President Bush Vetoes Democrat War Spending Bill

Maklershed

Maklershed

CAGiversary!
Feedback
77 (100%)
Highlights of the press conference are as follows

Bill is unacceptable:

-Mandates deadline for troops in Iraq
-Makes no sense to tell enemy when you plan on withdraw .. "they'll mark their calendars and plan to overthrow Iraq"
-Troop withrdaw would discourage Iraqi people
-Withdraw would "encourage killers" across middle east
-Bill sets a deadline for failure (I suppose he's suggesting we're failing right now but will succeed sometime in the future)

Also, the bill would impose impossible conditions on commanders in combat
Commanders would be at will of politicans in Washington (unlike now :roll:)

Billions of dollars in non emergency spending that has nothing to do with the war on terror is included in the bill


--------
New strategy is being employed in Iraq:

Iraqi and troops must secure capital
Iraqis must uphold rule of law and fight extremists, radicals, and "killers" along side U.S. troops

-----

Results thus far:

Since January the number of sectarian murders has declined

-----

Closing thoughts:

-Insurgent ttacks are work of al-qaeda "the enemy we should be fighting"
-Part of al-qaeda's tactics are to "break support for war here at home" (yes he actually said that)
-many of the 9/11 terrorist group belonged to al-qaeda within Iraq
-We must insure al-qaeda does not spread to Iraq
-Congress must pass emergency war spending bill quickly
 
I can understand some of the opposition, but what the fuck are we gonna do? We're in a pretty messed up situation now.
 
[quote name='Maklershed']
Billions of dollars in non emergency spending that has nothing to do with the war on terror is included in the bill

[/QUOTE]

Just like the hundreds of billions wasted when Republicans were "in control" of the country.

And maybe Bush should come out today and say mission accomplished.
 
I thought the most interesting part of Bush's speech (and perhaps this is a logical fallacy in my thinking) was the line "this bill sets a deadline for failure".

Well wouldnt that suggest that a) Bush is openly admitting we're failing right now or b) we're succeeding right now but we'll begin to fail between now and October.
 
Bushie boy wouldn't even need this extra money if he hadn't been playing games with the U.S. budget all these years, treating the war as a separate expenditure rather than folding it into the comprehensive budget.

Repubs let him get away with that tactic forever, so they could mask the cost of this godawful mess, and now that cheap tactic is coming back to bite him on the ass.
 
Regardless of what we do, at this point this is a damn if you do damn if you don't situation.
 
I really love the whole "well if we set a deadline, they'll just sit and wait for us to leave to overthrow the country" the thing is though, we HAVE to leave at some point and they're going to know we've left when we do end up leaving so unless we kill every one of them before then what's the difference anyway?

[quote name='net2']Regardless of what we do, at this point this is a damn if you do damn if you don't situation.[/QUOTE]

See, that's the thing, we're fucked either way at this point. The best idea really is getting to seem like to cut our losses.
 
yeah, so, not that this was surprising but is this guy the worst ever or what?
 
[quote name='Apossum']yeah, so, not that this was surprising but is this guy the worst ever or what?[/QUOTE]

Well, looking at his approval ratings, yeah pretty much...
 
Could you imagine what we could we be doing with the billions of dollars saved if it were never sunk on this pointless war? It could be going to education, social security, finding Bin Laden, etc.
 
The reasons he gave are so disingenuous and ran contradictory to what he has done. It's despicable that President of the U.S can shamelessly lie like this and still uphold his sadistic smirk.
 
[quote name='Maklershed']Could you imagine what we could we be doing with the billions of dollars saved if it were never sunk on this pointless war? It could be going to education, social security, finding Bin Laden, etc.[/QUOTE]

You forgot rebuilding New York, rebuilding the Gulf Coast, securing our borders, and paying toward the national debt but hey at least conquering Iraq is making America safer right?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']You forgot rebuilding New York, rebuilding the Gulf Coast, securing our borders, and paying toward the national debt but hey at least conquering Iraq is making America safer right?[/quote]

It would have made the world a little safer if the Iraqi people didn't decide to they wanted to start killing each other in a religious civil war as soon as Saddam was gone.
 
[quote name='dallow']It would have made the world a little safer if the Iraqi people didn't decide to they wanted to start killing each other in a religious civil war as soon as Saddam was gone.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, fuckers should have gone quietly and accepted their occupation.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Yeah, fuckers should have gone quietly and accepted their occupation.[/QUOTE]


As scary as this is a agree. Do people forget that the United State was freed in 1776 but we didn't have a working Constitution or a president until 1789?
 
[quote name='David85']As scary as this is a agree. Do people forget that the United State was freed in 1776 but we didn't have a working Constitution or a president until 1789?[/QUOTE]

Think about it like this. How well would it have gone over if France had decided to stick around with a strong military presence after we had driven out Britain after our Revolutionary war?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Yeah, fuckers should have gone quietly and accepted their occupation.[/quote]

There wouldn't have been a need to occupy and control with martial law if they didn't start killing each other.

Did you see Afghanistan? They got on the ball. Though with resources now stretched, Taliban are making a comeback.
 
[quote name='Maklershed']Could you imagine what we could we be doing with the billions of dollars saved if it were never sunk on this pointless war? It could be going to education, social security, finding Bin Laden, etc.[/QUOTE]



Bin Laden? Who's that? ;)


sucks that's a viable joke :roll: This whole thing has been, sorry to those offended by the word, retarded.
 
[quote name='dallow']There wouldn't have been a need to occupy and control with martial law if they didn't start killing each other.

Did you see Afghanistan? They got on the ball. Though with resources now stretched, Taliban are making a comeback.[/quote]

If you really want to blame someone, don't blame the Iraqis. People kill people, it's happened for thousands of years. However, whoever drafted up the borders for 'Iraq' (I think it was Britain) made a huge error in lumping these people together that didn't want to be with each other.
 
[quote name='dallow']There wouldn't have been a need to occupy and control with martial law if they didn't start killing each other.[/QUOTE]
That's like blowing up a dam and blaming the water and gravity for flooding everything.

Saddam was a bastard, but he kept the Shia and Sunni from starting a civil war. When we took him out without a good plan to keep the peace, they resume their centuries old feud. Duh!
 
4 years plus and I'm still waiting for someone who supports this fucking war to simply define the word "success."

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, April 2007 featured more military casualties than any prior month since the start of the occupation. Including the older brother of a good friend of mine from back in the day.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=323

Two major points from this survey:
1) 59% of all Americans support a timeline for withdrawal, compared with 33% who do not. 8% did not answer.
2) Among all Republicans, *MORE* would support a presidential candidate who has a different plan for military action in Iraq from Bush (49%) than would support a candidate who plans on continuing Bush's approach (44%). Just outside (outside, not inside) the margin of error, kids.
 
[quote name='Maklershed']Could you imagine what we could we be doing with the billions of dollars saved if it were never sunk on this pointless war? It could be going to education, social security, finding Bin Laden, etc.[/QUOTE]


i'm pretty sure those billions of dollars would have ended up sucked up in something like missile defense or bridges to nowhere.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']4 years plus and I'm still waiting for someone who supports this fucking war to simply define the word "success."

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, April 2007 featured more military casualties than any prior month since the start of the occupation. Including the older brother of a good friend of mine from back in the day.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=323

Two major points from this survey:
1) 59% of all Americans support a timeline for withdrawal, compared with 33% who do not. 8% did not answer.
2) Among all Republicans, *MORE* would support a presidential candidate who has a different plan for military action in Iraq from Bush (49%) than would support a candidate who plans on continuing Bush's approach (44%). Just outside (outside, not inside) the margin of error, kids.[/QUOTE]

Success in Iraq means a solution that doesn't end up similar to Vietnam, plain and simple. I firmly believe that's all the president is shooting for at this point, either bobble it around till he's out of office and its someone else's problem or some way to leave without looking like a backtracking idiot. I don't think he really cares about the people of Iraq anymore (I don't doubt that he did at one point) and I think his opinion is similar to that of dallow, its their fault that things aren't working in Iraq because they keep on killing each other and not listening to what we tell them to do.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']That's like blowing up a dam and blaming the water and gravity for flooding everything.

Saddam was a bastard, but he kept the Shia and Sunni from starting a civil war. When we took him out without a good plan to keep the peace, they resume their centuries old feud. Duh![/quote]

That's just what those Iraqis do. Fight and fight and fight. They need a good, strong dictator to keep them in line.

Enforcing such quaint, exceptionalist values as human rights is so judgemental anyway. Who are we to talk? We owned slaves at one point.

And, also, it couldn't possibly be the fact that nations like Iran and Syria are funnelling in whatever they can to stir up the situation. The sooner we leave, the sooner the world becomes convinced that we are the paper tiger Osama makes us out to be, that there is absolutely no national interest Americans will stomach fighting for.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Enforcing such quaint, exceptionalist values as human rights is so judgemental anyway. [/QUOTE]
Which human rights are we enforcing again - waterboarding, extraordinary rendition, Abu Ghraib? And life is a human right, right? How many Iraqis have died in the last 4 years versus the number than died under the previous 4 years with Saddam? We have taken a deplorable condition and made it much worse and that's what we'll be remembered for in the region. That's the Bush legacy.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Success in Iraq means a solution that doesn't end up similar to Vietnam, plain and simple. I firmly believe that's all the president is shooting for at this point, either bobble it around till he's out of office and its someone else's problem or some way to leave without looking like a backtracking idiot. I don't think he really cares about the people of Iraq anymore (I don't doubt that he did at one point) and I think his opinion is similar to that of dallow, its their fault that things aren't working in Iraq because they keep on killing each other and not listening to what we tell them to do.[/QUOTE]

I dunno. You may be onto something (that the blame can be spread equally among presidents even if the Iraq occupation stretches 1 day into the next president's term, which it surely will).

However, while I agree that getting any definition of success out of the administration and war planners is a fool's errand, I highly doubt that they'd admit to what you suggest, precisely because it requires them to admit to something they have patently refused to do for years now - admit that this war is a big, bad, awful mistake. I want someone to explain to me what "success" is from the vantage point of someone who has never wavered on the righteousness of this war.
 
[quote name='Maklershed']And while we're at it ... a definition of success (or even who our opponent is) in relation to the "War on Terror".[/QUOTE]

Bin Laden in captivity would be good enough for me.

The problem with America's "War on ......" mentality is that its always an ambigious goal. We've had the "War on Poverty," "War on Drugs," and now the "War on Terror" and yet every time we're supposed to get behind these "wars" there's almost no way to win. I mean there's almost no way we're ever going to completely rid the world of poverty, drugs, or terrorism yet we have this war anyway...
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Which human rights are we enforcing again - waterboarding, extraordinary rendition, Abu Ghraib? And life is a human right, right? How many Iraqis have died in the last 4 years versus the number than died under the previous 4 years with Saddam? We have taken a deplorable condition and made it much worse and that's what we'll be remembered for in the region. That's the Bush legacy.[/quote]
You're right! We're just like Saddam!

Geez, that's a hell of a metric. Any and all deaths in Iraq after the invasion? Just as if we had killed them. As opposed to the ones that Saddam killed.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']You're right! We're just like Saddam!

Geez, that's a hell of a metric. Any and all deaths in Iraq after the invasion? Just as if we had killed them. As opposed to the ones that Saddam killed.[/QUOTE]
With your kind of logic, you belong on Fox News. Are the dead Iraqis that we killed somehow better off than the ones Saddam killed because we did it with only the best intentions while Saddam is pure evil incarnate?

Are you saying we have no responsibility for the deaths in the current civil war? We destabilized the region and failed to prevent it. We broke it, we own it.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']With your kind of logic, you belong on Fox News. Are the dead Iraqis that we killed somehow better off than the ones Saddam killed because we did it with only the best intentions while Saddam is pure evil incarnate?

Are you saying we have no responsibility for the deaths in the current civil war? We destabilized the region and failed to prevent it. We broke it, we own it.[/quote]

"lol faux newz is reich wnig!!!111" aside...

The dead Iraqis we killed were by and large trying to kill us or other Iraqis. You're playing rhetorical shell games here, equating Saddam's murders of innocents with our killings of combatants and accidental killings of the civilians they use as human shields.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']"lol faux newz is reich wnig!!!111" aside...

The dead Iraqis we killed were by and large trying to kill us or other Iraqis. You're playing rhetorical shell games here, equating Saddam's murders of innocents with our killings of combatants and accidental killings of the civilians they use as human shields.[/QUOTE]
Our Kills = Good
Saddam's Kills = Bad

I got it now. :roll: I hope the Iraqis see it your way too so they won't hate us for killing them and letting the place go to hell in a handbasket.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Our Kills = Good
Saddam's Kills = Bad

I got it now. :roll: I hope the Iraqis see it your way too so they won't hate us for killing them and letting the place go to hell in a handbasket.[/quote]

I pegged you three posts up. "WE MURDER IRAQIS JUST LIKE SADDAM."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']4 years plus and I'm still waiting for someone who supports this fucking war to simply define the word "success."
[/quote]
Well whatd'ya know .. straight from the man himself:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/President_Bush_Defines_Iraq_Success_in_0502.html


[quote name='Rawstory']The President earlier today defined success in Iraq. He said, "Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our country that, as you know, have a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives, and that's what we're trying to achieve."[/quote]

So basically Bush plans to keep us in Iraq forever. There are many parts of the U.S. where people dont feel comfortable living their daily lives. Anyone feel like takin a stroll into inner city Baltimore?
 
OMG TEH PREZ READS CAG!

Well, at least that's a somewhat measurable outcome. A pretty difficult and ambiguous thing to measure, to be sure, but well...it's something. Certainly not the "success" of 2003, 4, 5, or part of 6...but still a measure of success.
 
[quote name='Maklershed']Well whatd'ya know .. straight from the man himself:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/President_Bush_Defines_Iraq_Success_in_0502.html

So basically Bush plans to keep us in Iraq forever. There are many parts of the U.S. where people dont feel comfortable living their daily lives. Anyone feel like takin a stroll into inner city Baltimore?[/QUOTE]

Kerry applied the same standards to the war on terror during the presidential campaign, saying he felt that terrorism is a law-enforcement issue that can never be eliminated but should be reduced until it's nothing more than a "nuisance."

That statement prompted loud and long howls of right-wing outrage. Now Bush says the same thing, essentially, and where is that outrage?

The cons are power-hungry hypocrites, to a man, intellectually dishonest and outright offensive. I'm surprised anyone takes anything they say seriously anymore, as much credibility as they've lost.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']The cons are power-hungry hypocrites, to a man, intellectually dishonest and outright offensive. I'm surprised anyone takes anything they say seriously anymore, as much credibility as they've lost.[/quote]
I say the same thing about the libs daily.

And, Crotch, I see the real reason you tend to stay off forums like these: You cite folks like Lancet. ;)

Exit Question: After we left Vietnam, civilian deaths rose in Cambodia, to borrow Crotch's metric, 900 trillion million billion percent. Were those our fault too?

Thought Experiment: Because of the sanctions levied on Iraq, a great, great number of Iraqis starved to death. Do their lives have more moral weight than the ones accidently killed by the Americans or purposely killed by Saddam's regime?
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']I say the same thing about the libs daily.[/QUOTE]

And that makes ABOUT AS MUCH SENSE as anything YOU EVER POSTED.

which IS of COURSE VERY LITTlE.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Impact factor don't belong in CAG, dammit.

;)[/QUOTE]

I know. How dare he try to raise the level of discourse!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top