As Expected. Nothing New, Juvenile Democrats
Hey folks,
They waited until yesterday. The anniversary of President Bush declaring "mission accomplished." it was indeed "mission accomplished." That did not mean then, nor was it ever meant to, that the WAR was over. But the MMD {Mass Media Drones} fell right in line leading up to, and all day yesterday reminding us of this anniversary.
So what was the point, other than the unnecessary further delay of the funds our troops need? A lame attempt to embarrass the President? Didn’t work. Make a political point? They did, at the expense of our troops lives. Other than being completely puerile, there really was no point.
So what happened? The President vetoed it. Then he gave this address. Ladies and gentleman, the President of the United States, George W. Bush,
"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.
Our troops are carrying out a new strategy with a new commander -- General David Petraeus. The goal of this new strategy is to help the Iraqis secure their capital, so they can make progress toward reconciliation, and build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and fights extremists and radicals and killers alongside the United States in this war on terror.
In January, General Petraeus was confirmed by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate. In February, we began sending the first of the reinforcements he requested. Not all of these reinforcements have arrived. And as General Petraeus has said, it will be at least the end of summer before we can assess the impact of this operation. Congress ought to give General Petraeus' plan a chance to work.
In the months since our military has been implementing this plan, we've begun to see some important results. For example, Iraqi and coalition forces have closed down an al Qaeda car bomb network, they've captured a Shia militia leader implicated in the kidnapping and killing of American soldiers, they've broken up a death squad that had terrorized hundreds of residents in a Baghdad neighborhood.
Last week, General Petraeus was in Washington to brief me, and he briefed members of Congress on how the operation is unfolding. He noted that one of the most important indicators of progress is the level of sectarian violence in Baghdad. And he reported that since January, the number of sectarian murders has dropped substantially.
Even as sectarian attacks have declined, we continue to see spectacular suicide attacks that have caused great suffering. These attacks are largely the work of al Qaeda -- the enemy that everyone agrees we should be fighting. The objective of these al Qaeda attacks is to subvert our efforts by reigniting the sectarian violence in Baghdad -- and breaking support for the war here at home. In Washington last week, General Petraeus explained it this way: "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of all al Qaeda's global campaign."
Al Qaeda -- al Qaeda's role makes the conflict in Iraq far more complex than a simple fight between Iraqis. It's true that not everyone taking innocent life in Iraq wants to attack America here at home. But many do. Many also belong to the same terrorist network that attacked us on September 11th, 2001 -- and wants to attack us here at home again. We saw the death and destruction al Qaeda inflicted on our people when they were permitted a safe haven in Afghanistan. For the security of the American people, we must not allow al Qaeda to establish a new safe haven in Iraq.
We need to give our troops all the equipment and the training and protection they need to prevail. That means that Congress needs to pass an emergency war spending bill quickly. I've invited leaders of both parties to come to the White House tomorrow -- and to discuss how we can get these vital funds to our troops. I am confident that with goodwill on both sides, we can agree on a bill that gets our troops the money and flexibility they need as soon as possible.
The need to act is urgent. Without a war funding bill, the military has to take money from some other account or training program so the troops in combat have what they need. Without a war funding bill, the Armed Forces will have to consider cutting back on buying new equipment or repairing existing equipment. Without a war funding bill, we add to the uncertainty felt by our military families. Our troops and their families deserve better -- and their elected leaders can do better.
Here in Washington, we have our differences on the way forward in Iraq, and we will debate them openly. Yet whatever our differences, surely we can agree that our troops are worthy of this funding -- and that we have a responsibility to get it to them without further delay.
Thank you for listening. May God bless our troops."
Amen. I second that. God bless all our men and women fighting to keep our freedoms. God bless their families waiting for them here at home.
Of course, the LWL {Left Wing Looneys} leaders had a response. Traitor Pelosi gave this response.
"Earlier today, the leader and I sent to the president a bill that made a strong commitment to support our men and women in uniform, and a strong commitment to honor our promises to our veterans. This was a bill that was worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform."
It was NOT worthy of our men and women in uniform. It was a bill for their surrender.
Hey folks,
They waited until yesterday. The anniversary of President Bush declaring "mission accomplished." it was indeed "mission accomplished." That did not mean then, nor was it ever meant to, that the WAR was over. But the MMD {Mass Media Drones} fell right in line leading up to, and all day yesterday reminding us of this anniversary.
So what was the point, other than the unnecessary further delay of the funds our troops need? A lame attempt to embarrass the President? Didn’t work. Make a political point? They did, at the expense of our troops lives. Other than being completely puerile, there really was no point.
So what happened? The President vetoed it. Then he gave this address. Ladies and gentleman, the President of the United States, George W. Bush,"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.
Our troops are carrying out a new strategy with a new commander -- General David Petraeus. The goal of this new strategy is to help the Iraqis secure their capital, so they can make progress toward reconciliation, and build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and fights extremists and radicals and killers alongside the United States in this war on terror.
In January, General Petraeus was confirmed by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate. In February, we began sending the first of the reinforcements he requested. Not all of these reinforcements have arrived. And as General Petraeus has said, it will be at least the end of summer before we can assess the impact of this operation. Congress ought to give General Petraeus' plan a chance to work.
In the months since our military has been implementing this plan, we've begun to see some important results. For example, Iraqi and coalition forces have closed down an al Qaeda car bomb network, they've captured a Shia militia leader implicated in the kidnapping and killing of American soldiers, they've broken up a death squad that had terrorized hundreds of residents in a Baghdad neighborhood.
Last week, General Petraeus was in Washington to brief me, and he briefed members of Congress on how the operation is unfolding. He noted that one of the most important indicators of progress is the level of sectarian violence in Baghdad. And he reported that since January, the number of sectarian murders has dropped substantially.
Even as sectarian attacks have declined, we continue to see spectacular suicide attacks that have caused great suffering. These attacks are largely the work of al Qaeda -- the enemy that everyone agrees we should be fighting. The objective of these al Qaeda attacks is to subvert our efforts by reigniting the sectarian violence in Baghdad -- and breaking support for the war here at home. In Washington last week, General Petraeus explained it this way: "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of all al Qaeda's global campaign."
Al Qaeda -- al Qaeda's role makes the conflict in Iraq far more complex than a simple fight between Iraqis. It's true that not everyone taking innocent life in Iraq wants to attack America here at home. But many do. Many also belong to the same terrorist network that attacked us on September 11th, 2001 -- and wants to attack us here at home again. We saw the death and destruction al Qaeda inflicted on our people when they were permitted a safe haven in Afghanistan. For the security of the American people, we must not allow al Qaeda to establish a new safe haven in Iraq.
We need to give our troops all the equipment and the training and protection they need to prevail. That means that Congress needs to pass an emergency war spending bill quickly. I've invited leaders of both parties to come to the White House tomorrow -- and to discuss how we can get these vital funds to our troops. I am confident that with goodwill on both sides, we can agree on a bill that gets our troops the money and flexibility they need as soon as possible.
The need to act is urgent. Without a war funding bill, the military has to take money from some other account or training program so the troops in combat have what they need. Without a war funding bill, the Armed Forces will have to consider cutting back on buying new equipment or repairing existing equipment. Without a war funding bill, we add to the uncertainty felt by our military families. Our troops and their families deserve better -- and their elected leaders can do better.
Here in Washington, we have our differences on the way forward in Iraq, and we will debate them openly. Yet whatever our differences, surely we can agree that our troops are worthy of this funding -- and that we have a responsibility to get it to them without further delay.
Thank you for listening. May God bless our troops."
Amen. I second that. God bless all our men and women fighting to keep our freedoms. God bless their families waiting for them here at home.
Of course, the LWL {Left Wing Looneys} leaders had a response. Traitor Pelosi gave this response."Earlier today, the leader and I sent to the president a bill that made a strong commitment to support our men and women in uniform, and a strong commitment to honor our promises to our veterans. This was a bill that was worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform."
It was NOT worthy of our men and women in uniform. It was a bill for their surrender.
"It was a bill that honored and respected the wishes of the American people to have benchmarks, to have guidelines, to have standards for what is happening in Iraq. Again, out of respect for the wishes of the American people."
What the American people wanted is a new direction in Iraq. That is what they got with Gen Petraeus and the surge. We are winning.
"We had hoped the president would have treated it with the respect that bipartisan legislation supported overwhelmingly by the American people deserved. Instead, the president vetoed the bill outright and, frankly, misrepresented what this legislation does."
No he didn’t. It IS a bill for defeat. It DOES surrender to the enemy. It DOES give the enemy Iraq. He misrepresented NOTHING! As for respect? Respect is earned. Neither you or anyone committing treason, nor this little surrender bill deserve respect..
"This bill supports the troops. In fact, it gives the president more than he asked for our troops; they deserve it. They have done their duties excellently; they have done everything that has been asked of them, all of this without, in some cases, the training, the equipment, and a plan for success for them."
No it doesn’t. You threw a bunch of crap in there to sound good, KNOWING that he would veto it because it is a surrender bill. OK. I say to someone, I have a million dollars to give you personally. I will also give you a car, house, everything you ever wanted. But you have to kill yourself first. You say no. Well then I guess you don’t want all that I have to give you. Idiots. They actually think you are buying this garbage. Sad thing is, some of the sheepeople out there, will.
"The president wants a blank check. The Congress is not going to give it to him."
Rhetoric.
"The president said, in his comments, that he did not believe in timelines and he spoke out very forcefully against them. Yet, in 1999, on June 5, then Governor Bush said about President Clinton, 'I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.'"
{Laughing} Talking points from Moveon.org.
"Despite his past statements, President Bush refuses to apply the same standards to his own activities. Standards, that's the issue."
This doesn’t even come close to dealing with reality.
"If the president thinks that what is happening on the ground in Iraq now is progress, as he said in his comments tonight, it is clear to see why we have a disagreement on policy with him."
Because we are winning and you want to lose. We already know this. YOU will not even meet with the general. You do not want to hear, or better yet, DEAL with the truth.
"I agree with Leader Reid, we look forward to working with the president to find common ground. But there is great distance between us right now."
You look forward to the press seeing you "talking with and working with" the President. This is how they will report it also. That YOU are kind enough to meet with him. Truth is, you do NOT have a choice.
OK, WAY long here, but I wanted to get it all in. But I cannot take anymore of the Traitors immaturity. I’m sure that the MMD and the LWL will have a lot more to say today about the veto, and stories like "Will Bush ever find common ground with congress?." if they want to grow up a bit and actually support the troops, he will. As long as they act like the Traitors they are? I doubt it.
Peter
Sources:
White House Press Office
Nancy Pelosi
No comments:
Post a Comment