tipping point somewhere last year and by November, America voted for sufficient numbers of Democrats to control both houses of Congress. The back-and-forth we are seeing now, that pisses off both sides, is precisely what the country needs, when compared to the greased-skids that we were on before when Congress senselessly induldged the current administration.
In otherwords, the current grid-lock is preferable to a previous lead-foot on the highway to hell. And for every whine that one side or the other is 'playing politics with the troops' is a welcome reminder that are still 2 branches of elected government.
The various trial balloons and negotiating postures that each branch is doing now is the way our country slowly sorts out its messes. If Democrats overreach, they lose their majority. If Bush overreachs, GOP loses the White House. And, shocker, the voters are the ones who decide what 'overreach' means -- talk radio, blogging, media, etc., will only effect the B.S.-detectors on the most gullible.
So...relax, enjoy the show, and have faith that America will get back on track, one way or the other.
Posted by on May 14, 2007 12:35 PM
This debate is about whether we begin the pullout now, or after the "surge". Republicans want to wait until September to say, "Well, we tried the surge and that's not working. Pull out now." The Democrats say "This surge fantasy is idiotic. It's a civil war. Pull out now."
I say: three lousy months. You "conservatives" on this board need to stop getting your panties in a bunch and look at how stupid this debate is. Just say, "we won the war, Iraqi's cannot hold the country together, not my problem."
Posted by Con Mor on May 14, 2007 03:13 PMNo, President Bush is not "playing politics," as you would have it. His decision to veto the bill was based on our national security, not the self-serving interests of the Democratic Party. You have missed the point.
Posted by B. Stuckey on May 14, 2007 03:16 PMBush did not listen to one recommendation of the iraq study group, and has fired commanders on the ground that don't agree with him.
But that's not playing politics or micromanaging the war. That's "keeping us safer".
Once again, IOKIYAR.
Posted by Tbone on May 14, 2007 03:23 PMI think we can all agree that politics are being played by both the executive and legislative branches.
Con Mor,
You actually inspired me to write today. You say to "Just say, 'we son the war, Iraqi's cannot hold the country together, not my problem." You don't really believe that do you?
You do see the reality of what an even more unstable middle east would mean for the rest of the world right? You understand the history of religious intolerance in that region; the shift of power from Saddam's oppressive Sunni Government to a majority Shi'ite government and the potential conflict that could create with a Shi'ite dominated Iran as a neighbor and the potential genocide that could occur don't you? You understand that no matter how much we want to have alternative energy, the fact that Iraqi oil is life-blood, not only for the United States, but for Japan and Great Brittan as well? And history demonstrates for us what happens when a leaderless society creates a large enough political vacuum, dictatorship. That is what brought Saddam to power, as it did Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hirohito, and many others.
The simplistic argument to "walk away, it's no longer our problem," is not an argument at all, but an invitation for anarchy, chaos, and genocide on a scale never seen before.
My recommendation to this administration and Congress is to get Secretary Rice in the UN and start working with Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Germany, and the entire UN contingent on helping to end sectarian violence and rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq to start pumping oil, to secure transportation (build paved roads to eliminate road side bombs), get water and electricity running, provide more forces for security AND for recruiting and training Iraqi's to protect Iraqis. But to just put pressure on the Iraqi Government to "get it's act together" without the support system to do so, will only lead to failure. The problem with this war isn't that is wasn't properly planned and executed, but rather, no safety net for what "might" just happen if we did what we needed to do, and that was get Saddam and begin Iraqi reformation.
We should all probably brush up on our own history, as our impatience with Iraq is not based in anything other than our "we want it all and we want it now" mentality. Our own Revolutionary War ended in 1783, yet we did not have a Constitution until 1787 and that was not ratified until 1788. We then went to war with each other from 1861-1865, and there are, to this day, STILL those in the South that are bitter about that war, over one hundred and 40 years later.
We should be patient, and understand that this a long and terrible process, that sacrifices must be made now, in order to indeed provide for a "more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." This could be written for the Iraqi's that deserve the same freedoms of Liberty that we have enjoyed for more than 200 years.
Posted by Dan2 on May 14, 2007 03:45 PMDan2 -
You're right. I don't believe that. That was poor writing. However, it is the platitude that I think the Republicans will be feeding us in three months. Swallow at your peril.
But I also think that you're overstating when you write that leaving is: "an invitation for anarchy, chaos, and genocide on a scale never seen before." "Iraq" is essentially a legal fiction comprised of Kurdistan, Sunnistan and Shiistan. Saddam held together these groups with the ruthlessness of Tito in Yugoslavia. There are pertinent analogies there, but not a "scale never seen before." They simply don't have the military resources expended in past conflicts. They put human excrement in the bombs they set off in markets to cause gangrenous infection.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi parliament just went on a two month vacation. I'm unconvinced they will be any more effective when they return. The only thing that body can agree on is the vote we won't allow them to take, which is whether U.S. troops should leave.
The inevitable breakup of Iraq isn't our doing. Nor is the centuries-old war we injected ourselves into and sparked. We stupidly did not have a plan after we overthrew Saddam. That is why our very presence there at this point precludes a successful political body in Iraq; they blame our presence on the conflict. Leaving will be horrendous. But staying alone is no better.
Iraq will not be a fun place for a long time. Iran clearly is the winner in all of this, but I suspect that the rift between Arabic Shiistan and Persian Iran is deeper and wider than the alarmist press tells us.
I basically concur with your U.N. sponsored nation-building program; but it's a hard sell. If the U.S. can't do it, the U.N. can? And this administration is going to do it?
Posted by Con Mor on May 14, 2007 04:40 PMNot my day. I meant to write: "they blame the conflict on our presence," not "they blame our presence on the conflict." Too much caffeine, perhaps??
Posted by Con Mor on May 14, 2007 04:44 PMCon Mor,
I am glad that you were not really saying that Iraq is not our problem.
I don't know that this administration will be able to "sell the story" to the UN, but through the UN, I would hope, there should be dialog and action involving Syria and Iran especially, and not necessarily in military action from the UN. Iraq's neighbors will bear the brunt of civil war, in refugees, economic impact, arms trade, human trade and on and on. It is in their best interests that Iraq becomes stable, and my guess would be preferrable to not have the United States camped in it's backyard long term.
Thanks for your comments today. It was much easier to understand your point of view when you expressed it and called for action, vs just using the same political name calling we see on this board time and time again.
Posted by Dan2 on May 14, 2007 05:02 PMThe incompetence of the occupation in Iraq is astounding:
Pertinent: "Brinkley and his colleagues at the Pentagon believe that rehabilitating shuttered, state-run enterprises could reduce violence by employing tens of thousands of Iraqis. Officials at State counter that the initiative is antithetical to free-market reforms the United States should promote in Iraq."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051301165_pf.html
Anyone here still think that Ms. Rice could sell the occupation of Iraq to the U.N.?
Posted by Con Mor on May 14, 2007 05:02 PMwho cares what the Dems want
Posted by on May 14, 2007 07:30 PM[ ]
Posted by Keith on May 14, 2007 11:18 PM[ ]
Posted by Keith on May 14, 2007 11:18 PMChilds left behind? My god. Is Childs even a word? Talk about being ignorant.
Posted by Tbone on May 15, 2007 08:51 AMShould be childrens`s left behind.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 15, 2007 09:20 AM[ ]
Keith, that was your most intelligent post ever!
Posted by Drew on May 15, 2007 12:52 PM[ ]
Posted by Keith on May 16, 2007 09:46 AM[ ]
Posted by Keith on May 16, 2007 09:46 AM[ ]
Posted by Keith on May 16, 2007 09:46 AM[ ]
Posted by Keith on May 16, 2007 09:46 AM[ ]
Posted by Keith on May 16, 2007 09:46 AM[ ]
Posted by Keith on May 16, 2007 09:46 AM[ ]
Posted by Keith on May 16, 2007 09:46 AMKeith: For some reason you keep dodging me on other posts. So I'm going to keep after you. WHAT WAR HAVE YOU FOUGHT IN? OR ARE YOU LIKE BUSH? CAN YOU ONLY TALK A TOUGH TALK BUT CAN"T WALK THE WALK? IF YOU ARE ALL FOR THIS WAR AND PREZ WHY HAVE'NT YOU SIGNED UP YET? I DID MY TIME HOW ABOUT YOU? DO YOUR PART AND DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS.
Posted by larrymc on May 16, 2007 10:56 AMThere is two of us that has managed to silence Keith. The moderator and me. He won't answer why he won't go and fight this justified war.
Posted by larrymc on May 16, 2007 05:16 PMlarrymc,I have serve this country,I have to be careful on how to post you are a punk ,find me punk ,attack me punk ,I will defend myself punk just like I defended this country and my family and always wiil punk.Something you never did punk.
Posted by Keith on May 16, 2007 10:21 PMlarrymc,I have serve this country,I have to be careful on how to post you are a punk ,find me punk ,attack me punk ,I will defend myself punk just like I defended this country and my family and always wiil punk.Something you never did punk.
Posted by Keith on May 16, 2007 10:21 PMlarrymc,I have serve this country,I have to be careful on how to post you are a punk ,find me punk ,attack me punk ,I will defend myself punk just like I defended this country and my family and always wiil punk.Something you never did punk.
Posted by Keith on May 16, 2007 10:21 PMlarrymc,I have serve this country,I have to be careful on how to post you are a punk ,find me punk ,attack me punk ,I will defend myself punk just like I defended this country and my family and always wiil punk.Something you never did punk.
Posted by Keith on May 16, 2007 10:21 PMKeith: Did I ruffle your little feathers? I did'nt ask if you served I asked what war you fought in. By reading your responces it sounds like your about 14 years old. So it's hard to beleive you even served. Your nasty comments shows how mature you are and smart you are. Grow up.
Posted by larrymc on May 17, 2007 08:15 AMOur Darkest Hour by Yaner Mohammed The Satyya, Feb. 2007:
"We have been put into a time machine. Under Saddam it wasn't perfect, but women could go to work, university, get married or divorced. But at the moment women have lost almost all their rights.
"We are outraged by a constitution that gives legality to these tribal, ethnic and religous heads, and has turned Iraq into an Islamic country. The U.S. government simply handed us over to Islamic forces.
"We are seeing the rise of a civil war because religous groups are competing for power, and currently the group who has the most seats in Parliament is the most notorious. With Sharia law, there is no minimum age for the marriage of a female. If you are six years old, you can be married to a man of any age. Under this change -- that George Bush said was supposed to be for the freedom of women -- we encourage pedophilia. Under these new laws, if you steal something you have your hands chopped off. If you have committed a major crime, you are beheaded.
"This is what happens when you enact a constitution [based on] religious laws written 15 centuries ago. We have been forced to let go of all of our struggles in human rights."
Mohammad had a six-year-old wife; Mo was Allah's premier scribe. Why would Allah pick an illiterate scribe. Mo could not read or write. His fan club did it all 21 years after his death. Mormons may have copied the young wife for old men. Me, RG, your friendly deicide who concurs with the letter writer, unlike Mo and Jesus who were illiterate.
Posted by Richard Grimes Risen Ape r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org) on May 17, 2007 10:47 AM