Bush Vetos Our Troops

[Maggyie]

Most of politics is show business. And there's no business ($$$) like show business.

[PyroPenguinX07]

The problem with Iraq is simply that the war would have been over in about three weeks if we really wanted it to be. Instead politicians on BOTH SIDES of the aisles are trying to extend the war so they can reap the monetary befits.

As Eisenhower warned we need to be wary of the Military Industrial complex, but no one listens to past presidents. Remember Washington's address? Avoid political parties? We listened well.

[Didymus]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1262123' date='May 1 2007, 09:54 PM']Despite this pork carp, we must forget the main goal this bill was to fund our troops. Quit trying to deny that President Bush vetoed the war funding bill.[/quote]

dont buy the bull cnsd, the bill was about the libby dems trying to pull us out of Iraq. They're the ones delaying the money. This is such a freaking embarasment to the history of the world. That our own leaders would push to pass a bill that would tell the world, especially our enemies, when we intend to pack up shop and quit defending freedom. If they're so certain, those under Reid that is, that the war is lost then why tf are they trying to burn off our money?!! Why dont they just try to pull us out [i]now[/i], so Iran can supply our enemies all the quicker and we can have our next 9/11/01 a little bit sooner?

[Didymus]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1262045' date='May 1 2007, 08:08 PM']Well I hope all ya'll are happy. Bush has sent our troops over there. Yet he vetos a bill that would give the nessecary funds. Also in that bill was the mimium wage increase. How can you people still support that man?[/quote]

I can still support him because 100 years from now our great great grandchildren will read about how president Bush initiated the war on terrorism and didnt give into defeat even though the democratic party fought for defeat. Sure, there were other ways we could have finished this war, but one of them is not to pull out and lose.

btw, I'm not totally happy yet, but I will when the Dems give our troops the money without tellin them how to do their jobs.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1262768' date='May 2 2007, 05:47 PM']I can still support him because 100 years from now our great great grandchildren will read about how president Bush initiated the war on terrorism and didnt give into defeat even though the democratic party fought for defeat. Sure, there were other ways we could have finished this war, but one of them is not to pull out and lose.

btw, I'm not totally happy yet, but I will when the Dems give our troops the money without tellin them how to do their jobs.[/quote]
um

the purpose of having troops is to tell them how to do their jobs

And let's not pretend that Republicans' hands are clean in all of this

BOTH sides have used this war as political capital, and both are continuing to do so. I don't think we're at a point where we can enshrine anyone on either side.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1262918' date='May 2 2007, 10:04 PM']um

the purpose of having troops is to tell them how to do their jobs

And let's not pretend that Republicans' hands are clean in all of this

BOTH sides have used this war as political capital, and both are continuing to do so. I don't think we're at a point where we can enshrine anyone on either side.[/quote]

I'm refering to Petraus particularly who adamantly stated that a timeline to the war would be detrimental. The Democrats undermine his military authority with their political rhetoric. Not to mention what it looks like to tell your own soldiers "it doesnt matter what you do now; the war is already lost, but here's some money anyways - just so I look good."

I'm not saying that the GOP is not using the war as political capital as well, but with regards to this bill, the general stance of the GOP is undoubtably the way to go.



Whether they're crafty, dirty, crooks or not (as they are all politicians) we have to keep in mind:

WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY AT WAR ACTUALLY TELLS THE ENEMY WHEN WE'RE QUITTING??????

it makes no sense...

Edited May 3, 2007 by Didymus

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1262999' date='May 2 2007, 10:26 PM']I'm refering to Petraus particularly who adamantly stated that a timeline to the war would be detrimental. The Democrats undermine his military authority with their political rhetoric. Not to mention what it looks like to tell your own soldiers "it doesnt matter what you do now; the war is already lost, but here's some money anyways - just so I look good."

I'm not saying that the GOP is not using the war as political capital as well, but with regards to this bill, the general stance of the GOP is undoubtably the way to go.
Whether they're crafty, dirty, crooks or not (as they are all politicians) we have to keep in mind:

WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY AT WAR ACTUALLY TELLS THE ENEMY WHEN WE'RE QUITTING??????

it makes no sense...[/quote]
You're making the same faulty assumption that catholicinsd is making: that D's actually expected this bill to pass. They didn't. No one did.

The rhetoric is all bluster and bluff, on BOTH sides, and in the meantime we are square in the middle of a war seemingly without a solid strategy and plan in place. Except "send more troops."

The politicking on both sides is what puts our soldiers at risk. R's are not conducting themselves any more blamelessly than D's. They are both generating political capital off the lives of American soldiers.

[Didymus]

i understand what you are saying, but I can't stand all the extra Bush-hating I've seen, even around me here in my area.

If you are a grassroots republican congressman right now, what would you do? The troops apparently need money soon, and the fluff is being tossed around, what would you do? I guess one could just not engage in the debate, and just wait it out... i dunno

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1262045' date='May 1 2007, 09:08 PM']Well I hope all ya'll are happy. Bush has sent our troops over there. Yet he vetos a bill that would give the nessecary funds. Also in that bill was the mimium wage increase. How can you people still support that man?[/quote]
don't be dense. the bill also provided a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

If you were a Muslim terrorist and you knew when your greatest enemy was going to leave...would you keep fighing or wait until they left and then start it up again?
Heaven help us, we let people like you vote.

[Winchester]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1262045' date='May 1 2007, 08:08 PM']Well I hope all ya'll are happy. Bush has sent our troops over there. Yet he vetos a bill that would give the nessecary funds. Also in that bill was the mimium wage increase. How can you people still support that man?[/quote]
1. Do you think it is wise to adhere to a time limit on ceasing military presence?
2. What happens when better trained and equipped troops leave Iraq?
3. How many American troops, including those operating in a clandestine manner, are on the ground in Iraq?
4. How many non-military American intelligence operatives are active in Iraq or on the subject of Iraq?
5. How many assets are opertating for our intelligence services in Iraq or on the subject?
6. How many members of Al-Qaeda or other insurgent groups are present in Iraq?
7. How many members of these groups area available for deploymeny to Iraq?
8. What is the recruitment rate for these groups, currently?
9. What has historically happened in civil wars when the most powerful military presence withdraws?
10. What factions are fighting in Iraq, and how long have they been at odds?
11. Prior to the occupation of Iraq, what was the status of the various factions in Iraq?
12. Prior to the occupatio of Iraq, what human rights were afforded to the typical Iraqi citizen?
13. How many SOG troops are currently occupied with training Iraqi military?
14. How many SOG troops are currently occupied with training policemen in Iraq?
15. What is the price of a gallon of gasoline in Iraq?
16. What are the typical daily troop casualties and fatalities (separate these, please) for American soldiers in all the wars and conflicts since the founding of the United States of America?
17. What are the typical daily troop casualty and fatality (separate these, please) rates for modern warfare, if we define the modern period as beginning in 1980?
18. What, in brief, are the various concerns on the recently vetoed bill?
19. What is the history of "riders" on bills in America, and the justification for them?
20. What does minimum wage have to do with troop deployment?

[Brother Adam]

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale,
and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or
hanged."

~ President Abraham Lincoln

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='1265143' date='May 5 2007, 01:37 PM']"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale,
and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or
hanged."

~ President Abraham Lincoln[/quote]
Does the same hold true for Presidents, I wonder?

[Didymus]

how has the president 'damaged morale' or 'undermined the military?' I know you made the point that even he is using this bill for gain as well, but I don't see how he did either of these particular two things.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1262045' date='May 1 2007, 08:08 PM']Well I hope all ya'll are happy. Bush has sent our troops over there. Yet he vetos a bill that would give the nessecary funds. Also in that bill was the mimium wage increase. How can you people still support that man?[/quote]
If the democrats really wanted to make sure the troops received proper funding, they would have sent a funding bill to the president. Instead, they sent a war plan bill.

Lastly, we should be outraged the democrats wasted tax payer money debating a bill they knew the president was going to veto. The interest of politics trumped the interest of the troops.

[Red Knight]

[quote name='ruso' post='1262119' date='May 1 2007, 09:47 PM']Yes, but the war of Iraq is ilegal and inmoral, that many democrats do not defend the life, does not mean that they are mistaken in this.[/quote]

The democrats and RINO's are cowards. Congress has the Constitutional Authority to end the war by defunding it, however, they prefer to limit the ability of the administration to win, thereby shifting the blame to the administration for the failure of the campaign in Iraq and all the resultant death and anarchy that will occur when the troops are pulled out. Review the history of what happened when the US pulled out of Vietnam for a prime example.

The dem's and RINO's dom't want that blood on their hands, so they pass a bill intended to hamstring the military. The only way they could get the bill to the President was by buying the votes of those on the fence with pork projects.

If the dem's and RINO's actually cared about bringing an end to the campaign in Iraq, they would defund the war. That won't get them reelected, so they won't do it.

Cowards.