What - no VETO thread?

Baghdad Bush: "We're winning, we're winning!"

 

Someone get that vid to Kanye, stat.

 

Some excerpts from the CNN article...

"Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure, and that would be irresponsible," Bush said in a televised address after the veto.
"I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war," Bush said. "They've sent their message, and now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need."
Administration officials have said the money is urgently needed -- and that Democrats would be to blame for any hardships suffered by U.S. troops and their families. But the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has concluded that the Pentagon could wage war through July without additional funding.


Wrap your mind around this -- the President says allowing this bill would be "irresponsible."
This is the man who sent our troops to war for absolutely no reason other than to get the man who tried to kill his father.
This is the man who lied about why we were going to war and lied countless times about our evidence to support his claims.
This is the man who sent in not nearly enough troops, without body armor, without a clear plan and, apparently, without a clear objective (because we got Sadaam and we're still freakin' there).
Yet the Democrats will be to blame for hardships on the troops and their families.
Apparently it's my party responsible for the billions of dollars wasted and the thousands of lives lost in an unwinnable war with no cause or attainable goal.
Of course, this president has vetoed only two bills -- one that takes steps toward bringing home those troops he "supports" and another that would allow federal funding of stem cell research, which might lead to cures for deadly diseases.
Boy, that whole "sanctity of life" argument is just looking better all the time, huh Fredo?

 

Watch the 10 Little Idiots run away from this guy at the debate on Thursday.

 

They should, and they will, IMO

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki

Eric Shinseki was the ACS when I was a young enlisted soldier 95-01. I served on a security detail for/with him in Vicenza, Italy. I thought he was the guy who saind we needed more troops to begin with?

 

Nope. Not throwing money into New Orleans, and don't think anybody should. The city never should've been built. It's western hubris at its finest. And anybody who lived there was playing Russian roulette with hurricanes.

You're young ... if you're so frickin' gung-ho about the war, you should be there. Period. Quit sending somebody else's kids to do your dirty work.

 

I agree with this. It's such an unsound place to build.

That said, the levee builders (Army Corps of Engineers?) f'd up

 

If you can't bury your dead, it should be a pretty good indication that you shouldn't live there.

 

He would be the very same, TBF. Former Army Chief of Staff who said we'd need upward of 500,000 troops to accomplish the mission in Iraq. Whereupon Donald Rumsfeld in his infinite wisdom went Wall Street whore publisher on him and ushered Shinseki into early retirement.

After all, how can you start a political war with those pesky facts getting in the way?

If you're looking for failure and hypocrisy from this administration, this would be Exhibit 2,042.

 

Very good point. Unfortunately with global warming, it looks like there's going to be a lot more of this thing coming in the eras ahead