Bush vetoes troop withdrawal bill

[DeclinetoState]

By ANNE FLAHERTY and JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writers
32 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush vetoed legislation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq Tuesday night in a historic showdown with Congress over whether the unpopular and costly war should end or escalate.

In only the second veto of his presidency, Bush rejected legislation pushed by Democratic leaders that would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

"This is a prescription for chaos and confusion and we must not impose it on our troops," Bush said in a nationally broadcast statement from the White House. He said the bill would "mandate a rigid and artificial deadline" for troop pullouts, and "it makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing."
More (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070501/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq;_ylt=AqK4GnKzx5T51bYlcaPj4NSs0NUE)

[DesertFox]

:claps:

[Air-Warrior]

Didn't I hear that the Dems snuck in the minimum wage legislation into this bill...hoping to further Demagogue President Bush?





Stupid Jack...http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b112/C2A/58be17b6.jpgsses

[TheIrishman]

They had 20 or 40 billion dollars worth of funding for their favorite social programs. That should have been enough!

[Tracker2001]

Too bad we don't have itemized veto power for the President in cases like this. So many Senators and Congressman throwing in all kinds of junk into a bill that has nothing to do with over half the stuff in the bill itself...:shame: .

[GOP Woman]

Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Statement by the President on the Iraq War Supplemental Veto


THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Twelve weeks ago, I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave men and women in uniform with the funds and flexibility they need.


Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders. So a few minutes ago, I vetoed this bill.


Tonight I will explain the reasons for this veto -- and my desire to work with Congress to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. We can begin tomorrow with a bipartisan meeting with the congressional leaders here at the White House.


Here is why the bill Congress passed is unacceptable. First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq. That withdrawal could start as early as July 1st. And it would have to start no later than October 1st, regardless of the situation on the ground.


It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength -- and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq. I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure -- and that would be irresponsible.


Second, the bill would impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat. After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms on which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy. That means American commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C. This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops.


Third, the bill is loaded with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror. Congress should debate these spending measures on their own merits -- and not as part of an emergency funding bill for our troops.


The Democratic leaders know that many in Congress disagree with their approach, and that there are not enough votes to override a veto. I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. They've sent their message. And now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need.

http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6924 (http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6924)

[DeclinetoState]

The libs will have you believe, however, that once you set a timetable for withdrawal, the <del>insurgents</del> terrorists will see no reason to fight and quickly go out of business.

[Beowulf]

Didn't I hear that the Dems snuck in the minimum wage legislation into this bill...hoping to further Demagogue President Bush?





Stupid Jack...http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b112/C2A/58be17b6.jpgsses

They also stuck in a provision for dairy farmers. Just another Liberal dirty tactic to make more people hate him.

[Nutrider99]

Balls wanted:

Republican Party is in desperate need of a pair of balls. Said balls would be responsible for representatives of the party to draft a clean bill with nothing in it but the required spending, and demand a roll call vote in the House and Senate on the troop funding alone. In addition, these balls would have the responsiblity of prompting the GOP to release a detailed list of everything in the bill that the president vetoed, including the pork listed by benificiary and the minimum wage proposal.

Please reply in person. A neutered party is in desperate need of you.

[Rhino]

The libs weren't really trying to get a timetable. They knew it would never pass. They're trying to get concessions in a 'compromise' bill, and I fear what those concessions might be. So far, the republicans seem quite willing to compromise, and that scares me.

[MrSanity]

Good boy.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb0430wj.jpg

[MrsJacks]

This is why we need a line-item veto system. I was talking with a Marine one day and he was telling me to not believe the libs when they say Bush doesn't care about the soldiers because he wouldn't approve the funding for body armor. Come to find out, the dems were throwing petty crap in the bill with the funding for the armor, i.e., "I want to have a statue of so-and-so erected in my hometown" or "My home state needs new books in their libraries". So Bush wasn't going to approve all of that other stuff, so he vetoed the entire bill, thus giving the libs room to cry foul.

[DeclinetoState]

WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled House failed Wednesday to override President Bush's veto of an Iraqi war spending bill with timetables for troop withdrawals. Lawmakers went directly to the White House to talk about a new version.

Yesterday was a day that highlighted differences," Bush said. "Today is the day where we can work together to find common ground."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/politics/news/ap/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq/22863432/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22Harry%20Reid%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw), bio (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/capadv/bio/ap/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq/22863432/SIG=11716otss/*http://yahoo.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=370), voting record (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/capadv/vote/ap/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq/22863432/SIG=11geijvn3/*http://yahoo.capwiz.com/y/bio/keyvotes/?id=370)) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/politics/news/ap/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq/22863432/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22Nancy%20Pelosi%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw), bio (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/capadv/bio/ap/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq/22863432/SIG=117oqqabu/*http://yahoo.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=447), voting record (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/capadv/vote/ap/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq/22863432/SIG=11g9ra9e6/*http://yahoo.capwiz.com/y/bio/keyvotes/?id=447)) sat on either side of the president. The Democratic leaders were stone-faced as Bush made his brief statement. The White House meeting started late, apparently delayed by the failed override attempt.

"I'm confident we can reach agreement," Bush said.
More (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iraq)

"Stone-faced"? Isn't Nancy that way most of the time anyway?

[GOP Woman]

More (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iraq)

"Stone-faced"? Isn't Nancy that way most of the time anyway?
I thought she had more of a plastic face. :evilgrin: Scroll down to the bottom of the page. http://www.mullings.com:80/dr_11-11-02.htm (http://www.mullings.com:80/dr_11-11-02.htm)

[Rhino]

More (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iraq)

"Stone-faced"? Isn't Nancy that way most of the time anyway?No. She's "stoned-faced". Small grammatical difference, but big descriptive difference.

[Naturalized-Texan]

http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoons/IMAGES/cartoons/toon050307.gif

[nene]

Punkass dems. Nothing is more Un-American than a punkass dem.

[EveningStar]

This is only the second veto Bush has made in 6+ years. He should have been vetoing all those other pork programs too.

[Rhino]

Democrats Seek Compromise With White House Over Iraq War Funding

Thursday, May 03, 2007

WASHINGTON — President Bush sent his top deputy to Capitol Hill Thursday in hopes of reaching a compromise with Congress over how to fund American troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

After the House failed to gain a two-thirds majority Wednesday to override the president's veto to a $124.2 billion bill ordering troops to begin coming home by Oct. 1, lawmakers say they are ready to work with the White House.

White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten will meet with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Lawmakers hope to get a new bill to the White House by Memorial Day.

Democrats indicate they might back off their previous demand to begin withdrawing troops, but want influence on war policy through benchmarks set for the Iraqis to achieve such as disarming militias, reconciling Sunnis and Shiites, sharing oil resources and spending its own money on reconstruction efforts.

"The goal is obviously to strengthen our military, to support our troops, to honor our promises to our veterans, to hold the Iraqis accountable so that we can end this war, to bring stability to the region, to turn our attention to the War on Terror," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said after meeting with Bush at the White House shortly after the failed House vote......http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269830,00.html

Told ya so.

[Jester21]

Bush vetoed the bill because it put a deadline on withdrawals. I'm pretty confident that all the stuff that had 'nothing to do with the war on terror' would've been ok with him, as long as it didn't prevent him from being able to foist this cluster**** off onto the next President. I'm sure he would like to win, but short of that his most pressing need re: Iraq is to keep the troops there until January 2009, when it becomes someone else's problem.

Another question (seriously): Why are there still 'emergency' spending bills for this war? Shouldn't they start including this in the official military budget?

[libertyman]

Too bad you can count on one hand the # of bills President Bush has vetoed all these years. Just a coincidence that he found his "Veto Pen" the very day the Dims take over Congress, is it not? :claps:

[DeclinetoState]

Well, I can understand why he'd be reluctant to veto anything a Republican-controlled Congress sent him, though there were several occasions where his veto probably would have been the right thing to do (e.g., McCain-Feingold).

[Naturalized-Texan]

Bush vetoed the bill because it put a deadline on withdrawals. I'm pretty confident that all the stuff that had 'nothing to do with the war on terror' would've been ok with him, as long as it didn't prevent him from being able to foist this cluster**** off onto the next President. I'm sure he would like to win, but short of that his most pressing need re: Iraq is to keep the troops there until January 2009, when it becomes someone else's problem.
I think that it's the exact opposite. I think that President Bush wants to either win the War on Terror or at least have it well on the way to be won before he leaves office. He knows as well as we do that if the Dims win the next election, there will be a surrender to the terrorists and the result will be the slaughter of millions, if not tens of millions, of innocent Americans, including our children and grandchildren. He want to prevent that slaughter.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Well, I can understand why he'd be reluctant to veto anything a Republican-controlled Congress sent him, though there were several occasions where his veto probably would have been the right thing to do (e.g., McCain-Feingold).
Yeah, he should have vetoed McCain Feingold. He didn't because he was convinced that the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional.

He probably should have vetoed some of the spending bills because of the pork contained therein. However, discretionary spending for non-DoD/non-Homeland Security has actually declined since President Bush took office. The only areas where discretionary spending has increased is for DoD and Homeland Security. It's mandatory spending that is out of control. However, despite all that, the deficits have declined dramatically since the Bush tax rate cuts were enacted and this year's deficit may be down to about $150 billion.

[DoctorDoom]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Politics/Pelosi.jpg

Those were Beta models of the Nandroid. Here's the production unit.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Politics/nancy_pelosi.jpg

[GOP Woman]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Politics/Pelosi.jpg


Those were Beta models of the Nandroid. Here's the production unit.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Politics/nancy_pelosi.jpg

Now, that's scary.

[Lubbock]

I don't believe the one on the right is the same woman as the one on the left. There is 25 years difference in those women's ages.

If it is, which I doubt, what the hell happened to her in less than a year?

Crack cocaine is the only thing I can think of that could age someone that much, that quick, but usually, after a year, the teeth and gums are a rotted mass of black.

[DoctorDoom]

The site claims that they are both Pelosi, but I agree that the one on the left doesn't appeasr to be her. Too many facial features don't match -- eyebrows, nose, chin, etc.

Still, lighting, camera angle, makeup and other pro photog factors can turn a sow's ear into a silk purse, q.v., Monica.

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Politics/lewinsky.jpg">

[DeclinetoState]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Politics/Pelosi.jpgI don't believe the one on the right is the same woman as the one on the left. There is 25 years difference in those women's ages.

If it is, which I doubt, what the hell happened to her in less than a year?

Crack cocaine is the only thing I can think of that could age someone that much, that quick, but usually, after a year, the teeth and gums are a rotted mass of black.The one on the left looks attractive--well, almost. It's the more recent pic, too.

I wouldn't be surprised if she were someone else, however.

[GOP Woman]

The 2 pics came from Mullings.com http://www.mullings.com:80/dr_11-11-02.htm (http://www.mullings.com/dr_11-11-02.htm), which is a blog writen by Rich Galen, a Republican strategist (he's pretty cool, btw. The blog has a lot of humor in it besides good information). I think the point was that Pelosi must have had plastic surgery to look that much younger in the pic in the left than the one on the right. That's why in post # 14 I said she had more of a plastic than a stone face. I believe they both are her.

[MrSanity]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Politics/Pelosi.jpg

She doesn't even carry her banner openly when it comes to being an old hag.

[Lubbock]

But the one on the RIGHT --supposedly taken a year before the one on the left, is what Bella Pelosi actually looks like at this moment in time. We all know what she looks like here and now. The one on the right IS PELOSI.

There is a twenty five year difference in the ages of the women in those pictures.

Yes, the women do resemble one another, but the one on the left could be Pelosi's daughter for no other reason then the difference in age.

Huge age difference in those women.

2001. 2002.

It's now 2007.

Disregard the difference in lighting or filters. The noses are not the same. Look at what you can see of the neck of the woman on the left. Now look at Pelosi's neck.

If someone told me that the photo on the left was a shot of Pelosi when she was making her first political run many, many years ago, I might believe it's actually her.

If that's what plastic surgery and botox does for you, we women should take a lesson.

Stay away from it. Far, far away.

[MrSanity]

She thinks she's hot stuff now.

I prefer her in a burqa, personally.

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/mrsanity/pc-pelosi.jpg

[CzechPrince]

Bush should have signed this bill. We've done enough for Iraq. The Iraqi Force has 100,000+ members. They have a government and a constitution. If they cannot handle their own country, tough.

[Rhino]

Yeah, let's forget about the Middle East and all park our cars in the garage permanently. That'll work.

[CountryGent]

What are the Democratic Leftist Moonbats going to say to the American people if they force our troop withdrawal from the Middle East; the entire region erupts in bloodshed (with diaperheads killing off diaperheads); oil supply to the USA (and the world) is severely disrupted; and all those poor yuppies have no damn gas to get to their Bush/Government Protest events?

[DoctorDoom]

Bush should have signed this bill. We've done enough for Iraq. The Iraqi Force has 100,000+ members. They have a government and a constitution. If they cannot handle their own country, tough.Good thinking, child. And I envision the speech that the cowards want him to make.

"With the signing of this bill, I am affirming to the world that the United States is no longer capable of winning wars because we now allow our military operations to be dictated by treasonous politicians and unwashed, unshaven, slogan-shouting, braindead assholes marching in the streets.

"To the Islamic monsters, you win! America no longer has the will or the balls to combat you. I hereby turn Iraq over to you and your demonic religion, and say to the Iraqi people, 'Screw you, you're on your own.'

"To those who died in the Word Trade Center, the Pentagon and Flight 93, tough shit! Your deaths are meaningless.

"To our soldiers who have made the supreme sacrifice, your lives have been made worthless. America is now run by spineless, gutless, weak-kneed apologists, compromisers and surrenderists who will kiss the ass of America's enemies, and by political parasites whose psychotic loathing of me will drive them to sell out their country to those who would destroy it.

"And so .... *signs the bill* ..... you're f**ked!"


Then again, here's the speech I'd love to see.

"After due consideration, I hereby give this bill all the consideration that it deserves." He drops his pants and wipes his butt with it.

"As of this moment, I am hereby declaring martial law. Effective immediately, all those who have tried their utmost to destroy America will be rounded up and executed by firing squads. And to the Islamofascist bastards, Mecca will be much easier to face. Just look for the really big mushroom that will shortly be growing over it.

"This Texas cowboy has had it up to his ten-gallon hat with you liberal/leftist scumbags. You're outa here. Have a nice day."

[CountryGent]

Then again, here's the speech I'd love to see.

"After due consideration, I hereby give this bill all the consideration that it deserves." He drops his pants and wipes his butt with it.

"As of this moment, I am hereby declaring martial law. Effective immediately, all those who have tried their utmost to destroy America will be rounded up and executed by firing squads. And to the Islamofascist bastards, Mecca will be much easier to face. Just look for the really big mushroom that will shortly be growing over it.

"This Texas cowboy has had it up to his ten-gallon hat with you liberal/leftist scumbags. You're outa here. Have a nice day.":claps::claps::claps::claps:

Amen and let's roll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lazarus]

Bush should have signed this bill. We've done enough for Iraq. The Iraqi Force has 100,000+ members. They have a government and a constitution. If they cannot handle their own country, tough.On principle, you're right, Prince... And Bush wants to get us out of Iraq as much as anyone... But the situation isnt as superficially simple as that...

If we pull out now, Iran will expand its control ove the Shi'ite population - clearly 1/2 of the total population of Iraq - and in effect vast parts of Iraq will become a Iranian colony - Including all the oil contained therein...

The government isnt stable and without our stabilizing effect, Iraq will become a lawless no-man's land - A taylor-made sanctuary for Al Quaida...

The only part of Iraq that would maintain some semblence of stability would the the Kurdish areas, and even then we would see an armed struggle between the Kurds and the Sunis over control of the oil fields in the Kurdish areas...

And then there's Turkey's long-standing lust to annex the Kurdish territories against the will of the Kurds - Again, for the oil...

We do need to get out as soon as is feasable, but the job isnt complete, and contrary to MSM reports, the US military is doing a great job there... Of course the Iraqis want us to go home, but the vast majority will tell you, NOT YET...

I was never a supporter of this concept of nation building and an arificially united Iraq... I have always believed that Iraq should have been allowed to naturally break into its component parts, under a controlled transition... And I believe this will still eventually happen in time...

But the global politics of the moment, especially with Iran trying to virtually take over the Middle East, we simply cannot abandon Iraq to those well funded, highly motivated predators who waiting to swallow it up...

We may still be able to start drawing down troops before Bush leaves office, but that decision must always be dictated by conditions on the ground in Iraq, not by the fickle popularity of the war in America...

Those who simply believe we can just load the boys on planes and fly em home, are grossly ignorant of what is at stake... Iraq is dead center in the middle of global politics and everyone is involved, including Russia and China, neither of which have our interests at heart... A lawless Iraq dominated by terrorists and Iran works against the interests of the US, which is to say works FOR Russia and China...

[CzechPrince]

Good thinking, child. And I envision the speech that the cowards want him to make.

"With the signing of this bill, I am affirming to the world that the United States is no longer capable of winning wars because we now allow our military operations to be dictated by treasonous politicians and unwashed, unshaven, slogan-shouting, braindead assholes marching in the streets.

"To the Islamic monsters, you win! America no longer has the will or the balls to combat you. I hereby turn Iraq over to you and your demonic religion, and say to the Iraqi people, 'Screw you, you're on your own.'

"To those who died in the Word Trade Center, the Pentagon and Flight 93, tough shit! Your deaths are meaningless.

"To our soldiers who have made the supreme sacrifice, your lives have been made worthless. America is now run by spineless, gutless, weak-kneed apologists, compromisers and surrenderists who will kiss the ass of America's enemies, and by political parasites whose psychotic loathing of me will drive them to sell out their country to those who would destroy it.

"And so .... *signs the bill* ..... you're f**ked!"


Then again, here's the speech I'd love to see.

"After due consideration, I hereby give this bill all the consideration that it deserves." He drops his pants and wipes his butt with it.

"As of this moment, I am hereby declaring martial law. Effective immediately, all those who have tried their utmost to destroy America will be rounded up and executed by firing squads. And to the Islamofascist bastards, Mecca will be much easier to face. Just look for the really big mushroom that will shortly be growing over it.

"This Texas cowboy has had it up to his ten-gallon hat with you liberal/leftist scumbags. You're outa here. Have a nice day."

It's not about cowardice, and I'm not a lefty scumbag, please don't be so dramatic. This has to do with us bending over backwards for this war and these people. It has to do with us needing to stop spoon-feeding the Iraqi people and governement. They need to take charge.

*We've given them a government.

*We ridded them of a mass murder.

*They have a constitution, thanks to us.

*They have a security force/military, thanks to us.

Furthermore, we should have Balkanized the hell out of Iraq. Three states: Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish. It would have been much easier to deal with and control. Then, leave it up to them if they wanted to be a united country. I'm just frustrated, because a lot of this turmoil could have been prevented, in my opinion, if elements I mentioned above were implemented.

[CzechPrince]

On principle, you're right, Prince... And Bush wants to get us out of Iraq as much as anyone... But the situation isnt as superficially simple as that...

At least you can see my point.

If we pull out now, Iran will expand its control ove the Shi'ite population - clearly 1/2 of the total population of Iraq - and in effect vast parts of Iraq will become a Iranian colony - Including all the oil contained therein...

Iran should have been dealt with before Iraq, in my opinion, but that's a whole other story.

Secondly, I'm trying to figure out what else needs to be accomplished before us to leave? There are going to be suicide bombers, now and post war, it's the Middle East! You can't change the nature of some people there.

The government isnt stable and without our stabilizing effect, Iraq will become a lawless no-man's land - A taylor-made sanctuary for Al Quaida...

Again, define stable. This is all subjective at this point. I think Iraq is stable enough, and if not, tough shit, it's not our problem. We've done our job. I'm not saying we pull out 100%, but the phasing needs to start, while keeping military bases there. We have people in Appalachia starving and were worried about Darfur, Iraq, this plighted country, that poor country, etc. It's ridiculous.

The only part of Iraq that would maintain some semblence of stability would the the Kurdish areas, and even then we would see an armed struggle between the Kurds and the Sunis over control of the oil fields in the Kurdish areas...

And then there's Turkey's long-standing lust to annex the Kurdish territories against the will of the Kurds - Again, for the oil...

Turky wouldn't do jack. That would be even more reason for Europe to not allow it into the EU if they tried to stick their noses in the Iraq affair. Bank on it. Turkey is much more concerned about getting an EU bid than they are about the Kurds.

We do need to get out as soon as is feasable, but the job isnt complete, and contrary to MSM reports, the US military is doing a great job there... Of course the Iraqis want us to go home, but the vast majority will tell you, NOT YET...

I know our soldiers are doing a fine job there, I have four friends over there right now, 3 of which I played soccer with practically my entire life. Every poll I have seen shows most Iraqi's want us out, and more importantly, I don't care what the Iraqi's want. We're doing them a favor in my view being there this long anyway.

I was never a supporter of this concept of nation building and an arificially united Iraq... I have always believed that Iraq should have been allowed to naturally break into its component parts, under a controlled transition... And I believe this will still eventually happen in time...

Exatly, but it should have been done from the get go, just like the Balkands.

[CountryGent]

I'm just frustrated, because a lot of this turmoil could have been prevented, in my opinion, if elements I mentioned above were implemented.And just forget all about the 3000+ Americans who lost their lives on 9/11 too. How kind hearted of you.:flame:

[DoctorDoom]

It's not about cowardice, and I'm not a lefty scumbag, please don't be so dramatic.I didn't say that you were, but if you think that the shoe fits ...

This has to do with us bending over backwards for this war and these people.It has to do with putting an end to Islamofascist terrorism. Where would you rather fight against the barbarians, in Baghdad or in New York City?

It has to do with us needing to stop spoon-feeding the Iraqi people and governement. They need to take charge.Need you be reminded that we still have thousands of US troops in Europe, and are still spending billions of dollars there, 62 years after the end of WW2?

When you grow up, kid, you'll realize that the world is full of assholes who live to kill and dominate. Appeasing them or surrendering to them is a 100% guarantee that they will grow bolder and more violent. I for one infinitely prefer to have the camel-f**king sons of bitches facing and being offed by armed soldiers over there than blowing up buildings and malls and churches and schools in America.

Do you want terrorism to become commonplace in the US? If so, then advocate surrendering to terrorism in the middle east.

[Nutrider99]

Iran should have been dealt with before Iraq, in my opinion, but that's a whole other story.
The spineless democreeps will not allow us to do anything about Iran until AFTER an Iranian nuke takes out a US city.

I think Iraq is stable enough, and if not, tough shit, it's not our problem. We've done our job.
Spoken like someone without a clue who we're fighting in Iraq. We are fighting terrorists who seek to kill Americans. Pull out of Iraq and we fight them in New York. Which makes more sense to you? The fastest way to eliminate tyrany is to bring freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq. No people willingly vote themselves into oppression. A free and prosperous Iraq will demostrate to the people of Iran that they CAN be free as well.

Assassination needs to be a principle tool against Iran. Kill every government official and every Islamic radical who sticks his head up. Drive them under ground so that the people can assume control of their country.

Nobody, certainly not Bush, ever said the war on terror would be easy. We are dealing with animals with whom you cannot negotiate. You protect your own only by hunting them down and killing them. When you stop hunting, you become the hunted.

[CountryGent]

Nobody, certainly not Bush, ever said the war on terror would be easy. We are dealing with animals with whom you cannot negotiate. You protect your own only by hunting them down and killing them. When you stop hunting, you become the hunted.:claps::claps::thumb::thumb:

[Naturalized-Texan]

If we withdraw from Iraq, we will also be surrendering in the War on Terror that we were forced into by the 9/11 attacks. That surrender will certainly result in the slaughter of millions, if not tens of millions, of innocent Americans in terrorist attacks.

[CzechPrince]

And just forget all about the 3000+ Americans who lost their lives on 9/11 too. How kind hearted of you.:flame:

That isn't even an refutation, rebuttal, or cohesive argument against my post. Try again.

[CzechPrince]

The spineless democreeps will not allow us to do anything about Iran until AFTER an Iranian nuke takes out a US city.


That might be true, but I'm not a democrat. Iran, in my view, posed a bigger threat to us than Iraq did and we should have bombed the shit out them. There is much more movements for democracy in Iran than in Iraq, and Iraq would have been much easier to deal with if Iran had been taken care of first. Obviously, it's to late for that now.


Spoken like someone without a clue who we're fighting in Iraq.

We're fighting all sorts of people in Iraq. I know who we're fighting. We should have Balkanized it. I don't see how anyone can disagree with this point. Bush underestimated the resistance of the post-preemptive strike.

We are fighting terrorists who seek to kill Americans.

Obviously.


Pull out of Iraq and we fight them in New York. Which makes more sense to you? The fastest way to eliminate tyrany is to bring freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq. No people willingly vote themselves into oppression. A free and prosperous Iraq will demostrate to the people of Iran that they CAN be free as well.

I understand what you're saying, but quite frankly, the Iraqis need to do more. I've already listed the accomplishments made there, it's time they deal with their own country.

The Iraqis need to stop these plots themselves and stop relying on us. If they TRULY want freedom, they would be doing it in mass droves. We're making them dependent.

*My homeland and the Eastern Bloc did not wait for the Americans and Reagan to take down the Soviet Union. They rebelled, they protested, they staged mass demonstrations, they wrote anti Soviet literature, they defied KGB agents and went to Mass, they planned underground tactics, they jumped over the Berlin wall risking death, etc against Russia.

We had at least one person set himself on fire so the world would know what was going on. Pope John Paul II and Reagan brought down communism, hands down. BUT MY FAMILY AND OTHERS throughout Eastern Europe, from Estonia, Poland, Czechoslovakia to Romania, TRIED. AND THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE HERE.*


Assassination needs to be a principle tool against Iran. Kill every government official and every Islamic radical who sticks his head up. Drive them under ground so that the people can assume control of their country.

I agree 100%.

Nobody, certainly not Bush, ever said the war on terror would be easy. We are dealing with animals with whom you cannot negotiate. You protect your own only by hunting them down and killing them. When you stop hunting, you become the hunted.

I support the war on terror, I just think it is being screwed up right now, that's all.

[Etaoin]

Czech.... As to why Iraq rather than Iran:

A war with Iraq was easier to address because of Saddam's repeated and continual violation of the peace treaty on the "Desert War." Also the Gassing of the Kurds, the indiscriminate murders by Saddam and his pathological sons, and the fact that Iraq was the most literate and secular nation in the Mideast, made it the logical target.

Do not forget OIL. While we may not end up with any of it, consider the geopolitical situation. If Al Queada was successful in having the American presence removed from Saud Arabia, then the power combination of the trio, Saud Arabia, Iran and Iraq would totally dominate, not only the Mideast, but they could effectively bring western Civilization to its knees in Europe via their complete control of the flow of OIL!

Why not Iran? Well, mostly because there is a huge middle class in Iran that is oriented toward Western Civilization. They were defeated in the last election and the Mullahs have been tightening the screws. There is a tinder box there and a success in Iraq will ignite it! The Shah did a magnificent job in bringing Iran from the 17th Century into the 20th, but he lost the support of the oil companies when he worked via OPEC to increase the price of oil from $3.00 per bbl to $10.00 per Bbl. His reason for that radical decision was to create the foundation of a viable Iran when the oil ran out. The "Seven Sisters" thought they were replacing a dynamic Patriot with a toothless tiger. WOW! Were they ever so wrong!

[TheUndertaker]

Iraq is a situation with no obvious solutions. In my view, the way we are treating Iraq right now, is kind of like handing out government money to people who refuse to work despite given every opportunity too. We have removed a dictator, given them a democratically elected government, given them the means to create there own constitution etc. Despite all this they refuse to work and we reward them by doing more (Surge). I'm not advocating that we pull out of Iraq immediately, that would be disastrous however we need to find away to make Iraq stand up and do their fair-share of work! I'm open to suggestions

[Pennville_Bill]

It has to do with putting an end to Islamofascist terrorism. Where would you rather fight against the barbarians, in Baghdad or in New York City?

Better the Middle East than the Mid West............

[DeclinetoState]

In my view, the way we are treating Iraq right now, is kind of like handing out government money to people who refuse to work despite given every opportunity too. We have removed a dictator, given them a democratically elected government, given them the means to create there own constitution etc. Despite all this they refuse to work and we reward them by doing more (Surge).Looking at it that way, the liberal Democrats should all be on board. It's little from different from welfare.