Chuck~Taylor
Active Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,422
OMG, is that Jake?CentralIllinoisan said:OR
What - no VETO thread?
- Thread starter Yawn
- Start date
CentralIllinoisan
Active Member
No. I wish I had a camera that took that high quality of an image. Jake's in the sidesaddle.
And here ...
And here ...
Point of Order
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Messages
- 7,067
Chuck~Taylor
Active Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,422
Point of Order said:
Someone get that vid to Kanye, stat.
A
ADifferentOkie
Guest
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?
"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?
F
Fenian_Bastard
Guest
Watch the 10 Little Idiots run away from this guy at the debate on Thursday.
User 1019
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 17,679
The Good Doctor said:
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?
Yawn said:
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.
A
ADifferentOkie
Guest
If you can't bury your dead, it should be a pretty good indication that you shouldn't live there.
Birdscribe
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2003
- Messages
- 6,266
three_bags_full said:
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 ***** 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.
D
D-Backs Hack
Guest
There are several reasons New Orleans is where it is. Here are two rather significant ones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_New_Orleans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_South_Louisiana
And once again, if I believed that our presence in Iraq is noble and successful, and I was secure in that belief, I wouldn't have to make spurious comparisons to New Orleans in a pathetic attempt to guilt those against the war. (And Bush apologists trying to bat down Iraq war critics by redirecting to . . . Hurricane Katrina relief is one of the most unintentionally funny things I've read in some time.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_New_Orleans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_South_Louisiana
And once again, if I believed that our presence in Iraq is noble and successful, and I was secure in that belief, I wouldn't have to make spurious comparisons to New Orleans in a pathetic attempt to guilt those against the war. (And Bush apologists trying to bat down Iraq war critics by redirecting to . . . Hurricane Katrina relief is one of the most unintentionally funny things I've read in some time.)
F
Fenian_Bastard
Guest
three_bags_full said:
You're right,
He was the guy who said we'd need 300K to do it right.
He was ignored by the WH and ridiculed throughout the elite opinion press.
F
Fenian_Bastard
Guest
RokSki said:
If the Netherlands can survive, New Orleans can survive.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Please allow me to interject my feelings about Mother Nature- Latest: Shropshire Slasher
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
