The libs here like to say "If he veto's it, then it'll be him who's not supporting the troops." At face value, this is true, but this is taken out of context all too often. YOU CANT GIVE A DATE FOR WITHDRAWL DURING WAR-TIME! Argue whether we should be there or not all day long, but that fact remains. The Democrat majority is clearly trying to hamstring the Pres. with this bill. Bush is smarter than that. I look forward to Jack Murtha quote's after Bush veto's this bill. He's always so angry! Its funny they love to slam Bush for politicizing the firing of 8 U.S.A's, but they themselves are politicizing the War in Iraq./War on Terror. Love Double standards!

He will veto the bill - in fact, he's looking forward to vetoing it:

There you have it in a nutshell, Mark.
Bush's concern for the welfare of the men & women he sent into battle amounts to a hill of beans.

george bush - the petulant cowboy with training wheels strapped to his boots - dares the congress (a co-equal branch of government mind you all) to challenge his "unfettered authority" to wage wars without consent of the people, and it's going to blow-up in his face.

like a coward who holds press conferences while congress is out of town and, like a coward who needs to have his VP lurking in the shrubs during his speech to the press and, like a coward who provides no mics nor chairs for the press during this PC (at the sake of risking the press recording the actual hard questions), we now have a boy king who clearly does not understand that he cannot rule the kingdom as a monarchy anymore.

no longer do the people buy his crap that it will be the democrats who are endangering the lives of us servicemen and women. not only have they provided him the 100 billion he requested, they also saw fit to include money for veterans and for the improvement of an already tattered and fraying armed service. bush has strained this army beyond its limits. you guys can crow all you want about how it is the dems who are not looking out for the welfare of the troops, but there is an inertial quality to the reality that has settled-in like a block of lead on the nation's psyche. bush has broken the armed services and it will be up to the dems to restore it to its former glory, beginning with bringing the troops home and out of harm's way in 180 days.

if you don't support a withdrawal, you support a never-ending war with continued casualties and the continued break-up of families and small businesses (just to be on the record).

CO, did it ever occur to you that setting a withdrawal date just emboldens the enemy more and costs lives on the battlefield?

Playing volleyball with the Troops, as the left is doing, undermining their efforts and the leadership during war just prolongs it and in the end, many more lives are lost.

Look at the dates on the Viet Nam Wall. Over 40,000 of the 58,000 names are after 1968, when the North's forces were decimated in Tet of 68. The North knew all they had to do was keep killing Americans and hang on, the left was forcing surrender from victory.

But, you do show what we will be hearing in the next campains of 2008. Dems will milk this for all its worth, never saying it is the result they wanted all along.

Enough of this pathetic spin-machine garbade on Pelosi in Syria. The Republicans were there THE DAY BEFORE! Duh. (Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt.) Readers not blinded by hatred and dogma can check. If this is the best you can do, Mark, parroting the White House Press Corps, what is the value of this blog?

Conscriptor...

You're an idiot. Watch how the surrender, defeatist Dems fall apart... And don't you Leftist surrender freaks just love how the Defeatocratic Congress is now removing the term GWOT... It's all a law enforcement issue, RIGHT?

IDIOT...

Emboldening the enemy and all that...we heard that in Vietnam and that worked out great, didn't it?

Hagel is right. This war cannot be won nor can it be lost. Nothing we do can stabilize that country at this point. We missed our chance when Dear Leader adopted Rumsfeld's failed ideology of light infantry. Even if we sent 500k troops, the insurgents will hide out and wait for us to leave, which, lest you brown shirts fail to admit it, we will do someday.

lew:

CO, did it ever occur to you that setting a withdrawal date just emboldens the enemy more and costs lives on the battlefield?

if i bought the administration's talking points (as you do) hook, line, and sinker, i might give an ounce of credence to the above statement. fact of the matter is, there is no evidence to support that canard. the idea that the insurgents (who are really fighting EACH OTHER) are going to adjust their tactics (back-off on the violence if we promise to stay on for another five years) is so ridiculously obtuse it pains me to even debate the point. you guys are all GOP echo chamber participants who simply echo the daily "rove dispatch" and hope that, with concerted repetition, the false logic will stick.

try to be original at least!

I would love to say that this veto threat shocks me, but after the whole Walter Reed debacle nothing suprises me.

Look at the dates on the Viet Nam Wall. Over 40,000 of the 58,000 names are after 1968, when the North's forces were decimated in Tet of 68. The North knew all they had to do was keep killing Americans and hang on, the left was forcing surrender from victory.

how one can crassly extrapolate from the era of most intense fighting that the resultant casualty count was a direct result of the left calling for surrender is reckless if not doltish.

"during the early '70's, there was a unicorn craze among US youth that sparked a resurgence in the belief of the mythical winged-beast. as a direct result, and because the vietcong's religious tenets had no place for such fables creatures, they drastically increased their attacks on infantrymen to send a message to all those kid-believers back home.."

What none of the brownshirts want to admit is that Bush is running out the clock on his presidency. He knows the war has been far too bungled for a hapless C-student like him to repair. So he's going to let our soldiers die and die and die and get maimed for another two years and then he'll be gone. He knows his legacy is done for anyway, barring a miracle. So he'll leave office and the Democrat that replaces him will take the blame, or so he thinks.

2002 was the year, though, and 2004 to some extent, that the GOP made the Iraq Bungle a REPUBLICAN war. Despite the Dems who voted to authorize force as a last resort(and did so knowing full well that it was a vote for war), this mess belongs to the GOP. That's why 2006 went down as it did, and its why the GOP is in big-ass trouble in 2008 in Congress. They may retain the White House if they pick a candidate who is anti-Bush. But they have too many seats to defend in the Senate compared to the Dems and there is a real possibility of a veto-proof majority for the Dems by 2012. Now, Mark will scoff at this and read fast because he likes to delete posts that he can't answer. But we all remember Mark's laughable predictions for the 06 cycle. He was wrong and he'll always be wrong so long as he doesn't hold Dear Leader accountable for his mistakes.

The Iraq war has to end. Let us recap. We were first told by the Neocons victory would be confirming the removal of WMD, done but we are still there. Then Republicans said victory would be removal of Saddam Hussein, done but we are still there. Then Republicans told us for victory Iraqis need democracy, done they have a constitution and purple fingers but we are still there. Then Republicans said there will be victory when people can gather in the streets to talk and buy things like a capitalistic society, done McCain and Ghram stroll Baghdad and buy carpets but we are still there. Seven out of ten Americans are not buying this Neocon song and dance anymore. No matter what happens with the surge Republican mouth pieces such as Fox, Hannity and Limbaugh will just change the definition of victory and it will go on and on and on.

Bush put our troops in the middle of this civil war, he needs to do the decent thing, respect the will of the people and sign the bill that provides money for protecting our troops.

She not only is wearing headgear per the Muslim custom, she also was wearing a black robe over her green suit. Pics at 'sweetness and light'. She is a disgrace and a traitor.

"What none of the brownshirts" F*$K You. I am not a Nazi you asswipe. Leaving Viet Nam lead to massive bloodbaths there and in Cambodia. MILLIONS died ( you ignorant troll). M-I-L-L-I-O-N-S. Meanwhile, controlled by Democrats we sat on our hands.

YOU are the jerks who are intollerent.

YOU are the thugs who attack, burn, shoot into, and firebomb Republican people and facilities.

YOU are the people who hold your political views with religous like fanatacism.

YOU are the control freaks who spout propaganda on all but a handful of networks.

YOU are the liars who create propaganda moves (F. 911, Inconvenient truth,...) that Joe Goebbles would be proud of.

YOU are the party that represses political speech through "campain finance" laws and attackes on conservative speakers.

YOU are the people who demonize the oppostion and criminalize political actions.

YOU ARE THE PEOPLE WHO SEEK TO DISARM THE PEOPLE... just like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did.

YOU are much more Nazi like than we will ever be.

Yes - spelling mistakes. Sue me.

Yes or No... Terrorists want America to leave Iraq?

Yes or No... Democrats want America to leave Iraq?

Yes or No... Democrats have made the deaths and injuries of American soldiers and the violence in Iraq the reason America should leave Iraq to the terrorists?

Yes or No... The more deaths and violence the terrorists cause, the more media coverage the terrorists receive, the more Democrats use is as the reason America should leave Iraq, and the harder Democrats work and push for America to leave Iraq?

Yes or No... The more American soldiers terrorists kill, the more it helps Democrats with their message, and the more likely Democrats will succeed in forcing America to leave Iraq?

AAR

AAR - it's pretty clear the terrorists (even though they are but bit players in the wider civil conflict) have been jumping for joy now that they have their very own "training ground" upon which to level strike after honed strike against the plethora of US targets now scattered throughout the country. OBVIOUSLY they want us there for as long as we are willing to stay and provide target practice for them..
nice to know you support that.

Yes - spelling mistakes. Sue me. Posted by: Kahn [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 4, 2007 10:47 AM

ok - they tend to happen during fits of passionate typing..

"if you don't support a withdrawal, you support a never-ending war with continued casualties and the continued break-up of families and small businesses (just to be on the record)."
-CON.

I support a war that helps establish democracy in country's that have never known it. Theres always going to be casualities in war. Get used to the idea.

"2002 was the year, though, and 2004 to some extent, that the GOP made the Iraq Bungle a REPUBLICAN war. Despite the Dems who voted to authorize force as a last resort(and did so knowing full well that it was a vote for war), this mess belongs to the GOP."
-GWR.

So, you just said that the democrats helped authorize the war. But when it doesnt go according to plan, you think you can just drop all responsibilty for whats happened? Lets just leave? F*ck It? Thats defeatism at it's finest.

- lew:

CO, did it ever occur to you that setting a withdrawal date just emboldens the enemy more and costs lives on the battlefield?

"if i bought the administration's talking points (as you do) hook, line, and sinker, i might give an ounce of credence to the above statement. fact of the matter is, there is no evidence to support that canard."
-CON

Please explain how you fail to comprehend how it wouldnt embolden them? And how it didnt embolded N.V During Vietnam?

-"not only have they provided him the 100 billion he requested, they also saw fit to include money for veterans and for the improvement of an already tattered and fraying armed service."
-CON

-He didnt request 100 billion to be accurate. He didnt ask for money for spinach farming or peanut storage, or D.C tour money. He didnt ask for money for Vets or Katrina aid. Those things are important, yes, but put them in another bill that pertains to those things. None of that money helps the troops in combat right now. It's an intentional attempt to tie Bush's hands and military commanders hands behind there backs.

I am glad GW finally is getting it that the Dems are with the enemy.Take off the gloves GW and your base will be with you.If not,you are on your own.

It's funny how 'wingers go on at high volume about how Iraq is NOTHING LIKE VIETNAM... unless guys like Lew want to make a comparison, and then it's perfrctly acceptable.

Also, AAR, you might want to read that propaganda of yours a little more closely... what was one of OBL's biggest reasons for beginning a terror war against the US in the first place? The presence of US troops in the holiest areas of Islam - on the ground in Saudi Arabia. What did Bush & the GOP (not the Dems) do to appease the terrorists in AQ and the Wahhabists in the Saudi gov't? Pull our troops out of SA. Also, you might note from pretty much every poll taken that a significant majority of ALL AMERICANS want our troops out of Iraq. And one other thing...

Yes or No... Democrats have made the deaths and injuries of American soldiers and the violence in Iraq the reason America should leave Iraq to the terrorists?

Kahn,

Reading your “ YOU ARE YOU ARE YOU ARE” post I would suggest you lay off the crack pipe for a while cause its making you paranoid.

LOL!! Kahn forgets who is in the White House. Joseph Goebbels was the propaganda director for Hitler while he was in power, and his propaganda had nothing to do with questioning the validity of a war waged by an opposing party nor did he spread propaganda questioning the the corporate sector of the government who was profiting from that war.

Terrorists can NOT defeat America's military.

Democrats, however, CAN defeat our military through their words and their actions in Congress.

Democrats and terrorists share the same goal, the retreat of America from Iraq.

The more terrorists can help Democrats achieve their goal, the more it helps terrorists succeed in their goal.

The more American soldiers terrorists can kill and wound, the more helpful it is to the Democrats... the more it feeds and helps the Democrat's media campaign... and the more it helps Democrats in their goal to remove America's military from Iraq -- the SAME GOAL as TERRORISTS!

How many American soldiers and Iraqi families have terrorists and insurgents killed, injured, and blown to bits to help the Democrats with their media message and to accomplish their mutual goal?

Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands? More?

AAR

AAR is either a Nazi or a Simpleton.

How many American soldiers and Iraqi families have terrorists and insurgents killed, injured, and blown to bits to help the Democrats with their media message and to accomplish their mutual goal?

OH MY GOD - you've figured out the last great pony conspiracy. the democrats and the terrorists are working in concert together to achieve your perversely tenuous charge of common goal sharing.

let us spell it out for you one more time: dems want soldiers OUT, terrorists want soldiers IN - where, pray tell, is the thread of mutuality? or is your computer screen just upside down today?

holy CRAP it's like shooting fish in a bucket.

I hope Bush does veto the troop funding bill.

It will demonstrate unequivocally that he does not support the troops nor does he care about them.

All Bush wants is his war.

Wade

After terrorists attacked U.S. troops in Mogadishu, Somalia, Democrats urged then-President Clinton to begin a complete pullout of U.S. troops from the region and then-President Clinton complied and yielded to terrorism.

A quote from NewsMax.Com...

"Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal - a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S."

A quote from Time...

"Things might have been different if ... if U.S. forces hadn't retreated so hastily after a beating in Somalia, giving bin Laden the idea that Americans are cowards who can be defeated easily."

The attacks of 9/11 might not have happened if it weren't for Democrats!!! Three thousand lives might not have been lost in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and onboard those commercial airplanes if it weren't for Democrats. The Iraq might not have happened if it weren't for Democrats!!!

AAR

AAR,

“Yes or No... Terrorists want America to leave Iraq? “
Wrong. Al Qaeda wants you guys to be there because it helps them recruit more people. America has invaded a Muslim country and played right into Al Qaeda’s hands. The later wants a war of religions and Mr. Decider is giving it to them both with his rhetoric’s and actions.
“Yes or No... Democrats want America to leave Iraq?” –
Yes
“Yes or No... Democrats have made the deaths and injuries of American soldiers and the violence in Iraq the reason America should leave Iraq to the terrorists? “
No, the fact that being there solves nothing and in fact makes things worse on a large scale is why democrats have concluded that your soldiers are dying in vane now. You have had 4 years to fix it. When is it enough?
“Yes or No... The more deaths and violence the terrorists cause, the more media coverage the terrorists receive, the more Democrats use is as the reason America should leave Iraq, and the harder Democrats work and push for America to leave Iraq?”
Absolutely yes, except most of the violence is committed by people who have nothing to do with Al Qaeda. In fact many people there despise the terror network. You being there helps Al Qaeda recruit more people. If being there would visibly help the situation the Dems wouldn’t fight to pull out your troops.
“Yes or No... The more American soldiers terrorists kill, the more it helps Democrats with their message, and the more likely Democrats will succeed in forcing America to leave Iraq?”
That’s probably a fair assessment. However I don’t think that the terrorists and insurgents make an extra effort killing more people just to get the US to pull out. I think there is some targeted killing of Amarican soldiers but for the most part you guys are just in the way. But if your right and the terrorist only kills Americans to make them leave then the conclusion would be that they stop killing Americans as soon as a deadline for pulling out has been set. If this is the case that would give the Americans much more freedom to help enforce law and order.

Your turn:
True or false: There were no WMD’s in Iraq, There was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda but those were the two main arguments for invading Iraq in the first place?
True or False: Al Qaeda was not welcome in Iraq before the war and the fact that they are there now is a direct result of the invasion?
True or False: There are more extremists now in the world who hates you (us) then before the war?
True or False: When you waterboard your prisoners, lock them up for years without a trial and create an atmosphere in witch prisoner abuse can take place you create even more enemies and you loose the right to lecture others on the Geneva Convention?
True or false: refusing to talk to someone about a problem unless they agree with you first is arrogant and counter productive?

AAR - here we go - democrats are responible for everything bad in this world. i hear the some guy just came down with a totally drug-resistant form of TB - must of been the meddling of "them darn democrats" ...

and about mogadishu? don't be a fool AGAIN - it was the GOP that was demanding clinton withdrawal from somolia AGAINST HIS WISHES. he only did so after staying another SIX MONTHS and after providing an orderly transfer to the UN. my god, that right-wing canard was blown away a long time ago and yet you still peddle it as gospel.
problem is, you get your news from newsmax and fox and swallow it without simply learning the facts.

Constriptor, do you seriously believe the stuff you post?

Wow, my kids have more sense than that, thank God.

How do you figure that the terrorists want to keep being killed in overwhelming numbers? Even with their silly view that they will have virgins when they die a glorious death, they can not sustain that indefinately.

Vietnam was lost by the politicians and the druggies who lead them. You Democrats want to repeat that. What will that accomplish? The left has stated time and again that it is a shame that the US is the only real super power. That is a core belief of theirs, and all their actions are to head toward that goal.

It is sickening to hear the garbage that are the views of the left. Moral relativism has clouded every fiber of the leftists. This is a dangerous game you leftists are playing. The divide in the country is growing larger and it is very similar to what was going on just prior to the Civil War. Postulate where that leaves us right now.

Dems don't care a wit about the Soldiers who are fighting, they care about their lunatic base who are with Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore.

One hope we have is that the American people will recognise the dangers that the Democrats pose to our way of life. I fear it will take another 9/11 for it to shake the people up.

The convoluted thinking of the left is destroying the very fabric of this nation. They are following the list of what the communists had laid out in the 60's to overcome the US. This war is just another piece of the puzzle for the Democrats to bring it down.

Like shooting fish in a barrel? I guess the drugs you are on make you think so, but not one post you have made has any grounding in reality.

I don't know why you even post on this site. Do you get some award over at DU for putting such nonsense on right leaning sites?

Even if we sent 500k troops, the insurgents will hide out and wait for us to leave, which, lest you brown shirts fail to admit it, we will do someday.

What none of the brownshirts want to admit is that Bush is running out the clock on his presidency.

It didn't take long in this thread for Godwin's Law to rear it's ugly head. I guess when your intellect as vacant as GWR's, comparing your political adversaries to Nazis is about all you've got. Selwyn Duke had a great article at the American Thinker last fall about fascism on the Left.

Rhetoric aside, however, I've come to realize that true fascists do exist in our time.� But who are they?� How can they be correctly identified?� To discover the answer, let's start with a trip down Bad Memory Lane.

Another word that makes the rounds these days is 'Brownshirts,' which, as many know, harks back to the SA, a paramilitary organization that was instrumental in Adolf Hitler's rise to power in 1933.� The Brownshirts were the adolescent Nazi Party's muscle, squelching opposition through violence and intimidation.� Shout—downs and beat—downs were their stock—in—trade, making their name a metaphor for fascist intolerance and oppression. (emphasis - mine)

So, GWR, as Kahn notes, the Left engages in such activities all the time. Do you have some examples of Conservatives doing the same?

Old Goat..

the American people HAVE recognized the dangers that Republicans pose to our way of life. Hence, the November 2006 elections.. And it didnt take another 9-11 to shake the people up, it was WORSE. It was Iraq !

George Bush's folly will follow him to his grave. He will retire and live the rest of his life in seclusion (if he is not found gulty at Nuremburg II).

Fair or not, history will not be kind to our 43rd president.

Setting a timeframe for leaving emboldens the enemy? So we stay forever? Eventually we have to leave -- Shias will "elect" Iran-friendly leader (like Maliki, duh!) and massacre Sunnis.

NOT setting a timeframe or holding Maliki et al. accountable means current "government" can miss all deadlines / benchmarks and do NOTHING to quell sectarian hate while American troops are KILLED!

Kahn,
I'm sorry but you are a Nazi.

AAR,
You foaming at the mouth is great entertainment.

Dubya,
No means no. Money talks, Bushi* walks. Start walking.

Do you have some examples of Conservatives doing the same?
Posted by: Retired Spook at April 4, 2007 12:43 PM

well, funny you should ask.......

George Herbert Walker And Prescott Bush
Funded And Directed The Military Industrial Complex
Behind Adolf Hitler And The Nazi Revolution

by Webster G. Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin
from George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography

The grandfather of President George Walker Bush (Skull & Bones, 1968) was Prescott Bush (Skull & Bones, 1917), and his great grand father was George Herbert Walker. Prescott Bush and George Herbert (Bert) Walker were directors of the London-affiliated New York banking house of Brown Brothers-Harriman and its various fronts, which funded and directed the military-industrial complex behind Hitler and the Nazi revolution.

In 1919, George Herbert Walker had organized W.A. Harriman & Co which merged with the British Brown Brothers in 1931. In 1924, Averell Harriman (Skull & Bones, 1913) and Fritz Thyssen, the German industrialist who began funding Hitler in 1923, set up the Union Banking Corp in New York to handle funds supplied to it through Thyssen's Dutch bank for American investment. Prescott Bush, who had been an officer of the W.A. Harriman bank since 1926, was a director of the Union Banking Corp from 1934 through 1943. According to government documents, "all of the shares of the Union Banking Corp., were held for the benefit of members of the Thyssen family."

The federal government did not crack down on the Bush-Harriman/Nazi operation until 1942. After the war, Congressional investigation revealed that Fritz Thyssen's German Steel Trust, Germany's largest industrial corporation [which interlocked with Union Banking Corporation] produced a high percentage of Germany's national output of metal products and explosives. Vesting Orders signed by the Office of Alien Property Custodian, Leo T. Crowley, which were "published in obscure government record books and kept out of the news, explained nothing about the Nazis involved; only that the Union Banking Corporation was run for the 'Thyssen family' of 'Germany and/or Hungary'-- 'nationals...of a designated enemy country.'"

"In October 1942, ten months after entering World War II, America was preparing its first assault against Nazi military forces. Prescott Bush was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. His 18-year-old son George, the future U.S. President, had just begun training to become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush.

"Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the government took over the Union Banking Corporation, in which Bush was a director. The U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp.'s stock shares, all of which were owned by Prescott Bush, E. Roland 'Bunny' Harriman, three Nazi executives, and two other associates of Bush.

here we go AAR - :

GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, speech on the Senate floor October 6, 1993

I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option.

OOPS

GOP Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, speech on the Senate floor, October 6, 1993

Mr. President, the mission is accomplished in Somalia. The humanitarian aid has been delivered to those who were starving. The mission is not nation building, which is what now is being foisted upon the American people. The United States has no interest in the civil war in Somalia and as this young soldier told me, if the Somalis are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then it is absolutely time that we go home. . . It is time for the Senate of the United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the American troops home.

OOPS

GOP Minority Leader Sen. Robert Dole, Senate speech, October 5, 1993

I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with--I do not know how many Members were there--45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close. . . .

OOPS

GOP Sen. Jesse Helms, Senate floor speech October 6, 1993:

All of which means that I support the able Senator from West Virginia--who, by the way, was born in North Carolina--Senator Robert C. Byrd, and others in efforts to bring an end to this tragic situation. The United States did its best to deliver aid and assistance to the victims of chaos in Somalia as promised by George Bush last December.

But now we find ourselves involved there in a brutal war, in an urban environment, with the hands of our young soldiers tied behind their backs, under the command of a cumbersome U.N. bureaucracy, and fighting Somalia because we tried to extend helping hands to the starving people of that far-off land. Mr. President, the United States has no constitutional authority, as I see it, to sacrifice U.S. soldiers to Boutros-Ghali's vision of multilateral peacemaking. Again, I share the view of Senator Byrd that the time to get out is now.

OOPS

and finally:

President Clinton's speech, on October 8, 1993, arguing against withdrawal

And make no mistake about it, if we were to leave Somalia tomorrow, other nations would leave, too. Chaos would resume, the relief effort would stop and starvation soon would return. That knowledge has led us to continue our mission. . . .

If we leave them now, those embers will reignite into flames and people will die again. If we stay a short while longer and do the right things, we've got a reasonable chance of cooling off the embers and getting other firefighters to take our place. . .

So, now, we face a choice. Do we leave when the job gets tough or when the job is well done? Do we invite the return of mass suffering or do we leave in a way that gives the Somalis a decent chance to survive? Recently, Gen. Colin Powell said this about our choices in Somalia: "Because things get difficult, you don't cut and run. You work the problem and try to find a correct solution." . . .

So let us finish the work we set out to do. Let us demonstrate to the world, as generations of Americans have done before us, that when Americans take on a challenge, they do the job right.

boy the hypocrisy is running think around here!

Retired Spook: Conservatives doing the same? What, name-calling and stifling debate? Are you kidding? How about Andrew Sullivan and other bloggers calling people merely QUESTIONING the bogus intelligence leading up to this war "traitors"? If you want URLs and citations with publications and dates, I'm all over it. Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and many more right-wing attack dogs spew invective and hate on a daily basis and if you're honest you'll admit. Q.E.D.

not surprisingly, ol' clinton takes a position much like bush does today. kind of BLOWS away that canard that clinton wanted withdrawal out of somalia and thus should be blamed for 9/11...

Quote from conscriptor, April 4, 2007 12:53 PM...

"President Clinton's speech, on October 8, 1993, arguing against withdrawal"

"And make no mistake about it, if we were to leave Somalia tomorrow, other nations would leave, too. Chaos would resume, the relief effort would stop and starvation soon would return. That knowledge has led us to continue our mission. . . ."

"If we leave them now, those embers will reignite into flames and people will die again. If we stay a short while longer and do the right things, we've got a reasonable chance of cooling off the embers and getting other firefighters to take our place. . ."

"So, now, we face a choice. Do we leave when the job gets tough or when the job is well done? Do we invite the return of mass suffering or do we leave in a way that gives the Somalis a decent chance to survive? Recently, Gen. Colin Powell said this about our choices in Somalia: 'Because things get difficult, you don't cut and run. You work the problem and try to find a correct solution.' . . ."

And then... acting against his own words... acting against the recommendations of Gen. Colin Powell and others... then-President [DEMOCRAT] Clinton caved into political pressure and "cut and ran".

"[DEMOCRAT] Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal - a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S."

AAR

Conscriptor you could replace Clintons response for withdrawl in Somalia with Bushs reasoning behind staying in Iraq and finish the job. Do we leave when the job get tough or do we leave when the job is done? A perfect reason why there should be no time table for withdrawl from Iraq. Why is there not the same reasoning behind the Dems when it comes to Iraq? Ill tell you why, because it does not help them politically. They are doing everything possible to make sure that the war in Iraq is a failure so that the Bush administration will take the blame ensuring that the Dems take over the White House.

AAR
What sort of message do you think bin Laden takes from the fact that the administration, and people like Mark Noonan, got distracted in their search to bring to justice the mastermind and funder of the attack on American soil?
Now those folks are saying he's unimportant. What impression do you think that makes on a terrorist's view?

oh dear god - i get it, only after refusing to bow to GOP pressure to withdraw forces, and only after staying for six months, did he finally withdraw, he caved to GOP pressure and so he ultimately to be blamed for some hyperbolic, wingnut conspiracy. your logic is tortured for lack of a more constructive synonym. i'll give you credit though - for being so bold

Yeno, of all the people you mention, the only one I listen to is Limbaugh, and if you think that all he does is "spew invective and hate", then you simply haven't listened to him.

I think you're problem is that you are equating verbal criticism with shouting down and physically attacking those with whom you disagree. It's a common mistake made by those on your side of the political spectrum.

Oops, should have been "your problem". Sorry, keefer; I know that's one of "your" pet peeves.

So AAR,

I guess the message is that Democrats should not listen to Republicans. Point taken.

Personally, I'd like to see Bush get as firm with the Iraqi government as he is with the Dems. Bush's New Way Forward plan incorporates several benchmarks that the Iraqi gov't agreed to -- things which I have mentioned several times in previous posts, sometimes specifically, sometimes more generally. I believe that these benchmarks are very key, not only to determining how motivated the Iraqi government is, but by extension, how much support Bush's New Way Forward plan will continue to get here at home. If Bush could pressure the Iraqi gov't to show some success on those benchmarks, I'm confident that support for the Democrat's position would wane. If he fails, then I am likewise confident that support for his position will wane.

In an Op-Ed in today's NYT, Leon Penetta runs down the list and summarizes how things are going...

The Iraqis promised to achieve, by the end of 2006 or early 2007, the approval of a provincial election law (so far, no progress); approval of a law to regulate the oil industry and share revenues (while the Council of Ministers has approved a draft, it has yet to be approved by the Parliament); approval of the de-Baathification law to reintegrate officials of the former regime and Arab nationalists into public life (no progress); and approval of a law to rein in sectarian militias (no progress).

By March, the government promised to hold a referendum on constitutional amendments (no progress).

By May, the prime minister committed to putting in place the law controlling militias (no progress); the approval of the amnesty agreement (no progress); and the completion of all reconciliation efforts.

By June, the Iraqi government promised to hold provincial elections (no date has been set).

As for security issues, things are not going much better. The Iraqis have increased security spending over 2006 levels as promised, but they are falling behind on the number of battle-ready Army units.

By April, the Iraqis want to take over total control of the Iraq Army (not likely based on current progress).

By September, the Iraqis want to be given full civil control of all provinces (to date they control 3 of 18 provinces).

By December, the Iraqis, with United States support, want to achieve total security self-reliance (too early to tell, but does anyone really find this likely?).

Yes, there have been some notable successes. For example, the Baghdad government has made good on its promise to appreciate the Iraqi dinar to combat accelerating inflation, and has increased domestic prices for refined petroleum products.

But particularly in terms of reforms needed to reconcile Sunnis and Shiites, progress has been minimal. And unless the United States finds new ways to bring strong pressure on the Iraqis, things are not likely to pick up any time soon.Bush's New Way Forward plan incorporates several benchmarks that the Iraqi gov't agreed to.

Panetta goes on to say...

In seeking support for the so-called surge and the supplemental spending bill, the Bush administration argues that American forces have to provide temporary stability to enable the Iraqi leaders to negotiate political solutions. True, but after a while this becomes an excuse for inaction on the political reforms that are essential to stability itself.

Yeah I know, Panetta is a Democrat and was a member of the Iraq Study Group. But what he's talking about here is Bush's plan and how it's going. And I happen to think he's right: if the Iraqis don't start standing up in a substantive way soon, support for Bush's plan will wane, even among the GOP.

If the Iraqi gov't is serious about what they agreed to, then it's possible that the pressure the Dems are applying by way of the emergency appropriations bill might actually help to spur them to action. Nothing else seems to be working. On the other hand, if the Iraqis are NOT serious about keeping their end of the bargain, then maybe they aren't worth supporting. Either way, if they don't make some real progress soon, Bush's plan will not be sustainable for long. The American people will now allow our troops to be babysitters indefinitely if there is no indication that the Iraqis want to help themselves. In fact, I would argue that it is the sustained lack of progress that is fueling the "cut and run" lobby.

Hey Khan, F&&* YOU!

Now let's see if Mark deletes my post but not yours. These are the actions of brownshirts.

See, I am a Democrat and I have made 30 phone calls and written 24 letters so far to Democrats criticizing them for their bull$hit pork in an otherwise good bill to fund the troops and withdraw in 2008. Unlike you and the other BROWNSHIRT Republicans, I call my side out on their crap.

You follow Dear Leader no matter what he does. This is the same thing the BROWNSHIRTS did.

Get with it. You're a sheep. BROWN SHIRTED SHEEP.

So you, Leo, Mark, Matt and Princy can call Democrats terr'r lovers and traitors but we can't call you out on being GOP sheep? Consistency leads to credibility, baa baa baa.

Watchman: "Ice Berg Dead Ahead!" (rings bell frantically)

Bush: "I will stand firm and stay the course!" (chuckles)

Bush: "I'm the decider of the strategery." (pounds fist on railing)

Well you know the rest.....

Wade

THANK YOU MR. PRESIDENT- IT'S ABOUT TIME YOU DID

A REAL "SMACKDOWN"

RetiredSpook: I didn't say that was ALL Limbaugh did! He says lots of stuff. I notice you don't deny that he spews hate daily. Wanna get shouted down? Try phoning into Rush's show and civilly disagreeing with him. You will be shouted down and cut off presumably because that is what his audience enjoys. His show is about as edifying as Howard Stern's. I wish him all the best with his drug addiction recovery. Lefties physically attack righties? Those big bad bullies! When was this, at the Gathering of Eagles?

Gorewaright, just because I support the war, funding the troops, and finishing what we started dosent make me a sheep. I dont agree with all the name calling on eighter side and I can appreciate the fact that you will call out your people on the left when you feel that they are wrong. I wish that more people on both sides would have the courage to stand up to some of the extreme views shown by both sides. I feel that both parties are following their leaders blindly no matter what, it leaves no room for any compromise. As a conservative I know that this administration has made many mistakes, however I do belive that the war was just and the reasons behind it are dier. I do belive that the security of this country relies on the fight against terror organizations and securing our borders and Iraq is part of that fight. I guess that fundamental belief has created the biggest divide in our country and until we can agree on a compromise we will continue to clash.

rush is great to listen to - for reason of pure entertainment. like most other drug addicts or d-list entertainers, you take them with a grain of salt and resign yourself to the fact that they're just another circus side-show - not in any way analogous to reality.

Geez, Noonan, I didn't realize you were so dead-set against funding the troops and respecting people's religious beliefs.

Funny isn't it. Running from Somalia, virtually no response to the Cole, virtually no response to the first WTC bombing, virtually no response to the Embassy bombing...backing down from any armed conflict because the US can't stomach bloodshed and that is used as a recruitment tool for terrorists. Now we stand up to terrorists in Afganistan and Iraq and that is the wrong approach and is a recruitment tool for more terrorists. The only idea anyone is coming up with is to do what didn't work in the 90's. Terrorists see this and know to do what worked in the 90's, keep raising the body count and the US will back down.

If the best idea the Democrats in Congress can come up with is to pull out because it's a failure, then pull the funding. If they are going to let the troops continue the fight, then give them the money. Congress put the troops in the middle of a political battle, they are the ones responsible for the outcome here.

sadly, moe, your last paragraph is pretty much spot-on.

Retired Kook only listens to Limbaugh....lol!!
That explains everything...

100353.shtml

Quote from The American Thinker, but the same information in numerous places...

"[DEMOCRAT] Murtha urged Somalia pullout"

"It turns out that [DEMOCRAT] Rep. John Murtha has a history of urging cut and run policies on US forces, and that [DEMOCRAT] President Clinton took his advice in Somalia, with disastrous results..."

"'Our welcome has been worn out,' [DEMOCRAT] Rep Murtha told NBC's 'Today' show in Sept. 1993, after the Mogadishu battle cost the lives of 18 U.S. Rangers."

"The Pennsylvania Democrat announced that President Clinton had been 'listening to our suggestions. And I think you'll see him move those troops out very quickly.'"

"[DEMOCRAT] Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal - a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S."

By pulling out of Somalia, [DEMOCRAT] President Clinton in effect told Osama bin Laden, terrorists, and our enemies around the world that America [DEMOCRATS] do not have the resolve to fight if they suffer any causalities. That DEMOCRAT decision to cut and run from our enemies cost the lives of over 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and led directly to the Iraq war.

Now, DEMOCRATS once again want to exercise their lack of judgment and suicidal tendencies, confirming once more to our enemies that DEMOCRATS will surrender... DEMOCRATS will defeat America.... DEMOCRATS will do all they possibly can to make sure that America turns tail and runs.

DEMOCRATS are once again telling America's enemies that -- in the future as they have in the past -- all our enemies need do is kill a few thousand, perhaps a few million Americans, and DEMOCRATS will pull the plug on the money and stop the fight!

How many American buildings, towns, cities, shopping malls, structures, and mass transit conveyances will be destroyed in the future because of the DEMOCRATS? How many million Americans will die in future attacks because of the actions, words, and deeds of DEMOCRATS?

Only time will tell, but we can be sure that -- no matter how many are killed -- DEMOCRATS will try and blame others for the death and destruction they cause!!!

AAR

Bush: "It has now been 57 days since I requested that Congress pass emergency funds for our troops."

Um, the only reason this ever went to an emergency funding bill in the first place is because Bush has always refused to provide the funding for Iraq in the regular annual budget he submits to congress.

Further, this emergency bill provides almost all the requested funds for the troops in Iraq. It is Bush who is vetoing the funding, because he wants an open-ended committment to stay in Iraq forever. Just last fall, the Republicans and commanders in the field were talking about the need to give Iraq some time-tables, adding that if the Iraqis think we will stay there forever, then they have no incentive to take control of the hardest security tasks.

So what happened to all the "deadlines" they talked about? They kept getting missed, ignored, and pushed back.

The emergency funding measure provides a whole additional year - over and above the 4+ years already spent - to finally get things in order in Iraq. But Bush wants to veto the funding. I guess he expects us to give him and the Iraqis carte blanche to keep US troops in the middle of a civil war forever, and to spend hundreds of billions a year of your taxes for as long as he wants... all to avoid appearing as the abject failure he is.

rush is great to listen to - for reason of pure entertainment. like most other drug addicts or d-list entertainers, you take them with a grain of salt and resign yourself to the fact that they're just another circus side-show - not in any way analogous to reality.

Substitute "democrat party" for "rush" and you will gain some clarity on what a bizarre sideshow the democrat party has become lately. Vietnam-era redux with a bonus of having some of the old faces still hanging around.

Perhaps Bush can add that carte-blanche to the apparent carte-blanche he has to keep U.S. troops in the middle of the Afghan civil war.

How many billions and how many years have we been there? Its a civil war for God's sake, and they have been fighting one another since the days of Alexander.

Bush regime = laughing stock

Unless of course you are one of the few, the proud, the 30% of the US, 3% of the world that believes anything this crowd has to say.

You guys need to quit your moaning about how the Democrats are losing the war and come to terms with the FACT that your boy and his cronies have lost it already.

"Mistakes were made" rationally translates to mistakes so large and consequential that we can no longer overcome their impacts. Get over it already and fess up to the damage done! It IS possible that at this point maybe some other ideas would be helpful.

But, I forget myself, you folks won't be happy till they say, be happy, we won, or see, the Democrats lost the war, just like Vietnam. Yea, that's the ticket.

Why do people want the troops to stay in Iraq? What will it accomplish? Just wondering...

I always love how when the left is losing an argument they always start with the Nazi smears, or brown shirts. Classic stuff here.

Im still waiting patiently for the brave democrats to exercise their mandate, the one which they extol as their 'right' to do or say or legislate anything they desire.

One would have to believe that if 70% of the American public were demanding an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, it would be implemented by the democrats with all possible haste. No pork subsidy bribes, no shallow non-binding resolutions to test the waters, but a tangible action that removes the troops from Iraq.

Reid himself put an '08 timetable on withdrawal while simaltaneously breaking into lamentations that no more American blood should be spilled. The dichotomic nature of his argument presents itself as a contemtible political ploy with the troops as a convenient pawn. The democrat party is a farce.

Mark -

"...Nancy disgustingly kneeling before Assad in Syria - the last time she wore headgear was likely at her first communion...now Ms. Liberal is suddenly concerned, for fthe first time in 40 years, not to offend someone's religious sensibilities...every time you think they can't go any lower.."

hooo boy. A couple points:

1) Republicans in congress sent a delegation to Syria to meet with Assad just a few days ago:

"It's interesting because three of our colleagues, who are all Republicans, were in Syria yesterday and I didn't hear the White House speaking out about that," Pelosi said, referring to the Sunday meeting of Reps. Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus.

2) Many Republican women have worn head scarves in public when visiting sensitive areas of the Middle East, including Laura Bush and Condi Rice. Check out the images for yourself from the Whitehouse website:

www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/images/20050522-4_p44900-527-515h.html
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/images/20050522-4_p44900-596-515h.jpg

3) Uh, I'm sorry Mark that Speaker Pelosi doesn't use her political office to foist her personal religious convictions on everyone else. Despite your slanders, however, Pelosi is by all accounts a faithful Catholic. And unlike multiple-married Republican leaders like Gingrich and Giuliani, Madame Speaker has been happily married to the same man since 1962, whom she met while attending Trinity College - a Catholic university.

Aarontime,

Enough with these facts about Pelosi, you're making bushbot heads explode! Please, for the sake of the stupid and uninformed, I must insist that you NOT speak any more facts about Democrats, and instead only think of new and funny nicknames for them, like Piglosi, Hitlery, etc.

Terrorists can NOT defeat America's military.

Here is the basis for most of the misconception about the Iraq War. This is true if we take all our tanks, planes, guns and men out to the middle of the desert and Al Qaeda does the same. We will win. Unfortunately AQ is never going to do this. We are not battling AQ in any way, shape or form in Iraq. We are now an occupying force in an unfriendly country, trying to keep peace in the power vacuum we created. All this rah rah rah, testoterone induced, we're gonna kick the terrorists asses aggression is wasted in Iraq. Terrorism is a problem best resolved with intelligence and police action. Not one terrorist is going to go up against our tanks and planes with any hope of winning so they don't fight that way. Otherwise we would have won the GWOT years ago. If anyone thinks that they have a way to get AQ to meet us out in that desert, please tell. They are not there, they have no reason to be there and anyone who thinks that "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" is plain wrong.

"Pelosi is by all accounts a faithful Catholic."
Posted by: Aarontime at April 4, 2007 04:47 PM

Catholics promote abortion? I know thats off-subject, but so is talking about Pelosi's religion at this point. And comparing her to Gingrich and Guiliani. Haven't you criticized Pres. Bush for being blind to what he was doing because he's got "god in his corner"? That doesnt make sense to me that Pelosi's religion is relevant, but Bush's is not. In fact Bush is even more so incompetent because of his religion right?

RE: "...this emergency bill provides almost all the requested funds for the troops in Iraq..."

What does "almost all" of the funds mean? Is that 80% of the funds? ...More? Less?

One thing we do know for sure is that the DEMOCRAT's bill contains enough funding for pork, peanuts, and spinach to fill the stomachs of most Americans for quite some time!!!

Perhaps the DEMOCRATS can explain exactly what those billions and billions of dollars worth of pork, peanuts, and spinach have to do with funding our troops and fighting the terrorists who want to kill them. Maybe the Democrats want our soldiers to stack the stuff up and used for a perimeter defence!

If the DEMOCRATS don't want to fund our troops, just vote to officially surrender (none of those "non binding" resolutions), cut the funds, make sure the American people clearly understand that DEMOCRATS have the stomach for pork, peanuts, and spinach but not the stomach to stand up to our enemies, and see what develops!

Oh, but did we forget? Not only is the DEMOCRAT military funding bill filled to the brim with pigs, nuts, and veggies, but it also contains the SURRENDER document DEMOCRATS PROMISED TERRORISTS if and when they won the election!

The DEMOCRAT's SURRENDER document which terrorists have been voting for with the bodies of American soldiers and Iraqi families ever since the DEMOCRATS started their defeatist, anti-war, anti-American propaganda campaign -- DEMOCRATS in effect telling the world they would deliver Iraq to the terrorists -- but they just needed those bodies to feed the daily news and fuel their propaganda and campaign!

AAR

God you guys are like lemmings – all signing on to the childish “democrat” party label like it’s some sort of frat party, high-fiving each other every time it gets a mention.
Of course, as lemmings are wont to do, it’s straight off the cliff in your near-future. at least by hitching your wagon to "the clap", your dispatch will be efficient. those of us still up here on the plateau will be left ruminating about how quaint those times were when people actually took you guys seriously.

Reps. Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt...all I can possibly say is, WHO?

As compared to the implicit strength that would come with being the third highest, and therefore the third most powerful, official in the American government in the person of Nancy Pelosi. One only has to witness the comments made by Palestinian terror-group leaders who mention only the name "Pelosi".

I will condemn them all; keep your political noses away from the savages who laugh at you behind your back as they share a cheshire grin of frienship for the cameras in front. This is not your purview and it exhibits a lack of unity within our government towards our enemies.

Cheney W. Halliburove III - sorry man, did not know that you were being snarky. got it now from your moniker..
slick!

Hot off the press from World Net Daily, April 4, 2007...

"One terror leader, Khaled Al-Batch, a militant and spokesman for Islamic Jihad, expressed hope Pelosi would continue winning elections, explaining the House speaker's Damascus visit demonstrated she understands the Middle East."

"'Nancy Pelosi understands the area (Middle East) well, more than Bush and Dr. (Condoleeza) Rice,' said Al-Batch, speaking to WND from Gaza. 'If the Democrats want to make negotiations with Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah, this means the Democratic Party understands well what happens in this area and I think Pelosi will succeed. ... I hope she wins the next elections.'"

Well the terrorists understand where their bread's buttered and their future lies! I'm sure Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden would happily concur with Al-Batch!!!

AAR

"If he veto's it, then it'll be him who's not supporting the troops." At face value, this is true, but this is taken out of context all too often. YOU CANT GIVE A DATE FOR WITHDRAWL DURING WAR-TIME!

The "war" ended four years ago, with the fall of Saddam's regime. We're talking about ending the occupation. More specifically, we're talking about ending an open ended, unconditional support an inept Iraqi regime that is incapable of establishing its own legitimacy and defending itself.

Obviously, you think we should continue to give that regime a "blank check." For how long? They've had four years, and they are in no better control of the country than they were four years ago. How long do we give them? Ten years? Twenty? How many years do we spend 100 billion dollars before we finally give up on the current Iraqi regime as a lost cause?

Oh, and do you think we might levy some taxes to pay for this open ended effort -- instead of continuing to borrow the money from the Chinese communists?

worldnetdaily? come on AAR - you can do a LOT better than that. give me an AP release and i'll give you cookie for effort.

..besides, i hear al-batch is a front for ann coulter and she pens these then launders 'em through those two iraqi bloggers on LGF's blogroll...

Boy!

Looks like the call for reinforcements was sent out for more left-wing troops and propagandists!

You lefties are swarming on this topic like a bunch or mad hornets.

I can't type that fast, and now I have work to do, so have fun for a while.

AAR

i had fun today AAR.

and at least mark can take solace in the fact that he's making money off my constant refresh rate.

They are not there, they have no reason to be there and anyone who thinks that "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" is plain wrong.

Well, that puts a certain extirpation on the liberal idea that we are creating terrorists by our very presence in Iraq, a mantra which has emanated from every single protest against this war. Even within liberal circles, you would find yourself quite alone after presenting such a thesis.

BTW, when "Al Queda in Iraq" takes responsibility for a bombing, is this merely a phone-prank initiated by a gaggle of bored local kids?

AAR

"What does "almost all" of the funds mean? Is that 80% of the funds? ...More? Less?"

Request was for $142 billion - the bill provides $122 billion.

"One thing we do know for sure is that the DEMOCRAT's bill contains enough funding for pork, peanuts, and spinach to fill the stomachs of most Americans for quite some time!!!"

hmmmm, if it takes some pork to get the votes to finally set a timetable, then so be it. Anything to finally bring this tragic, no-win idiocy in Iraq to an end.

But while you're having coniptions over some pork spending (as if the Republicans never did that), perhaps you can summon some of your faux outrage for the $20 billion in CASH that was dropped by helicopter right into the middle of the war zone that is Iraq. Surprise surprise, it all just went *poof* - nobody has any idea where it went. As the American Consrevative magazine writes:

[CLIPPED - LINK TO FULL ARTICLES, DO NOT POST IN FULL]

Wow. And that's from a conservative magazine!: www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/cover.html

So think about all that next time you get your panties in a wad about all that pork spending... and next time you want to give Mr Bush unlimited funding for an open-ended war.

Let me ask our leftie friends: assuming Bush vetoes the emergency appropriations bill, what's the Dem's next maneuver?

Yes, I will remember that, and in fact I will endeavor to contact Senator Feinstein about any egregious military expenditures which may 'get my panties in a wad'. I wonder, does her husband still hold stock in those defense companies he so recently relinquished?

The issue isnt the pork in and of itself, its the fact that the democrats were forced to include such outrageous spending in order to win votes for a measure they claimed was already mandated.

Test the mandate: remove the pork and try to pass the bill. You cant, you wont and everyone knows why.

AAR:

"Well the terrorists understand where their bread's buttered and their future lies! I'm sure Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden would happily concur with Al-Batch!!!"

They're playing the divide in our country like fiddle. We're all the same to them. We're actually on the same side. Every soldier lost is a blow this country.

Oops, should have been "your problem". Sorry, keefer; I know that's one of "your" pet peeves.

Good catch, Spook--I winced when I read it. However, I play favourites when correcting writing errors, and would have given you a pass, publicly.

Guess I'm a hypocrite...

Deleted - overly insulting - commenter banned

Try phoning into Rush's show and civilly disagreeing with him. You will be shouted down and cut off presumably because that is what his audience enjoys.

I listen to him EVERY DAY, Yeno--you're full of crap. And you lie if you claim to have called him, you blowhard. You libs can't win verbal battles with free-thinkers, so you shout them down. I've seen your girlfriend Rosie do it; I've seen Carville do it; I've seen Lawrence O'Donnell do it. Many others, too, dickweed.

You need to get squared away, yenta...

"...and Nancy disgustingly kneeling before Assad in Syria..."-Mark Noonan

Syrian Reformists: The Damage from Pelosi's Visit Will Be Felt for Years

LGF, "A statement from the Reform Party of Syria about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s disgraceful visit to the Baathist regime, and what it means to women struggling for rights in the Islamic world: 'Has Pelosi Gone Bonkers?'"

Reform Party of Syria: As a Muslim, I fully understand respect of our religion by visiting US officials and I applaud that respect. Had Speaker Pelosi worn the Hijab inside a Mosque, this would have indicated respect but for Pelosi to wear it on the streets of Damascus all the while she is sitting with the self-imposed Baschar al-Assad who has come to symbolize oppression and one of the reasons why women are forced to wear the Hijab as they turn to religion to express their freedom is a statement of submittal not only to oppression but also to lack of women’s rights in the Middle East. Pelosi just reversed the work of the Syrian civil society and those who aspire for women’s freedom in the Muslim countries many years back with her visual statement. Her lack of experience of the Middle East is showing.

Assad could not have been happier because Syrian women, seeing a US official confirming what their husbands, the Imams in the Mosques tell them, and the society at large imposes on them through peer pressure will see in her wearing a Hijab as a confirmation of the societal pressures they are constantly under. No one will ever know how many women took the Hijab on after seeing Pelosi wearing it. The damage Speaker Pelosi is causing with her visit to Syria will be felt for many years to come.

Aarontime,

That's old news.

In case you missed it, many Conservatives oppose some of the Republican's spending.

The Democrats, however, said they were going to fix things like that! I didn't know the fix was another load of pork, peanuts, veggies, and cricket infestation.

This was an outright and blatant case of using taxpayer dollars to buy votes which they could not get otherwise.

Perhaps you missed what Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) said on Meet the Press:

"MR. RUSSERT: Chairman Rangel, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS ... The House voted for funding for the war with a date certain, March of ‘08, to begin a withdrawal of U.S. troops. But in that bill was $20 billion of so-called pork, money for cricket infestation, tours of the Capitol, security at the National Convention, peanut crops. Why would the Democrats put that kind of money in such a serious bill?"

"REP. CHARLES B. RANGEL (D-NY): Because they needed the votes. That bill, we lost so many Democrats, one, because people thought we went too far and others because we didn’t go far enough. And so a lot of things had to go into a bill..."

"MR. RUSSERT: If you want to stop the war, why not just simply cut all the funding off?"

"REP. RANGEL: Because you don’t have the vote to do it. There’s some people who believe that if you cut all the funding off, you leave our soldiers and, and, and military people exposed, and that they’d have no money and then we’d go back to the scene we had in Vietnam where we’re fleeing by helicopter..."

Are you justifying and saying the Democrat's are entitled to continue their excessive pork barrel spending because someone else did it in the past? They are supposed to fix those problems, right?

AAR

Lesson in History

Foreign Policy by Poll
Published On Tuesday, November 16, 1993 12:00 AM
by ALLEN C. SOONG

On October 7, a Time/CNN poll showed that 60 percent of Americans opposed U.S. presence in Somalia. In the same poll, Clinton's approval rating on foreign policy was a paltry 37 percent.

But when former President Bush sent the first American troops to Somalia late last year, few had qualms about our lack of selfinterest in the war. Ten months ago, a poll showed that 79 percent of Americans favored U.S. involvement.

Clinton now uses the credibility argument to justify the continued presence of troops in Somalia--at least until March 31, his self-imposed deadline for withdrawal. But U.S. credibility is undermined by the ambivalence of the American public. Self-imposed deadlines, while reassuring to the electorate, also tell Aidid how much longer he must wait until he is free of American harassment and can resume the brutal status quo ante.

International terrorism is on the rise today, and the bipolar balance of terror has degenerated into a motley bunch of renegade regimes, all pounding on the door of the nuclear club. Just as Americans are growing uncomfortable with our new role as de facto globocop, our share of the burden grows larger. Our allies are passing the buck: Boutros-Ghali has reported that France, Italy, Belgium, Jordan, and Tunisia are considering pulling out of Somalia before the U.S.

As Margaret Thatcher told Bush on the eve of the Gulf War, now is not the time to waver.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=227754

GWR: I wonder if the pork in the bill was put there to assure a veto?

Rangel's comment notwithstanding, I was wondering that myself. Mind you, up until 3 or so years ago I didn't pay much attention to politics. But one thing that has become exceedingly clear is that our congresscritters rarely say exactly what they mean. Most of the time you have to read between the lines. I think it was Schumer who said recently that the Dems intend to keep ratcheting up the pressure, which of course could very well mean that they knew this bill would never pass Bush's veto. Then Feingold and Reid announce their bill, which is very much more restrictive. I'm still trying to figure out what that really means, because there's no freakin' way that's going to pass. Then Bush comes out today and said, "They [Dems] need to come off their vacation, get a bill to my desk, and if it's got strings and mandates and withdrawals and pork I'll veto it. And then we can get down to the business of getting this thing done." Of course the "strings and mandates and withdrawals" are all really the same thing. The fact that he mentioned it in triplicate suggests to me he knows what's coming -- i.e., he suspects that the Dems will drop the pork and keep the "strings and mandates and withdrawals". In which case, it seems to me that the Dems might have the congressional GOP between a rock and a hard place. They can't very well employ congressional maneuvers to block a bill that is more palatable than they one they allowed to pass, could they? If they do employ congressional maneuvers, they could be easily perceived as obstructionist. If they don't, they will look feckless, and Bush will have to veto the bill again. At which point I suspect the sparks are really going to fly. And as you correctly pointed out, who gets burned might very well depend on how much progress Iraq has made in the military and political arenas by then.

And frankly, I think it would be a good thing if the Iraqis felt the fire. We can't babysit them forever. So I actually do appreciate the fact that the Dems are forcing the issue. I'm not the only one, either -- the new SecDef Gates said as much a few days ago. In fact, up until this afternoon I thought it might be part of some kind of good cop/bad cop game. But Bush's recess appointment of Fox as Belgian ambassador put the kibosh on that thought. That's bound to stir up hornets. So I'm very curious how the Dems will respond. They may just go ballistic, and tear apart whatever coalition they thought they were building. It could get very interesting. At the same time it could also get very sad - both for American politics and especially for the troops in harm's way. No matter how much you or anyone else hates it, Bush is the president. You can try to push him to the wall, but trying to push him through it requires considerably more muscle than the Dems have at this point in time. And if they try to pull the rug out from under Bush, suddenly you guys (Dems) own whatever happens in Iraq. And that could have repurcussions for a generation or more. Are you prepared for that?

Of course the Dems have to keep putting on pressure, they have nothing else to offer.

I am amazed at the lack of historical knowledge of many of our liberal posters on this site. You keep harping on the "occupation" of Iraq. When are we going to end the Marshal plan? That has been going on since WWII. Where is the exit strategy for that?

You libs talk about us being lemmings, yet you are the ones who keep saying the same thing over and over and over. The dems have shown they are opposed to anything the other side wants to do. That is not leadership.

This bill was set up as just more of the obstructionist means of the Dems. They know it. They have to play to their base of hippies and peaceniks or they won't be re-elected. They are taking their orders from moveon and Soros. They are showing America what they really are, though, and that is a good thing. All this will be fodder for the Presidential election. Rule by opposition is not leadership.

Goat: I am amazed at the lack of historical knowledge of many of our liberal posters on this site. You keep harping on the "occupation" of Iraq. When are we going to end the Marshal plan? That has been going on since WWII. Where is the exit strategy for that?

Count me among the ignorant. I'm afraid you're going to have to explain your comment a little more. I'm just guessing, but is it possible you're conflating our NATO obligations with the Marshall plan?

Deleted - overly insulting - commenter banned

Posted by: GoreWarRight at April 4, 2007 06:13 PM

I hope GWR is still around to hear me *laughing*, Bwahahhahaaahahaaahahaahahaahahahhahaaa!!!! Good riddens to morons like him!!!

"In the end, they will be forced to allow a clean bill to arrive at the President's desk."

Don't count on it, as bad as these people are I wouldn't be surprised if they delayed doing anything as long as they could for the express purpose of letting our forces do without.

And with the public support for the war long eroded (through media manipulation and half truths but eroded non the less.) I don't suspect they will meet much resistance from the general public in regards to their dealings surrounding the war or anything else.