Originally posted by sithsaber408
I was being provacative. 😛I guess the real question is: Wasn't Bush supposed to be a lame duck president?
Weren't the elections of '06 somehow the "voice of the nation" that the war must end and that Dems were going to hand bush his butt?
Weren't they going to stick it to Bush?
They caved, none of that's happening?
Discuss. Does it ever?
😂
^^^As I said, that is the true question of the thread.
I apologize for the photoshop, as it seems to have everybody up in arms. (My conservative sense of humor, sorry.)
I've seen a few good responses, mostly that the Dems don't want to screw the troops whilst having Bush give up the war.
So they didn't fight the funding bill.
I can understand that. 👆
But they had a version of it that required troops to come home by certain points of time, in effect ending the war.
This was vetoed, and they have dropped that line of thinking. (For now it seems.)
So again I ask, what happened?
I thought that the Dems "sweeping" the '06 elections and taking a majority in the House and the Senate was supposed to end the control of Bush, or at least make him compromise on his agendas.
But it's the Dems, the new majority, who are comprimising with Bush, who now will get to try his "summer surge" of 5 battalions of troops to get Baghdad under control.
Does this have anything to do with the recently de-classified info. of Bin Laden using Al-Queada operatives in Iraq to plan attacks on the U.S. and other areas?
Does it have anything to do with Bush's claims that the de-classified info. includes more terror plots that were foiled, things that we just don't know about as they happen?
Or is this just a bump in the road for Dems?
Will they still be able to "Stick it to the Man"?
Discuss.
stfu clown. just continue trolling and post your silly pictures and taunt people for giving a shit about other people dying by the thousands (americans included)
do your silly clown gag, but ffs dont think you can then turn around and make this a serious discussion....your "wTfPwN'z Lolz warz deathz hahahaz" thread
want an intelligent debate here? you can start by leaving
Originally posted by Schecter
stfu clown. just continue trolling and post your silly pictures and taunt people for giving a shit about other people dying by the thousands (americans included)do your silly clown gag, but ffs dont think you can then turn around and make this a serious discussion....your "wTfPwN'z Lolz warz deathz hahahaz" thread
want an intelligent debate here? you can start by leaving
You respond to what you say is clown behavior with more clown behavior?
And what you acknowledge as a return to serious discussion by refusing to discuss?
Fail. 👇
(just like the dems have failed so far to do anything about Bush's agenda. Contrary to their campaign speeches.)
Originally posted by sithsaber408
You respond to what you say is clown behavior with more clown behavior?And what you acknowledge as a return to serious discussion by refusing to discuss?
Fail. 👇
(just like the dems have failed so far to do anything about Bush's agenda. Contrary to their campaign speeches.)
So not giving the troops funding although they would still be in Iraq would prove what exactly?
Originally posted by sithsaber408
^^^As I said, that is the true question of the thread.I apologize for the photoshop, as it seems to have everybody up in arms. (My conservative sense of humor, sorry.)
I've seen a few good responses, mostly that the Dems don't want to screw the troops whilst having Bush give up the war.
So they didn't fight the funding bill.
I can understand that. 👆
But they had a version of it that required troops to come home by certain points of time, in effect ending the war.
This was vetoed, and they have dropped that line of thinking. (For now it seems.)
So again I ask, what happened?
I thought that the Dems "sweeping" the '06 elections and taking a majority in the House and the Senate was supposed to end the control of Bush, or at least make him compromise on his agendas.
But it's the Dems, the new majority, who are comprimising with Bush, who now will get to try his "summer surge" of 5 battalions of troops to get Baghdad under control.
Does this have anything to do with the recently de-classified info. of Bin Laden using Al-Queada operatives in Iraq to plan attacks on the U.S. and other areas?
Does it have anything to do with Bush's claims that the de-classified info. includes more terror plots that were foiled, things that we just don't know about as they happen?
Or is this just a bump in the road for Dems?
Will they still be able to "Stick it to the Man"?
Discuss.
More important question, why isn't Bush agreeable with deadlines, any deadlines?? Don't you think if Iraqi law enforcement and military branches knew they had up to a certain point in time to get their shit together, they'd push harder to get their shit together? Wasn't it Bush's plan that the Iraqis run their own country and fend for themselves as an independent nation?
Flashback to 1999, when George W. Bush was governor of Texas, campaigning for president and criticizing the Clinton Administration for not setting a timetable for exiting the Kosovo war.
Bush told the Houston Chronicle (April 9, 1999):
“Victory means an exit strategy, and it's important for a president to explain what the exit strategy is.â€
Then he told the Scripps Howard/Seattle Post-Intelligencer (June 5, 1999):
“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.â€
Discuss that Sith.
Originally posted by Robtard
More important question, why isn't Bush agreeable with deadlines, any deadlines?? Don't you think if Iraqi law enforcement and military branches knew they had up to a certain point in time to get their shit together, they'd push harder to get their shit together? Wasn't it Bush's plan that the Iraqis run their own country and fend for themselves as an independent nation?Discuss that Sith.
He's against the currently proposed timetables because they are too soon.
Training and fully equiping Iraqi Army, police, and even political officials will likely take 4 or 5 more years to get them to optimum levels.
NOBODY wants to hear that, and he's not saying that, but that would be my guess as to his rejection of the timetables/deadlines.
He wants the Iraqi's to take control, it just aint happening (in a good, complete way) by the end of next year.
Point discussed. 😄
Now back to the other questions:
The Dems had a version of the funding bill that required troops to come home by certain points of time, in effect ending the war.
This was vetoed, and they have dropped that line of thinking. (For now it seems.)
So again I ask, what happened?
I thought that the Dems "sweeping" the '06 elections and taking a majority in the House and the Senate was supposed to end the control of Bush, or at least make him compromise on his agendas.
But it's the Dems, the new majority, who are comprimising with Bush, who now will get to try his "summer surge" of 5 battalions of troops to get Baghdad under control.
Does this have anything to do with the recently de-classified info. of Bin Laden using Al-Queada operatives in Iraq to plan attacks on the U.S. and other areas?
Does it have anything to do with Bush's claims that the de-classified info. includes more terror plots that were foiled, things that we just don't know about as they happen?
Or is this just a bump in the road for Dems?
Will they still be able to "Stick it to the Man"?
Discuss.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
He's against the currently proposed timetables because they are too soon.Training and fully equiping Iraqi Army, police, and even political officials will likely take 4 or 5 more years to get them to optimum levels.
NOBODY wants to hear that, and he's not saying that, but that would be my guess as to his rejection of the timetables/deadlines.
He wants the Iraqi's to take control, it just aint happening (in a good, complete way) by the end of next year.
Point discussed. 😄
Now back to the other questions:
The Dems had a version of the funding bill that required troops to come home by certain points of time, in effect ending the war.
This was vetoed, and they have dropped that line of thinking. (For now it seems.)
So again I ask, what happened?
I thought that the Dems "sweeping" the '06 elections and taking a majority in the House and the Senate was supposed to end the control of Bush, or at least make him compromise on his agendas.
But it's the Dems, the new majority, who are comprimising with Bush, who now will get to try his "summer surge" of 5 battalions of troops to get Baghdad under control.
Does this have anything to do with the recently de-classified info. of Bin Laden using Al-Queada operatives in Iraq to plan attacks on the U.S. and other areas?
Does it have anything to do with Bush's claims that the de-classified info. includes more terror plots that were foiled, things that we just don't know about as they happen?
Or is this just a bump in the road for Dems?
Will they still be able to "Stick it to the Man"?
Discuss.
It's a lose-lose for the Dems, anything the put forward that can potentially end the war will be vetoed before it hit's the oval office, so what are they to do? Cut money and starve the troops? Obviously they can't.
You saying "Stick it to the man" is funny, considering we Americans will soon be 85 billion dollars more in debt and probably even more since there's no deadline... guess who's going to shoulder the bill? You guessed it, your children and grandchildren... talk about "taxation without representation". The man is sticking it to us and our future offspring, and you're gleefully supplying the barrels.
What did you think of the two Bush quotes I posted though?
Originally posted by Robtard
It's a lose-lose for the Dems, anything the put forward that can potentially end the war will be vetoed before it hit's the oval office, so what are they to do? Cut money and starve the troops? Obviously they can't.You saying "Stick it to the man" is funny, considering we Americans will soon be 85 billion dollars more in debt and probably even more since there's no deadline... guess who's going to shoulder the bill? You guessed it, your children and grandchildren... talk about "taxation without representation". The man is sticking it to us and our future offspring, and you're gleefully supplying the barrels.
[b]What did you think of the two Bush quotes I posted though?
[/B]
I think those quotes represent his thoughts.
Changes need to be made, Iraqi's need to be trained, a timed goal should be set.
I also think that he personally believes that timetable will be more like 4 or 5 years, and so he rejects all of the Dems short-term timetables.
(he doesn't actually voice this because it would be politcal suicide, but that would be my closest guess.)
The rest of your post is spot-on, we will all be shouldering the debt for this war. I and my kids and grandkids.
Hopefully this war and any others like it will mean that I and my kids and grandkids aren't shouldering death and destruction from more terror attacks.
Time will tell.
But the issues that I'm bringing up aren't getting answered.
I agree it was a lose-lose as far as trying to cut funds cut, or appear that they were cutting funds.
But why back down on the timetable requirement for the funds?
Why not try impeachment?
Why not try to force a House and Senate vote to just end the war?
I thought that the Dems '06 Elections were a "representation of America's desire for change, their displeasure with Bush, and their need for this war to end." (according to Dems.)
Yet the Dems have done very little for those voters to counter-act Bush (whose supposed to be a "lame-duck" for the rest of his term), or oppose his policies.
Their one attempt was vetoed, and they (even with the majority in the House and the Senate) couldn't get the veto overidden.
If that's where it's at and thats where it will stay, then their slim majority in the senate and larger one in the house mean absolutely nothing.
Indeed, though it was a joke, as the title suggests, Bush has kept all his agendas on track, is getting just what he wants in Iraq and has by himself pwnt the Dems.
Discuss.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I think those quotes represent his thoughts.Changes need to be made, Iraqi's need to be trained, a timed goal should be set.
I also think that he personally believes that timetable will be more like 4 or 5 years, and so he rejects all of the Dems short-term timetables.
(he doesn't actually voice this because it would be politcal suicide, but that would be my closest guess.)
The rest of your post is spot-on, we will all be shouldering the debt for this war. I and my kids and grandkids.
Hopefully this war and any others like it will mean that I and my kids and grandkids aren't shouldering death and destruction from more terror attacks.
Time will tell.
But the issues that I'm bringing up aren't getting answered.
I agree it was a lose-lose as far as trying to cut funds cut, or appear that they were cutting funds.
But why back down on the timetable requirement for the funds?
Why not try impeachment?
Why not try to force a House and Senate vote to just end the war?
I thought that the Dems '06 Elections were a "representation of America's desire for change, their displeasure with Bush, and their need for this war to end." (according to Dems.)
Yet the Dems have done very little for those voters to counter-act Bush (whose supposed to be a "lame-duck" for the rest of his term), or oppose his policies.
Their one attempt was vetoed, and they (even with the majority in the House and the Senate) couldn't get the veto overidden.
If that's where it's at and thats where it will stay, then their slim majority in the senate and larger one in the house mean absolutely nothing.
Indeed, though it was a joke, as the title suggests, Bush has kept all his agendas on track, is getting just what he wants in Iraq and has by himself pwnt the Dems.
Discuss.
And aren't those thoughts hypocritical in hindsight? He bashed Clinton for doing the same exact thing he accused him of. That doesn't bother you just a little? it doesn't raise an eyebrow and make you ask questions?
Guessing what Bush is "thinking" is a lame move... Fact is, when the war started old Rummy said something along the lines of "the war shouldn't take more than 6 months and Iraq will be stable"... Five years later we're still at it, with no set goals or scheduling from our president and you're thinking we'll just wait another 4-5 years to see what happens; that is sound reasoning to you?
I know things change as time progresses and "tweaks" need to be made. Seriously though, you don't think the president should in the very least express his thoughts to Americans (and the Iraqis) on the matter and not keep his mouth shut for "fear of political suicide"? In case you haven't noticed, he's on the ass-end of his second term, he can't run again, what "political suicide" would he be committing?
Because they can't, what part of that can't you understand, it's a lose-lose scenario for them. Impeachments hurt the country as a whole and an "impeached" president doesn't have to step down... Clinton was impeached, did he leave office.
Oh, the great cry of the Patriot... "We'll pay the debt to save lives..." All the while you're happily bending over, spreading your ass cheeks to the point of causing a fissure while not questioning anything. Patriots question their leaders, not blindly follow.
Now bark for him fanboy, he likes it when you talk dirty.