You can dress it up anyway you want to, but the POTUS stood up to the defeatocrats and said no..just as he told him he would do before they wasted our time and money screwing around.
Ian has the video
Bush signed the veto with a pen given to him by Robert Derga, the father of Marine Corps Reserve Cpl. Dustin Derga, who was killed in Iraq on May 8, 2005. The elder Derga spoke with Bush two weeks ago at a meeting the president had with military families at the White House.Derga asked Bush to promise to use the pen in his veto. On Tuesday, Derga contacted the White House to remind Bush to use the pen, and so he did. The 24-year-old Dustin Derga served with Lima Company, 3rd Battalion 25th Marines from Columbus, Ohio. The five-year Marine reservist and fire team leader was killed by an armor-piercing round in Anbar Province.
Others blogging:
Weblog: The NJ Blog
Weblog: Axis of Right
Weblog: Left Wing = Hate
Weblog: JBDavis
It is shameful that the Demoncrats are hoping we lose the Iraq war in order to gain seats and the Oval office. It is amazing that the American public is being sold their “bill of goods” and they will soon find out…the bag is empty!!
1, The Democrats know that none of the pork or anything else they attached to the bill could stand on its own. GOD DAMN Democrats!
1- “It is amazing that the American public is being sold their “bill of goods”and they will soon find out:the bag is empty!!”
You’re talking about what the Bush administration has been “selling” for years? Too late, we already figured out the bag is empty.
3, No, Tofu, the lies are the ones you tell daily, you and the Democrap party that is. None of you supported the troops, and never will. Just because you can’t play barracks bed bingo you want to see them dead.
GOD DAMN Democrats!
Khaaaaan!!!!
AKD, you are one of the biggest anal orifaces this side of shitto.
you are one of the biggest anal orifaces this side of shitto
Coming from you, I suspect that this is some sort of come-on. Not interested, amigo.
7, don’t flatter yourself. You aren’t worth anything. Hell, the beheading AlQaeda would send you back because of your worthlessness.
8. What does PCD stand for anyway? I can’t help but notice that each of the letters suggests another “euphemism” for a certain part of the male anatomy: P****r, C***, D***. Are you honestly titilated by this sort of thing? Grow up!
Perhaps, following Montaigne (who I know you’ve read just as closely as Heinlein), you could change your handle to “Monsieur ma partie.”
You can dress it up anyway you want to, but the POTUS stood up to the defeatocrats and said no..just as he told him he would do before they wasted our time and money screwing around.
“I had Bush all wrong. I applaud him for refusing to fund this ill-conceived, mismanaged war.”
(the onion gets it right).
Why doesn’t Bush support the troops???
I know, because he wanted ‘no-strings’ attached. I say congress should send him another bill, but this time instead of ‘strings’ make them ‘chains’.
Bush looks even more removed from reality with this veto of his.
The democrats knew this was coming, and will obviously benefit from it.
The majority of Americans want this war to end. A majority of Americans think it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq.
Bush is only making himself look worse, now, and down the long road of history.
My righty friends here at RV are in a minority that is only getting smaller as this war of choice drags on, thanks to G.W. Bush. Keep it up, and your team won’t win an election for years. (!)
The democrats have done the job they were elected to do in 2006, with this troops withdrawl demand.
I have finally figured out how exactly to address this issue about the Democrats wanting the US to be defeated but not take the blame for causing it. Today I again heard Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid proclaim that is is entirely their intention to end this war. Well here’s a history lesson for these two fine examples of Constitutional Knownothings. Through out history there have only been two ways to end a war, win it or lose it. A truce doesn’t end it only delays it. Therefore seeing as there are only two ways to end a war vis’ a vis’ victory or defeat, and they have stated that it is lost, exactly who do they want to surrender to? And exactly what terms do they think are equitable? The Islamofascists have flat out stated that the minimum that they will accept is the return of the Caliphate extending from Baghdad across North Africa and into southern Spain. They have also stated that their ultimate goal would be the Islamic flag flying over the White House. Which of these options of terms do you think the Democrats will find most acceptable? And then once they do agree to either of these terms of surrender, what will they do when the Islamofascists attack again in search of the rest? According to the radical interpretation of Islam that the Islamofascists are professing to, there can be no more than a 10 yr truce with the infidel which will be used for the purposes of training and rearming. While I will only be around after the Islamic invasion as long as my ammunition holds out, I would dearly love to see how the Islamofascists treat their good friends in the Democratic party.
FAO, the democrats aren’t giving up fighting terrorism.
We want this waste of time, effort, lives, money, credibility and strategic advantage that is called the Iraq War to end.
We can fight them so much better if we weren’t in Iraq.
That’s the part you pro-war people don’t understand.
14- Yes, we remember the bravado shown in the 90′s:roll:
14 I haven’t ever, not even once, heard ANY Democrite, Liberal, or Leftist articulate just how they would fight the WOT.
I don’t believe they ever would.
I think I’ve already stated my position that what we are now, and have been doing for quite some time, doing in Iraq is not ‘war’ but ‘occupation’. We already won the War in Iraq. Really! I saw with my own eyes the Mission Accomplished banner. I saw the images of Saddam being dragged out of that spider hole. VICTORY!
We won the Iraq War. Now it’s time to set a schedule of pulling back the troops to the sidelines and see what the Iraqis do.
14- “We can fight them so much better if we weren’t in Iraq.”
So true. Freeing up our military to respond to active threats and not playing babysitters/policemen/occupiers/cannon-fodder in Iraq is exactly what we need to do!
And to that ‘talking point’– “we are fighting them in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them here’ / ‘they’ll follow us home’ BS argument,
HELLO, if the right-wing koolaid-drinkers really think that Al-Qaeda are all just flocking into Iraq to fight US soldiers and we are absolutely safe from an attack on our own soil because of this theory– if you by this Bush logic, you’re a complete idiot.
9/11 — No WMDs, just a bunch of radicals getting passports into our country, taking a few flying lessons, and buying some box-cutters at Target. Who cares about Nukes and Biological weapons when you have holes like that people can slip through undetected.
The point is, they are going to try and hit us on the homeland again, endless Iraq occupation or not.
The biggest hole we have in this country is the southern border. When are we going to actually do something real to close it?
There has been plenty of evidence found of Al Quaeda training on the manufacture and deployment of cyanide in northern Iraq before the invasion. Hydrogen Cyanide and Cyanogen Chloride are some of the nastiest WMDs on the battlefield. They can be made easily. They aren’t hard to handle. They can be stored easily in any refrigerator or freezer. They have no treatment other than a blood transfusion, and even small doses remain in the system for 6 weeks. Below 40 degrees fahrenheit, they remain in an easy to handle liquid form. Hydrogen cyanide also has a pleasant burnt almond smell. Walking through a puddle of hydrogen cyanide in winter would look like mud, and then when the person enters a building, the hydrogen cyanide evaporates and enters the ventilation system. While the doses will be small and non lethal, as more people track the cyanide into the building, the concentration levels will rise. People will begin to notice an elevated pulse, increased blood pressure, difficulty focusing and a mild headache. While these mild symptoms may not kill anyone outright, the increased blood pressure and elevated pulse can have adverse effects on anyone with preexisting conditions. Likewise the headaches will decrease productivity and lead to absenteeism. The inability to maintain focus will also reduce output. Now for the bad news. Hydrogen Cyanide degrades gas mask filters quickly. The M17A1 military gas mask filters are degraded to uselessness in about 2-3 MINUTES of exposure to high concentration. These filters take 3-5 minutes to change. There is a reason why I was third in my class at the Unit Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare Officers course.
If we pull our troops out of Iraq, exactly what are we going to do about the potential humanitarian disaster that will probably follow? At least a few of the libs have stated that we should pull our troops out of Iraq and send them to Darfur where the Sudanese government is an unfriendly regime. Which would you think is safer a nation with a friendly regime, or one with an unfriendly government? Of course keeping a friendly regime in Iraq will benefit the US while there is nothing in the Sudan that will benefit the US at all. What is more of a waste of life, a military excursion into a country that is of no consequence to the US, or one with vast natural resources that will fall into the hands of the enemy if the friendly government fails?
At least a few of the libs have stated that we should pull our troops out of Iraq and send them to Darfur where the Sudanese government is an unfriendly regime.
That’s because the Liberals just want to STEAL Sudan’s oil!!!
(Yeah I know, it sounds totally stupid, doesn’t it? About as stupid as when the Libs say that about the U.S. and Iraq’s oil)
I wonder if active threats would include the AQ operatives that we are fighting in Iraq:roll:
I am to the point where I hope Tofu or SFL get a taste of AQ terrorism up close and personal. I don’t believe they will take the threat seriously otherwise. These fools believe that AQ won’t come here or will leave them alone if … All liberal delusions. The only thing AQ understands is what they do to us but to them.
I am to the point where I hope Tofu or SFL get a taste of AQ terrorism up close and personal.
Hmmmm…. Wishing death on Americans who disagree with your poorly articulated positions. Ultimately an unsurprising remark, I guess.
Y’know, PCD, if any of us—you and your family included—”get a taste of AQ terrorism up close and personal,” it will most likely be at the hands of a terrorist that our moronic administration has bred.
Once again:
Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of “professionalized” terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director’s think tank.
Iraq provides terrorists with “a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills,” said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. “There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries.”
AKD, You are the one equating it to death. I think being held hostage, having a gun stuck in your mouth or a bomb in your building without killing you may wake you the H*LL up. Until then, you will be nothing more than a tool for George Soros and his open borders and legal drugs agenda.
Y’know, PCD, if any of us”you and your family included”â€get a taste of AQ terrorism up close and personal,”it will most likely be at the hands of a terrorist that our moronic administration has bred.
Yes, YES! Before Bush decided to fight back, the terrorists only hated and wanted to kill us! So for years we could just ignore them, allowing them to strike when and where they wanted.
But Bush had to mess it all up. He was the first President to actually do something. Now the terroorists are really, really mad!!!
Now they can’t be ignored any longer! And it’s ALL BUSH’S FAULT!
Still no response to the fact that Iraq has become a terrorist breeding ground, huh? That means more terrorists, not less. More.
Do you understand?
I’ll wait for someone brighter to respond.
AKD, condesension from a Liberal means that the Liberal has lost and is trying to save face. You have NO proof that AQ is stocked with Iraqis. What we have seen is that AQ have bored scions of middle class Arabs brainwashed by their Imams into joining the great jihad against the Infidel.
Only a dullard such as yourself ignores all the references to incidents the US had no part in and occurred before 1980 as the basis many Jihadists spout for their reasons for joining.
Go educate yourself in reality, dolt.
AKD is apparently not perceptive enough to realize that any response to terrorism that is substantial, regardless of where it is, is going to be used by the terrorist leaders to recruit.
I guess his solution, assuming he even understands this, is to go back to the days of ignoring terrorism. Then they’ll just hate and want to kill us again, but they won’t be really mad.
Hey AKD hows the weather in Tora Bora? It still gets cold at night, eh? I heard a camel dung fire is great for warming up your hands so you can keep posting.
So Iraq is basically a success story, huh guys?
Let’s see, four years after the invasion, U.S. prisons, one of the few reconstruction success stories in Iraq, are totally full, holding 18,000 or more Iraqis in what are essentially terrorist-producing factories; Iraq has the worst refugee problem (internal and external) on the planet with perhaps 4 million people in a population of 25 million already displaced from their homes (202 of whom were admitted to the United States in 2006); the Iraqi government inside the Green Zone does not fully control a single province of the country, while its legislators are planning to take a two-month summer “vacation”; a State Department report on terrorism just released shows a rise of 25% in terrorist attacks globally, and 45% of these attacks were in Iraq; 80% of Iraqis oppose the U.S. presence in their country; 64% of Americans now want a timetable for a 2008 withdrawal; and the President’s approval rating fell to its lowest point, 28%, in the most recent Harris poll, which had the Vice President at a similarly record-setting 25%.
I’ve linked extensively. How about y’all try edgumucatin’ yerselves.
AKD the Terrorist. First of all it’s good we are fighting terrorists in Iraq and not here. Iraqi’s are grateful to us for freeing them from Saddam. Nothing like going home at night, locking your doors and hoping the bogey man, I mean Saddam does not come in the night to kill you.
There is more going on here than you obviously are aware of and if you are why you choose to ignore the significance of this whole thing is beyond me.
Terrorists acts like the Oklahoma City bombing and even before the WT93 were just the beginning. Clinton/Gore refused to act against terrorism. They were cowards and now the world is realizing that the democratic party are cowards.
Bush acted. YES, Robert and PCD are correct. Bush DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Now we should all get on board that school of thought and debate on what are the best ways to deal with it all.
Unless of course you really ARE a terrorist yourself which I have to say wouldn’t surprise me with your ideological bullshit.
AKD…..TERRORISTS WANT TO MURDER US.
THEY HATE THE U.S.
THEY WANT TO RULE THE WORLD.
Do we let them? NOoooooooooooooooooo
Once again BonBon is a voice of pure logic and common sense. Strip away all the rhetoric, all the politics, all the posturing, and her post #31 sums it up quite well.
Thanks Robert. My point is that the libs sit around posturing about ‘oh how Bush lied, o my god’ then proceed to ignore every single reality that has brought us here in the first place. Many, many things happened loooonnnnngg before Bush even took office as governor of Texas, let alone President. The libs need to GET OVER IT. They are not doing the country any good.
Thank GOD in Heaven Bush had the courage to start dealing with this problem. As busy as I was in the 90′s I still saw the Saturday morning news and understood terrorism was a threat this country could no longer ignore. Why on earth the libs didn’t see it finally after 9/11 is anyones guess.
As it stands this moment though I think the American public understands the Democrats WILL NOT stand up to terrorism and WORSE they DO NOT SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.
Pacifism didn’t work in WWII and it won’t work now.
And further AKD where do you propose we fight these terrorists if not over there? CAn you answer that question?
AKD the Terrorist. First of all it’s good we are fighting terrorists in Iraq and not here.
BonBon the idiot. The problem is that we’re creating so darn many new terrorists. As I noted above, “a State Department report on terrorism just released shows a rise of 25% in terrorist attacks globally, and 45% of these attacks were in Iraq.” There aren’t a set number of terrorists that we have a choice of fighting either here or there. We’re creating new ones all the time. Some will stay in Iraq, some probably won’t Do you understand this? I suspect that you read poorly, so go over the articles I posted a few times. Squint up your eyes and try very, very hard.
Loser.
You didn’t answer the question.
You obviously know nothing about middle eastern terrorist organizations or the problems within the middle east at all.
Do nothing and it will all go away. NOT.
Re 26 (AKD)
“Still no response to the fact that Iraq has become a terrorist breeding ground, huh? That means more terrorists, not less. More.”
I’ll respond, simply with two direct questions.
1) Do you have empirical evidfence to back this claim?
2) If you can provide empirical evidence as to how many terrorists were created in Iraq, can you provide empirical evidence that it is an increase in the rate of the number of terrorists that 1) were created pre-invasion in Iraq 2) it is an increase of the number of terrorist that would have been credted in the middle east?
BonBon posts common sense (backed up by reality) and you post Democrite talking points. So who’s the idiot and loser?
“Bush DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT.”
LOL…yeah, the WRONG thing.
And we’re all worse off because of it.
Bush has made the terrorism problem WORSE, not BETTER.
Bush has made the terrorism problem WORSE, not BETTER.
I don’t mean this a personal attack, but the above statement is one of the most absurd Democrite talking points ever that keeps getting repeated ad nauseum.
How much worse can it get when a terrorist entity openly declares war on us, states their full intentions, then carries out an act of war that eclipsed the attack on Pearl Harbor that launched America into WWII?
So if Bush had done the “right thing” (whatever that might be), the terrorists would still hate us and want to kill us, but somehow not as much? They wouldn’t have the recruiting tools?
Like I said, common snese tells you:
1. Any substantive response from U.S. will cause them to intensify their war, that is the nature of conflict.
2. Any thing we do is used as propaganda to recruit.
3. In fact some of their best propaganda used to inflame hatred and recruit has been provided by the American Left.
So stop already with that crap. It is absurd, idiotic, moronic, brainless nonsense.
No San Fran, Bush did not do the wrong thing. Clinton/Gore did the WRONG thing by doing NOTHING. Pontificate all you like, it gets old.
You got a better plan? Bring it on then? We’re dying to hear it. Don’t bother though if all it is is critism of the status quo and negotiate or worse do nothing. What ACTION would you guys take? I’m waiting.
Thank you Robert. I just get so frustrated with these wimpy left wing types who offer nothing and criticize everything. It gets old.
30- 64% of (Telephone interviews with 1,052 American adults) feel that there should be a timetable.
18,000 detained is a sign of progress…you do realize there is a war being fought there don’t you?
Iraq has the worst refugee problem? Because a blog said so? That would be like holding my arguement up as evidence…it is opinion.
What does the Frank Rich link have to do with the Green Zone? Did you take the time to read it?
You just figured out the fact that there are increased attacks? We are fighting AQ in Iraq..you knew that right?
I’m still waiting to hear which of the surrender terms the Democrats wish to accept? The immediate surrender of the United States to the Islamofascists, or the immediate surrender of the area that comprised the pre 14th century caliphate followed by the eventual surrender of the rest of the world to the Islamofascists and eventual rule by imams under Sharia law? Those are the only options that the Islamofascists have said they’ll accept, so if the war is lost, which surrender terms do the dems want to accept? If we’ve lost, the Islamofacists must have won and the winners always dictate the terms of surrender.
“I think it’s important for the president to lay down a timetable as to how long our troops will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
Candidate George W. Bush prior to the 2000 Election speaking about the war in Kosovo where no US troops died.
To quote FAO, there are only two ways out of a war, win or lose. Clearly GWB wanted to lose that war.
1) Do you have empirical evidfence to back this claim?
2) If you can provide empirical evidence as to how many terrorists were created in Iraq, can you provide empirical evidence that it is an increase in the rate of the number of terrorists that 1) were created pre-invasion in Iraq 2) it is an increase of the number of terrorist that would have been credted in the middle east?
I’ve linked to statements from the national intelligence council. I’ve also linked to statistics from the state department report on terrorism. Here’re the numbers if you’re not interested in clicking on any of the links:
The first set of numbers is for 2005, the second is for 2006:
Incidents of terrorism in Iraq 3,468; 6,630
Incidents in Iraq resulting in death, injury, or kidnapping of at least one individual 2,834; 6,026
Individuals in Iraq killed, injured, or kidnapped as a result of incidents of terrorism 20,685; 38,813.
Note this is a rise from 2005 to 2006. They’ve increased 91% during the last two completed years of the war. This seems to address question 2.1 as well. As for the second part of the question: of course I don’t and you don’t have any statistics available on it either as it’s a purely hypothetical question. You can’t use it to argue for one position or the other. I could just as easily argue that you have no evidence to support the idea that, had we not entered Iraq or Afghanistan, all terrorism would have ceased worldwide.
Now I’ll ask you some questions. Does this increase in terrorism mean that we’re winning? If the number of terrorists coming out of Iraq quadrupled, would we be even more victorious? It seems that what BonBon and Robert are arguing (and maybe you as well) is that whatever happens in Iraq, it’s a sign that we’re winning and that we should stay. If more terrorists attack, it’s a sign that we’re fighting them they’re rather than here; if less terrorists attack it’s a sign that they’ve been defeated. This seems a little questionable. Or does faith make you position irrefutable?
So…No WMDs, no link between Saddam and AQ, the creation of a new terrorist breeding ground, resistance by the majority of the American people, etc, etc, etc.
Given the fact that the majority of RV posters—Robert, Peejz, PCD, FAO, and usually you—typically constitute a “united front,” it’s interesting to hear so many of you describe contradictory states of affairs (we’re winning, the iraqis want us there, they don’t want us there, we’re creating more terrorists but it’s a good thing because we’re fighting them there, etc.). Kettle logic anyone?
Of course you all argue that these contradictory statements all point to the same thing: stay in Iraq indefinitely despite the will of the majority of the American people. Thank God you’ve become an annoying minority.
By the way, Ted, FAO, and anyone else who appears to have Libertarian rather than simply Republican leanings: Did you seen Ron Paul on the debates last night? Here came off looking smarter than the front-runners. I’d forgotten what a true conservative sounded like.
“As for the second part of the question: of course I don’t and you don’t have any statistics available on it either as it’s a purely hypothetical question. You can’t use it to argue for one position or the other.”
I’m not, and that’s the point. It is you that are making the claim, unfounded I might add.
I’m not claiming “Iraq has become a terrorist breeding ground”, as if it is a condition exclusive to that area of the mid-east. Most of those numbers you have quoted aren’t due to native Iraqi’s , as most terrorists in Iraq aren’t native to the area but are imported according to General Petraeus and other commanders in Iraq.
This hardly making it a terrorist breeding ground but but does make it a focal point on the war on terror. It is a common 3 card monty ploy that I’ve seen in this discussion.
Now, if you wish to discuss insurgency, that is differnt. There is a distinct difference between the insurgents and the terrorist groups in Iraq.
“By the way, Ted, FAO, and anyone else who appears to have Libertarian rather than simply Republican leanings: Did you seen Ron Paul on the debates last night?”
FTR, I have as much disdain for Libertarians as much as I do Democrats and Republicans.
No- I didn’t watch it. It is a waste of time. Yes I am familiar with Ron Paul already. I was actually attarcted to him as a politician when I first discovered him, but once you scratch the surface one finds that he is as shallow as any of the other candidates. When he started using cooked figures two or three years ago to support his positions, I relegated him to the same status as the other politicians. It helped me come to the realization that on the national level, not a single one of them are really worh a damn.
I’m not, and that’s the point. It is you that are making the claim, unfounded I might add.
I’ve claimed that there are more instances of terrorist attacks in the region (and in the rest of the world—look at all the figures in the link) since we invaded Iraq. That’s it. There are more now than there were then. This is what the statistics indicate. If you send an exterminator in to get rid of cockroaches and, a few years later, you have 91% more…
as most terrorists in Iraq aren’t native to the area but are imported according to General Petraeus and other commanders in Iraq.
Care to provide some empirical evidence of this fact? According to the NIC’s report, there’s no real reason to believe this (though there is reason to believe that yet another branch of AQ has formed in the region).