President Bush exhibited his old resolve in his first White House press conference of the year this morning on issues from the Iraq troop surge to Iranian interference in Iraq to the North Korean nuke deal to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s criticism of U.S. foreign policy. Most striking were his words about the threat the administration says Iranian bombs are posing to U.S. troops in Iraq ("I’m going to do something about it") and his indifference to House Democrats’ Iraq debate ("They have every right to express their opposition, and it is a nonbinding resolution").
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- writerdog on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Let immigrants run
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
116 Comments
“To say it is provoking Iran is just a wrong way to characterize the commander in chief’s decision to do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm’s way,” Bush said.
How ironic that we supplied Iraq weapons during the Iraq, Iran war in the 80’sNow the Iranians are supplying the Iraqis weapons to fight against us.I guess it is true but very hard to except that all is fair in love and war.
Even General Pace says that there is no proof of Iranian government involvement, yet the SOB-in-Chief wants to go to war with ANOTHER country.
This bastard has to go – enough is enough. As a country, we cannot afford to go to war every times this moronic cowboy gets a wild hair up his presidential ass.
This bastard Bush has wanted to get into with Iran for years. Does he want to start a full-blown World War III with the Islamic/Arab world?
This is way over the top.
He has to go – and soon.
If we don’t stop Bush now he will continue to escalate war in the Middle East at the behest of Israel.
Israel openly wants us to attack Iran to make their barbaric expasion safer. That’s why Bush and Rice just allow Israel to bomb Lebanon without raising a finger to stop it.
Iraq is the beginning of his plan {PNAC} to allow Israel to dominate the Middle East oil fields.
One billion Muslims will not allow his cockamamie plan to succeed.
And America will suffer as a direct result of his crusade.
Christ, this has me really pissed off. We are losing in Iraq and now Bush has ANOTHER country in his gun sight.
Meanwhile, bin Laden is still loose in Afghanistan and al Qaeda is rebuilding and retaking the country with the Taliban.
This sick monkey of a president is going to get us into a THIRD war. Our armed forces are stretched to the limit, our budget is stretched to the limit and all this bastard can say is “I’m going to do something about it.”
He has no more proof of Iran’s direct involvement than he does of Saddam’s WMD, but he is bound and determined to get us into another war of choice.
This Worst President Ever is going to leave the next president with the worst of all situations. Hopefully, the generals will stand up to Bush and use some common sense.
Our country has been sympathetic with Israel since before it became a nation. To me it is difficult to understand why. Israelis appear to be as brutal and antagonistic as any nation in the Mid East.
Do you think that Bush is abusing the presidential powers of his office?Doesn’t Congress have some say so in the actions of war?
Truth be told, Wiseman, Congress has the power to cut off all funding to the war. This is what makes this political posturing of the “non-binding” resolution so frustrating. Truth be told, the anti-war Congress has no balls. Are you against the war? Prove it. Make a BINDING resolution to stop all funding to the war in Iraq. They have no sack because all they are concerned about are their political careers. Truth be told, their policies change as the wind blows and public opinion polls (bolstered by the liberal media) go.Truth be told, you want pissed off? I am extremely pissed off at elected so-called “leaders” without the ball sack to take a true stand.Make your vote and opinion for a BINDING resolution to get out of Iraq or STFU.
Congress has not declared war since December 8, 1941.
Congress has neglected their duty in deference to the president’s supposed powers to make foreign policy.
Congress can withhold funding, but that can put them in a position where they putting troops in harm’s way without support.
Withholding funding is a dicey proposition.
Right now, however, impeachment would seem like the best course of action.
We can save a few bucks by getting both Bush and Cheney on the same docket.
Two for one.
If we don’t stop Bush now there will not be any 08 elections as Martial Law will prevail.
That’s why Bush will not abide by the will of the American People and only concern himself with the PNAC aganda.
The “Signing Statements” serve to give him all the power he needs, and that’s the only reason they were so carefully drafted.
Bush is at his weakest point right now. before he unleashes all out war.
Congress is wasting its time with a nonbinding statement and needs to get busy to stop that Bastard Bush right in his G-D tracks.
Truth be told, the same goes for impeachment. Find legitimate and profable crimes, start the proceedings or STFU.You Democrats have control now, let’s see you do something with it.Truth be told, it’s cool. I’ll wait.
The Prez has less that two years to go. Get over it. All this talk about “he has to go” is just so much blather. It’s up to you people’s leaders to change that, but they won’t do your will. They are not listening to you. Perhaps, you should impeach them.
Has there ever been any doubt which nations have been supporting the insurgence. I think it has been clear from day one that Iran & Syria have been in this from the start. Have we forgotten where Iraq sent their Fighters when the bombings began? They flew them to Iraq. I guess that could make one question what else may have crossed the borders. Wonder if a shipment or two, from a neighbor, might have helped to jump started the Iranians nuclear weapons program.
Lately, I’ve been wondering if the biggest mistake we’ve made, in that Middle East, is that we didn’t have the foresight to start with Iran & Syria. It would have isolated Iraq and they could have been taken out at will.
I guess I have to go with the President on this. We should have closed the borders long ago and taken action against anyone supplying, funding, or supporting the Iraqi insurgence in any way, shape or form. Maybe if we’d done this a few months before the election we wouldn’t have the liberals in congress wringing their hands and contemplating their little anti-war resolution.
As for wscrakers profanity laced contribution on the topic at hand; perhaps, I’d be more inclined to consider the argument, than laugh at the ignorance, should the colorful language be left behind. At least our Commander and Chief can string two sentences together without resorting to the tools of the ignorant.
The Democrats have just been in office for less than two months. Give us time. The Republicans had six years and $75 million to investigate Clinton so impeaching Bush and Cheney may well take a little time.
Both Bush and Cheney seem intent on challenging Congress on impeachment. They seem bent on defying the will of the American people and the world community.
So much for advocating democracy around the world.
Yeah craiger, how damned dumb can we be?We’re JUST NOW thinking about the borders?What a novel idea!
You are one funny boy, craiger! Are you related to Fleetwood?
The dems have done more in two months than the GOPerverts have in six years.craiger, you new here?WSC isn’t ignorant, that’s why he uses profanity.The biggest mistake we made was not keeping our people in Afghanistan.
ceaiger posted: “At least our Commander and Chief can string two sentences together without resorting to the tools of the ignorant.”
Just wondering where you are, craiger? Here in America we have a president who doesn’t even know how to put words together to make a sentence.
Oh, but Ms. Inks…..you MISUNDERESTIMATE the DECIDER.HA!See you next monday.
I must have missed a democrat press release or two…
Is the “first hundred hours” over yet?
Does anyone remember what they promised in the “first hundred hours”?
Does anyone know exactly what they have accomplished in their first two months?
Has congress sent the president any great landmark bills to sign yet?
Has the congress sent any bills yet?
Just wondering.
We’ll see what happens next month when Bush puts his funding requests before Congress. It’ll be fun to hear Bush squealing like a fratboy getting sodomized during initiation.
Oh, and fleeeeeeeeetwooooooooooood, it was Mitch McConnell and the Repube rubber-stamps in the Senate that stopped debate on any resolution whatever, binding or nonbinding. They’re the ones who don’t want to have the debate–not Democrats.
craiger,
I love when conservative manly men get all hissy-fittish about language. Some convenient amnesia there concerning Dickie-boy, who told Senator Patrick Leahey to “go f*ck himself” during a debate on the Senate floor. But then again, one should never forget IOKIYAR. That is,
I (t’s) O (k) I (f) Y (ou’re) A R (epublican).
As for Iran, can you say, ‘boy who cried wolf?’ Only difference is that the boy actually thought there WAS a wolf. Iran is no threat to our troops in Iraq. That’ll change once we attack. Big time.
First George starts hatin’ on the troops by cutting VA benefits in the 2010 budget. Now he’s hatin’ on ‘em by making Iraq even more hazardous for them.
More to the point, craiger, colossal ignorance on your part. Who’s killing the most U.S. troops? Sunnis. Where does their aid come from, predominately? Saudi Arabia. Who are our putative allies in the current sectarian conflict? The Shia. Where does their aid come from? Iran.
As for ’starting with Iran and Syria,’ please. Iran has 70 million people, a robust economy, difficult mountainous terrain, and close alliances with China and Russia. When we attack, the consequences are well beyond the calculative power of the conservative pea-brains currently running the show.
Your wealth of ignorance, craiger (rhymes with ‘Kegger!’) astounds me. It is made all the more stark by your pretence to actually, like, knowing something.
As for profanity – since a few seem sensitive to naughty words, let me just say this – if the War on Iraq is not enough to piss you off, not enough to make you lose your temper, not enough to make you want to scream for the future of your country, well, I canot imagine what would be enough.
I am goddamned mad and I do not intend to take it anymore!!!!
If you have any foresight, any understanding of the issues, any sense of responsibility for future generations then you will be cussing mad too.
Hank,
Here’s a good overview chart of the major bills the U.S. House of Representatives passed during their first 100 hours this year. Quite a lot was accomplished!
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/100HOURS_GRAPHIC.html
lindainks55, you beat CF to the punch. Well-done, I say!
Hank Price sounds nostalgic for some of that good “Contract with America” porn that ‘ol Newt was pandering last decade.
In answer to Hank’s ‘question,’ here’s the record: all proposed legislation passed through the House.
http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0003
In the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress:
“We started by cleaning up Congress, breaking the link between lobbyists and legislation and commited to pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending.
We made our nation safer and began by implementing the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission.
We made our economy fairer, and we began by raising the minimum wage.
We made health care more affordable for all Americans, and began by fixing the Medicare prescription drug program, putting seniors first by negotiating lower drug prices.
We promoted stem cell research to offer real hope to the millions of American families who suffer from devastating diseases.
We broadened college opportunity, and began by cutting interest rates for student loans in half.
We energized America by working towards achieving energy independence, and we we began by rolling back the multi-billion dollar subsidies for Big Oil.”
http://www.speaker.gov/legislation/
Is any of it law yet? Nope. Gotta be passed through the Senate and then sent to the lame duck in the White House, Mr. 30%. He’s sure to veto much of it, against the wishes of a substantial majority of the American public.
But that’s your wont when you’re THE DECIDER.
CF,
I didn’t think he really wanted the answer so I just used “the google” to get a link with the info. You know, just in case he was serious. :o)
Thanks for asking, Hank. Long-time readers know of your sincere interest in the way the new Democratic leadership will pull us out of the RepubliCON morass your party created.
YES INDEEDY the Democrats have made a lot of progress in their first hundred hours.
http://www.dccc.org/100hours/
Promised: We will start by cleaning up Congress, ending the link between lobbyists and legislation.
Promise fufilled: H.Res. 6, Title II, “Adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Tenth Congress.” passed 430-1, Jan. 4th, 2007
Promised: We will commit to pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending.
Promise fufilled: H.Res. 6, Title IV, “Adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Tenth Congress.” passed 280-152, Jan. 5th, 2007Promised: We will make our nation safer by implementing the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission.
Promise fulfilled: H.R. 1, “Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007.” passed 299-128, Jan. 9th, 2007
Promised: We will make our economy fairer, and start by raising the minimum wage. We will not pass a pay raise for Congress until there is an increase in the minimum wage.
Promise fulfilled: H.R. 2, “Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007.” passed 315-116, Jan. 10th, 2007Promised: We will promote stem cell research to offer real hope to the millions of American families who suffer from devastating diseases.
Promise fulfilled: H.R. 3, “Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.” passed 253-174, Jan. 11th, 2007Promised: We will make health care more affordable for all Americans, and we will begin by fixing the Medicare prescription drug program, putting seniors first by negotiating lower drug prices.
Promise fulfilled: H.R. 4, “Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act.” passed 255-170, Jan. 12th, 2007Promise: We will broaden college opportunity, and we will begin by cutting interest rates for student loans in half.
Promise fulfilled: H.R. 5, “College Student Relief Act of 2007.” passed 356-71, Jan. 17th, 2007Promise: We will energize America by achieving energy independence, and we will begin by rolling back the multi-billion dollar subsidies for Big Oil.
Promise fulfilled: H.R. 6, “Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act.” passed 264-163, Jan. 18th, 2007
Of course, Worst President Ever will veto all these bills because they actually help real Americans instead of just the richest of the rich that Bush literally calls “his base.”
Friedemann: Where ever that fat bastard Imam is, why don’t you go join him. Hey, he’s “your kind of guy”.
Oops . . . great minds think alike.
You know, Bush might sign a bill if it involved invading and occupying a third world country with large oil deposits.
Easy to pass a bunch of bills and resolutions…if…you don’t have to send them to the senate and get them to pass them.
I ask again, what great things have gone to the president?
Just wondering.
Chuckle . . . Hank knows damn well the the bills the House put forward represent more progress for the common good than SIX YEARS of one-party rule by the RepubliCONs.
Name one good thing W is responsible for.
Just wondering.
While the President may not be able to “declare” a war, he can sure as hell start one. If he orders the troops to attack Iran, they will attack and there’s nothing anybody can do to stop him short of insurrection. He IS the commander in chief.
You’re right capn! My life is so much better now that Pelosi has her jet!
Hank
Well XXX, you’re half right. Congress can stop him…but they won’t. No balls.
Hank
Why the attempts twice now to re-direct Hank?
Stay on the subject.
bush is gonna attack Iran.
Then anything goes.
The resulting conflagration will force bush to reinstitute the draft.
If you think folks fought that in the 60’s?
Truth be told, stop the funding = stop the war.Agreed Hank, no sack.What say you WE Bloggers? Write or call all Democrat congress people and DEMAND a NO funding vote for the war!
And if they did stop him, Hank would be screaming “TRAITORS!” at the top of his lungs.
Damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.
Actually, Hank, you’ll be enjoying lower priced Levitra when you go on Medicare . . .
And I noticed you still haven’t answered my question. Maybe you can’t.
“Have we forgotten where Iraq sent their Fighters when the bombings began? They flew them to Iraq.”
Huh? You wanna clear that up a little, craiger?
Might, might, might have. Didn’t we go into Iraq with the same old same old might? Got any WMDs to show for that?
“Maybe if we’d done this a few months before the election we wouldn’t have the liberals in congress wringing their hands and contemplating their little anti-war resolution.”
Ooooh, is that a little con statement that sounds like a whine? Who was in charge of congress before the election, and just HOW MANY YEARS HAVE THEY BEEN THERE, doing virtually nothing? Talk about hand-wringing…
Guys, I think this newest move of Dubya’s is a bit of WAGGING THE DOG, don’t you?
Typed my last before I saw X.
Yup insurrection.
It may be necessary.
I’m ready.
Truth be told, John Kerry onHard ball currently.Dead Americans = “Mischief”
I think Bush is so desperate he is trying everything he can to push Congress to cut off funds so he can blame the whole mess on ANYONE, EVERYONE… He needs a scapegoat fast.
“Piss” is a good word. Let me give it a try.
Piss on GW Bush!!!
Hey, that felt good!
Truth be told, George Bush is willing to sacrifice our soldiers for his political agenda.
capn,
I can give you two things for the price of one.
He beat Gore and he beat Kerry.
Didn’t mean to make you wait, thought it was a rhetorical question.
Hank
So where were all you repugs over that past 4 years? Why weren’t you screaming to cut the funding then?
The Dems are in between a rock and a hard place. As Capn said, the word “TRAITOR” would be bouncing off the walls of the Capital bldg.
So what are the guys in red doing about Bush? Are they behind him on taking on Iran? Is that what all of you here are for?
A simple yea or nay will suffice.
Even the Israelis don’t trust their government.
“The architectural conspiracy of silence”
By Esther Zandberg”Apart from any other implications, the affair of the new Mugrabi bridge is an extreme example of the dark and covert way in which Israel’s professional and political planning world conducts itself. This case is neither an exception nor a surprise. This is how the sector has conducted matters for years – as if it were the government’s secret service. It is no secret that planning is conducted under a veil of total secrecy. Very few things filter out to the general public in an orderly fashion – and when they become known, it is often too late to do anything. The difference is that this time the affair did not merely leak out, it burst out with a resounding blast.
Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski’s decision this week to “complete” the legislative process on the bridge’s construction is merely proof of the general rule. This is a hasty and tardy decision that should have been made in the first place, as a matter of course. This is true not merely for a project of this nature, a few meters away from the time-bomb known as the Temple Mount, but for more standard works.
Not just a bridge ”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/825662.html
—–
“He beat Gore and he beat Kerry.”
Sorry, Hank he did not beat Gore in the popular vote and he STOLE the electoral vote with help from Scalia.
Beating Kerry? John Kerry had the WH on a silver platter and he blew it better than Monica.
When Democrats think of the pink tutu, they think of Kerry.
The only Democrat worse than John Kerry is Kissyface Lieberman.
How many members of congress are being intimidated by you know who?
You might be right Clark, poor ol’ Gore sure looked beat though.
You’re not going to talk bad about Hillary when she loses are you?
Hank
HA HA, HANK, you are one funny guy! Dude, you should quit you’re day job and work as a stand-up comic.
Question–name one good thing W has done?
Hank’s answer–I’ll give you two. He beat Gore and Kerry!
Man, that’s clever! My sides still hurt, I tell you what . . .
Okay (wiping eyes).
Now, again, what good thing has Bush done other than win elections?
Seriously.
To answer RD’s question, truth be told, in my opinion you have defined the “no balls” argument. Traitor? Stand by your convictions. I would have more respect for them with a no budget vote than this cockamamie “non binding resolution.”
As far as Iran goes, I am a Yea on taking out strategic sights such as intelligence, weapons (and their components) factories, etc.
“poor ol’ Gore sure looked beat though.”
Gore got 500,000 more votes in the general election than did Bush.
Only a Republican could claim that a half million vote loss was a “mandate” for his policies.
Of course, since Haggard, Gannon and Foley, the word “mandate” takes on a hole new meaning.
Truth be told, the 2008 election can go either way….kind of like New Jersey’s former Governor.
Hey RD,
I’m all for taking care of Iran. Sooner the better!
Hank
Seriously?
He lowered my taxes.
Hank
Hey Hank?
Who is gonna fight the general regional war that attacking Iraq will precipitate?
You gonna re-up?
They aint getting my kid.
“Gore got 500,000 more votes in the general election than did Bush.”
You need to get over it. Gore got beat.
That’s like crying because your football team got beat even though they got more first downs.
It’s the electorial college that counts!
If poor ol’ Algore could’ve only won Tennessee!
If Gore had just held his ‘left flank’ – the Nader vote. With that he would have carried both FL and NH handily.
Gore ran a lousy campaign.
Damn right I’d re-up! If they’d let me!
As a bull nuke on a fast attack I’d be making over a hundred grand a year!
Hank
Hank – BTW – my friend was on a diesel boat …
Lowered your taxes.
Yup. That’s about right.
You and your wife got 300 dollars a piece as a “rebate” on the “surplus.”
Yeah, I remember that too.
Good times. Good times.
Your son is fighting a war without end against an enemy he can’t see for WMD’s that didn’t exist.
But thank GOD! Hank saved a few pennies on his taxes.
“I’m all for taking care of Iran. Sooner the better!”
Taking care of Iran, Hank? Haven’t we lost enough taking care of Saddam? How much more should we lose?
We have lost 3,100 in Iraq. If we attack Iran, we may lose 310,000.
We can’t just go attacking countries willy-nilly and expect that the rest of the world will not unite against us. Bush has NO proof that Iran is behind the insurgency.
What if Bush attacks Iran without jutification and the rest of the oil producing nations decide to cut us off? What if China decides to call in our loans? What if the rest of the world declines to import American goods?
Do you think that will not happen?
We have no respect left in the world after the Bush disaster. The rest of the world is just itching to give America a black eye thanks to GWB.
Truth be told, China is in more trouble if the United States decides to start to decline its goods.Talk about biting the hand that feeds.
I don’t know about that “Truth”. With the amount of our debt that they hold …
“Truth be told, China is in more trouble if the United States decides to start to decline its goods.”
… and just HOW much of our debt does China finance? What would happen if China declined to finance any more of the Bush debt?
We have just about reached the limit on debt financing – those that own the notes are nearly to the point where they can call the shots.
What would Bush do if China refused to bankroll anymore of his wars?
Reading between the lines, Bush’s daddy { GHWB } seems very upset being smart enough to understand where his son is taking America. Little Bush’s comments about his dad ‘watching too much news’ is a strong indicator that Sr. is trying to talk some sense into his rouge son.
It also indicates how closed minded Jr. is being { the disconnect between his fantasies and the realities of the real world }.
Jr. must be stopped before we reach an all-out war and those ’signing statements’ so carefully crafted give him the power to invoke Martial law, thus suspending elections.
That may seem a bit far fetched, but given the circumstances up until now, I wouldn’t be all surprised.
Tracy, Happy Valentine
KFG Happy Valentine
How much oil can you buy for $677 billion?
The Truth will be taking any and all action (bets) on Bush imposing martial law.Truth be told, open collection liberal Democrats will be bitching about Republicans getting richer.
“Truth be told, open collection liberal Democrats will be bitching about Republicans getting richer.”
Can you get us a human translation for your post, ditto monkey?
Truth be told, please replace “open collection” with “upon collection”.I now return you to your regularly scheduled PBS programming.
Hey Ben,
He might not know what a bull nuke is then. Diesel boat! He must be older than dirt!
Tell him my first boat was the Redfish SS395 out of San Diego in ‘65.
When did he retire?
Hank
It will be ridiculous to go into Iran. Iran is heading toward it’s own civil war, they want the hardliners out just as much as we do.
Hey Ben,
http://www.thelasthuman.com/tlh/ussredfish395.html
He’ll love this link too!
I loved this boat more than my first woman!
Hank
I have no doubt that Iran along with several other countries has been providing arms and support for the insurgency. But there was already enough weapons and goods for the insurgency to fight this war their way in Iraq. Again simple math 1 man + 1 bomb + one attack on a unsuspecting people = equals a cost effective war. To counter massive troop movement + unaware timing – general population support of insurgency in stead of U.S. occupation = ineffective counter action.
If you want to throw in to the calculations a shooting war with Iran, it would break our troops and gain even more support for those against us. It would be a simple race, we would have to move massive numbers of troops and supplies to Iraq to stop them from over running our troops already there. While Iran already has their troops ready and just next door. It was pointed out that Saddam sent much of his air force to Iran at the outset. This add to the already standing Iranian Air force, just how many planes do we have in Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq as it stands. In a conflict with Iran, how many of our “friends” in the region would stand with us and how many would side with Iran? Nuke would be the only option left for a quick response, now if that would not inflame the world against us what would?
To answer the question posed, yes I would go to fight if it meant my sons and daughter would not have to.That is just how a dad feels, besides I have a bit of a mean streak that the boys do not. but the real point is it is not good for this country or the world for the U.S. to attack Iran. No good can come from it, only it would make this bad situation even worst for this country.
I have long held that Bush should be impeached even though it would rip this already torn country apart for a time. It may very well boil down to that, the need to cut a cancer out so the body can heal. Point of order: There need not be a actual crime committed by the President of the United States, under the true meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” a simple misuse of the public trust is all that is needed. In recent day we have seen such with the findings of the inspector general on the use of the pentagon for intelligence.an impeachment would be far less devastating to this country then a all out war in the middle east started by the President.
After I get in there and start running the show, which I can, cause I’m one of them experts on everything, we can start getting rid of those pesky minorities.
Nice try troll….. let’s see… the first one from this group that shows up is the troll….
Fleet
Nuts
Nathan
GSheridan
others…?
Can you get us a human translation for your post, ditto monkey?
Truth be told, another interesting analogy.If you are pro-war, you must be a minnion of Hannity/Limbaugh, etc., unable to think for yourself.However, truth be told, we are the one’s swimming against 70% of the stream.
So the one that says he is THE TRUTH is most likely the troll?
Or is the TRUTH actually Golf Arafat?
Or Fleet Woody?
Or Nathan?
actually truth reminds me of some guy who used to post on the kansas.com forum. Itellitall?Is that you?
Friedemann: You are such a sniveling little vagina, with all due respect to vaginas, that you and your ilk, can’t even conceive of a fair fight. Go after people who aren’t going to face up to you, like the president, because you aren’t that important. I’m really not even a fan of him or some of the things he has done, but, because of people like him, douche bags like you are allowed to breathe. Be really glad you’ve got him. He let’s scum like you live.
Happy Valentine’s Day, you puke bastard!
Ok I”m confused, why is Freidman wrong in what he has posted?
PMom, he’s wrong because rm says so. I guess that makes rm Dubya’s twin…decider.
Hank,
If you’re for going into Iran, stop bellyaching about the Dems not stopping funding.
I’m reminded of a word that starts with h.
Darling,
I don’t remember bellyaching. The dems don’t have the balls to stop funding.
That’s a fact, not a complaint.
The fact that the dems have a majority only means that they will control the agenda. They don’t have the to lead or be effective.
I’m amused not disapointed. They’re yours!
Should have been:
…don’t have the will to lead…
I think Hank would change his mind about going into Iran if it meant raising his taxes to pay for it.
WS
It is not like Hank or Gsheri to troll.
I’d exempt Nathan too. In this case anyway.
Fleetwood is your best suspect.
I just defended you Hank.
Now I’ll attack.
“The dems don’t have the balls to stop funding.”
Balls? To cut off our troops from funding a mission YOUR idiot President put them on?
Unh uh Hank.
This one is all yours. You even posted earlier that the sooner we deal with Iran the better. You do not get to blame the dems for what you yourself have advocated.
Hank,
I never knew how cruel a person you are. I would have never suspected. I’m still shocked. I met you in person, shook your hand, talked of things that don’t matter. I never guessed. I don’t even have words to describe my shock and amazement…
Linda dear,
You need to toughen up. I am a warm, caring and loving person.
Everyone that knows me loves me!
Care to explain why you think I’m cruel? I’m sure it’s just a terrible misunderstanding that can be cleared up in no time.
Hank
Yeah, I liked you too.
I will never get that tough.
I promise.
Truth be told, the lack of balls on the Democrat side of the aisle has to do with cutting off funding and thus ending the war. Cut off the funding, and there will be no choice but to exit as quickly as possible.Truth be told, they do not have the sack to do this as they are more concerned for their respective political (welfare) careers than honoring the wishes of their constituents (the likes of you).
And there it is.
Folks like Hank and “The Truth” relentlessly support the idiot who made this mess.
Now they desperately WANT dems to rescue the country from it.
So much for conservative accountability and personal responsibility!
Junior,
Thanks for the defense! I think Nathan is in a communications lock down right now. No internet access.
As far as the rest of your post goes, I didn’t really understand it.
I think Bush is handling Iran pretty good right now. I don’t think we will invade Iran, Bush has not threatened to.
If I went to war with Iran I could finish them off in about 20 minutes with one of the carrier groups we have in the Gulf right now. No ground pounders required.
When RD ask who was for taking on Iran, I thought that what we have been doing since Carter let the Shaw take over in ‘79. We’ve just been very ineffective at it.
Bush has been doing quite a bit to prevent Iran from getting nuke weapons and if push comes to shove we need to do what ever is required to prevent them from getting them.
Hank
Linda dear,
Care to explain why you think I’m cruel?
Hank
Ah, I understand now Junior. Our posts crossed through the night.
I don’t want the dems to defund the war! I don’t think The Truth does either.
I’m just saying they don’t have the balls to do it.
The 110th Congress will be a demonstration of how petty, hypocritical, ineffective the dems can be when they are in charge of the agenda.
I still love ya, it’s just hard for us to communicate.
Hank
Suspend with the “junior” crap Hank Price.
It is just a LITTLE beneath you to take the tack of the idiot fleetwood who started that. A little but not much.
Now you and I have played nasty before Hank. You really do not want to go there.
Iran gets a nuke? Unh huh. Some threat that.
NO threat to the US.
Not OUR problem.
Calling you Junior is nasty? I thought that you blackmailing me before the election because I provided links proving you didn’t know what you were talking about was nasty!
Besides, I think I called you Junior before Woody came along, maybe not.
Hank
Truth be told, JR can not possibly be as stupid as he seems. I would trust he could follow the trail better than that:
1) Democrats who ran on a 100% anti-war campaign now have control of Congress.
2) Democrats can end the military action in Iraq by voting to cut off the funding.
3) Instead of putting their money where their mouths are and ending the campaign they claim to be so vehemently against, they are wasting more time and tax payer dollars on “non binding resolutions.”
Truth be told, Democrats celebrated a mandate for change in November but are delivering the SOS.
Truth be told, I believe in the military action in Iraq as part of the global war on terror. If I am so wrong, truth be told, prove it – cut off the funding and end the action and see where this leaves the country. Of course, Democrats don’t have the sack because their is risk involved. Risk of losing the power in two short years in took 12 to gain back.Truth be told it is easier to sit back, make “non binding resolutions” rather than make a stand for something that may not work. Truth be told, easier to make “non binding resolutions” and continue to Monday Morning Quarterback the effort.Truth be told, Democrats, making you afraid of it and telling you who’s to blame for it but doing nothing to solve it.Truth be told, the President is not perfect. But I will take the wolf vs. the one in sheeps clothing anyday.
“The Truth”?
Until you are prepared to post under your regular nic I’ve no need to answer you.
Hank Price? That’s a bit different.
“Calling you Junior is nasty? I thought that you blackmailing me before the election because I provided links proving you didn’t know what you were talking about was nasty!Besides, I think I called you Junior before Woody came along, maybe not”
Care to prove any of that Hank?
Blackmail?
IF you were so affronted? You had the opportunity to confront me personally at the meetup.
I think all us right wing, Bush loving, war mongers need to get together and drink some beer and play some poker.
Last time I offered I got two takers and one rather nasty decline.
Saturday the 24th is probably the last Saturday I can do it. I’m starting the herding season soon.
Hank
Nah Junior,
I’ve learned in the past that proof means nothing to you.
You’ve never “affronted” me, annoyed me on occasions, amused me on occasions but I’d have to take you a little more seriously to allow you to “affront” me.
I still love ya,
Hank
Linda,
Hank is a pretty good guy. He and I just don’t see eye to eye on nearly anything. (I think even Hank will agree with that *grin*)
He probably also knows that I was chuckling as I typed “bellyaching”. If he didn’t, he does now.
It’s taken some time, but I’ve learned not to hate/detest/dislike those who I don’t agree with.
Then again, maybe I’m getting soft in my old age.
Dear Hank,
If the situation was reversed, would the Repubs have the balls to cut funding? Would they risk the attacks that they had abandoned U.S. troops in the field?
And HOW could you forget America’s outrage at Bush’s threat to veto the $87 billion Iraq bill, which contained nearly $66 BILLION for U.S. troops in the field?
That WAS a very important part of the 2004 campaign.
‘White House threatens veto of Iraq aid bill over loans’http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/21/sprj.irq.congress.iraq.ap/
RD
Hank does not deserve your respect.
I am more of a gentleman than Mr Price. I will be taking my issues with him private.
cosmos – a good number of GOP voted against funding for Clinton’s Kosovo War, remember?
It’s just that the Dems have no backbone, which was illustrated the clearest by Kerry when he claimed to have, “voted for the war, before I voted against it.” Comments like that lose elections as we witnessed.
They go whichever way the wind blows, appeasers, with little regard for integrity.
A good number? How many? 2 — 4?
“They go whichever way the wind blows, appeasers, with little regard for integrity.”
An odd statement comsidering the half truths, deceptions and blatant lies of this administration – that got us into this mess..
Thanks RD,
I think it’s possible to disagree without being disagreeable, but some people take t as an insult if you actually have a different opinion.
I think we probably agree about more than we disagree. You’re just wrong about a few things. :)
Hank
Hey cosmos,
Honestly? I think the republicans in congress are almost as sorry as the democrats. Almost.
The president, on the other hand, has the conviction of his principals to do what he thinks right. Most of the time.
Your link supports my opinion, not yours.
Hank
“I will be taking my issues with him private.”
You inviting me to lunch?
Name the place.
Hank
“I will be taking my issues with him private.”
You inviting me to lunch?
Name the place.
Hank
“Fleetwood is your best suspect.”
I see my name was taken in vain last night. Twasn’t me, but someone must be laughing at your stupidity.
Hank- I think junior is the one with the sharp stick. Wear safety goggles. Mom was right, it will poke your eye out.
Hey fleetwood,
Junior is a bad, bad man…on a BLOG.
In person he is quite congenial. A real nice non-confrontational fellow.
Hank
Hank,
“The president, on the other hand, has the conviction of his principals to do what he thinks right. Most of the time.”
Are you saying that Bush would have vetoed the bill with $66 billion funding for the troops, over the loan issue? Would that prove he does NOT support our troops?
My link supports the fact that the veto can control Congress, unless they can get a 2/3rd’s majority vote.
GSheridan,
“It’s just that the Dems have no backbone, which was illustrated the clearest by Kerry when he claimed to have, “voted for the war, before I voted against it.” Comments like that lose elections as we witnessed.”
You’re misinformed, again, and have it backwards.Kerry voted for the $87 billion Iraq bill that Bush threatened to veto (over loans). Kerry (and others) also wanted the bill paid with taxes, and Congressional oversight on spending.
Kerry voted against a completely DIFFERENT version of the $87 billion bill — loans removed, paid by adding to deficit, and gave the WH a “blank check”.
Kerry showed integrity, not appeasement.Bush and the “liberal”(sic) MSM hammered Kerry for his protest vote, and IGNORED the hypocrisy of Bush’s veto threat.
Hey cosmos,
“Are you saying that Bush would have vetoed the bill with $66 billion funding for the troops, over the loan issue?”
Yep, that’s what I’m saying. The president said he would. I believed him. Evidently the congress believed him.
“Would that prove he does NOT support our troops?”
Nope. Did you read your entire link? Did you try and understand the main points your link was trying to make?
In your link there was a quote from a letter written to congress by White House budget director Joshua Bolten:
“Including a loan mechanism slows efforts to stabilize the region and to relieve pressure on our troops, raises questions about our commitment to building a democratic and self-governing Iraq, and impairs our ability to encourage other nations to provide badly needed assistance without saddling Iraq with additional debt,”
Notice the first part of this quote,
“Including a loan mechanism slows efforts to stabilize the region and to relieve pressure on our troops,”
The very fact that the administration thought the loan requirement would damage our troops over the long run shows that part of the presidents opposition was because of his support of the troops.
I hope that this makes the president’s position and my support of him a little clearer for you in this regard.
Thank you for the opportunity to clear this up!
Hank
Hank,
” “Would that prove he does NOT support our troops?”
Nope. Did you read your entire link? Did you try and understand the main points your link was trying to make?”
I thought during the 2004 campaign that Bush’s veto threat was not connected to “support” for our troops, because the troops would be funded, regardless.
And neither was Kerry’s protest vote against the $87 billion bill — but Bush said that Kerry’s vote proved Kerry did not support our troops. That’s hypocritical, considering Bush’s veto threat.
Joshua Bolten’s quotes? Do some more research.Despite being given a “blank check”, the WH spent the reconstruction money much too slowly, and unwisely. For example, not enough security was provided for building projects.
Failure of the reconstruction put our troops in more danger.
If only Bush would display some new brains to go along with his old resolve.
Resolve is necessary, but it ain’t sufficient. In a vibrant, healthy, strong American democracy, good brains in a POTUS would be both necessary and sufficient.
Course, Bush fails Americans on that damn test.
Again.