Religions > Atheism > Alabama state website declares Founding Fathers of the USA to have been terrorists.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Useful Info" |
| Date: |
10 May 2007 12:30:11 PM |
| Object: |
Alabama state website declares Founding Fathers of the USA to have been terrorists. |
Find the story at http://Muvy.org
.
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Alabama state website declares Founding Fathers of the USA to have been terrorists. |
10 May 2007 05:10:33 PM |
|
|
"Useful Info" <useful_inf@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178818211.861068.42770@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Find the story at http://Muvy.org
One of the smartest things coming out of Alabama in a long time.
Washington's forces were guerrilla fighters. As were the founders of Israel.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "P.Henery" |
|
| Title: Re: Alabama state website declares Founding Fathers of the USA to have been terrorists. |
10 May 2007 12:52:30 PM |
|
|
On 10 May 2007 10:30:11 -0700, Useful Info wrote:
Terrorists? Very likely. The Boston Tea Party certainly could be classified
as a terrorist act.
Traitors? Definitely.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Alabama state website declares Founding Fathers of the USA to have been terrorists. |
10 May 2007 02:13:49 PM |
|
|
On 10 mei, 19:30, Useful Info <useful_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Find the story athttp://Muvy.org
King Georg III would be ever so happy!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: Alabama state website declares Founding Fathers of the USA to have been terrorists. |
10 May 2007 03:36:01 PM |
|
|
On May 10, 1:30 pm, Useful Info <useful_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Find the story athttp://Muvy.org
*sigh*
This little ***** keeps trying to drive traffic to his poorly designed
website.
So here's the direct link to the article AGAIN
http://www.chrisbrunner.com/2007/05/09/libertarians-are-terrorists-says-the-state-of-alabama/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fafnir" |
|
| Title: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
11 May 2007 01:22:42 AM |
|
|
War funding vote ignores Bush's veto threat
The House of Representatives approved a $96 billion war spending bill Thursday that would make continued funding of the Iraq war dependent on a July progress report -- defying President Bush's threat to veto the bill a second time. The bill now goes to the Senate, where both parties have been seeking a compromise with the White House
http://www.cnn.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
11 May 2007 07:24:21 PM |
|
|
"Fafnir" <fritz@spamexpire-200705.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote in
message news:bf6365f469d9a520b1b70f8f6acb8c2a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
War funding vote ignores Bush's veto threat
The House of Representatives approved a $96 billion war spending bill
Thursday that would make continued funding of the Iraq war dependent on a
July progress report -- defying President Bush's threat to veto the bill a
second time. The bill now goes to the Senate, where both parties have been
seeking a compromise with the White House
http://www.cnn.com/
So, the troops get no money, and it's all Bush's fault.
Then again, we always knew that Bush only 'thinks'
of our troops as cannon fodder.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
13 May 2007 02:28:57 AM |
|
|
In article <X-mdnQ-EesCslNjbnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"Fafnir" <fritz@spamexpire-200705.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote in
message news:bf6365f469d9a520b1b70f8f6acb8c2a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
War funding vote ignores Bush's veto threat
The House of Representatives approved a $96 billion war spending bill
Thursday that would make continued funding of the Iraq war dependent on a
July progress report -- defying President Bush's threat to veto the bill a
second time. The bill now goes to the Senate, where both parties have been
seeking a compromise with the White House
http://www.cnn.com/
So, the troops get no money, and it's all Bush's fault.
Then again, we always knew that Bush only 'thinks'
of our troops as cannon fodder.
Bush also could, of course, have signed the last bill and just issued
one of his 'signing statements' saying that the time tables really
didn't apply and he could ignore them. It's not like he hasn't done such
things before. Now he wants to veto the partial funding bill which
doesn't even have the timelines. All it wants is for him to show
progress.
The only conclusion is that he doesn't want to fund the troops so he can
pin the blame on the Democrats for 'losing' Iraq.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
13 May 2007 04:12:33 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-9FF1A2.00285713052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <X-mdnQ-EesCslNjbnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"Fafnir" <fritz@spamexpire-200705.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote in
message
news:bf6365f469d9a520b1b70f8f6acb8c2a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
War funding vote ignores Bush's veto threat
The House of Representatives approved a $96 billion war spending bill
Thursday that would make continued funding of the Iraq war dependent on
a
July progress report -- defying President Bush's threat to veto the
bill a
second time. The bill now goes to the Senate, where both parties have
been
seeking a compromise with the White House
http://www.cnn.com/
So, the troops get no money, and it's all Bush's fault.
Then again, we always knew that Bush only 'thinks'
of our troops as cannon fodder.
Bush also could, of course, have signed the last bill and just issued
one of his 'signing statements' saying that the time tables really
didn't apply and he could ignore them. It's not like he hasn't done such
things before. Now he wants to veto the partial funding bill which
doesn't even have the timelines. All it wants is for him to show
progress.
The only conclusion is that he doesn't want to fund the troops so he can
pin the blame on the Democrats for 'losing' Iraq.
But, Bush is too stupid to realize that isn't working.
The Democrats are proposing the bills that the
people want and Bush keeps turning them down.
He damages himself more and more each time he
vetoes a bill that the American people want. I guess
having a popularity rating of 28% isn't low enough
for him.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
14 May 2007 12:42:39 AM |
|
|
In article <gc-dnVwF_f3mS9vbnZ2dnUVZ_tGvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-9FF1A2.00285713052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <X-mdnQ-EesCslNjbnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"Fafnir" <fritz@spamexpire-200705.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote in
message
news:bf6365f469d9a520b1b70f8f6acb8c2a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
War funding vote ignores Bush's veto threat
The House of Representatives approved a $96 billion war spending bill
Thursday that would make continued funding of the Iraq war dependent on
a
July progress report -- defying President Bush's threat to veto the
bill a
second time. The bill now goes to the Senate, where both parties have
been
seeking a compromise with the White House
http://www.cnn.com/
So, the troops get no money, and it's all Bush's fault.
Then again, we always knew that Bush only 'thinks'
of our troops as cannon fodder.
Bush also could, of course, have signed the last bill and just issued
one of his 'signing statements' saying that the time tables really
didn't apply and he could ignore them. It's not like he hasn't done such
things before. Now he wants to veto the partial funding bill which
doesn't even have the timelines. All it wants is for him to show
progress.
The only conclusion is that he doesn't want to fund the troops so he can
pin the blame on the Democrats for 'losing' Iraq.
But, Bush is too stupid to realize that isn't working.
The Democrats are proposing the bills that the
people want and Bush keeps turning them down.
He damages himself more and more each time he
vetoes a bill that the American people want. I guess
having a popularity rating of 28% isn't low enough
for him.
Well, Bush is not the brightest bulb on the tree. He probably believes
that he can spin the inevitable defeat so that someone else takes the
blame. But you are right. The American people after a long sleep are
finally waking up to his tricks. It's looking better and better for the
Democrats in 2008.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
14 May 2007 01:44:49 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-CB7744.22423913052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <gc-dnVwF_f3mS9vbnZ2dnUVZ_tGvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-9FF1A2.00285713052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <X-mdnQ-EesCslNjbnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"Fafnir" <fritz@spamexpire-200705.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote
in
message
news:bf6365f469d9a520b1b70f8f6acb8c2a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
War funding vote ignores Bush's veto threat
The House of Representatives approved a $96 billion war spending
bill
Thursday that would make continued funding of the Iraq war dependent
on
a
July progress report -- defying President Bush's threat to veto the
bill a
second time. The bill now goes to the Senate, where both parties
have
been
seeking a compromise with the White House
http://www.cnn.com/
So, the troops get no money, and it's all Bush's fault.
Then again, we always knew that Bush only 'thinks'
of our troops as cannon fodder.
Bush also could, of course, have signed the last bill and just issued
one of his 'signing statements' saying that the time tables really
didn't apply and he could ignore them. It's not like he hasn't done
such
things before. Now he wants to veto the partial funding bill which
doesn't even have the timelines. All it wants is for him to show
progress.
The only conclusion is that he doesn't want to fund the troops so he
can
pin the blame on the Democrats for 'losing' Iraq.
But, Bush is too stupid to realize that isn't working.
The Democrats are proposing the bills that the
people want and Bush keeps turning them down.
He damages himself more and more each time he
vetoes a bill that the American people want. I guess
having a popularity rating of 28% isn't low enough
for him.
Well, Bush is not the brightest bulb on the tree. He probably believes
that he can spin the inevitable defeat so that someone else takes the
blame. But you are right. The American people after a long sleep are
finally waking up to his tricks. It's looking better and better for the
Democrats in 2008.
Thank goodness.The people probably wouldn't even
be fooled if bin Ladin was suddenly 'found'. Bush has
pulled rabbits out of his hat too many times.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
14 May 2007 06:31:26 PM |
|
|
In article <_IudnYH4hurKmNXbnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-CB7744.22423913052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <gc-dnVwF_f3mS9vbnZ2dnUVZ_tGvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-9FF1A2.00285713052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <X-mdnQ-EesCslNjbnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"Fafnir" <fritz@spamexpire-200705.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote
in
message
news:bf6365f469d9a520b1b70f8f6acb8c2a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
War funding vote ignores Bush's veto threat
The House of Representatives approved a $96 billion war spending
bill
Thursday that would make continued funding of the Iraq war dependent
on
a
July progress report -- defying President Bush's threat to veto the
bill a
second time. The bill now goes to the Senate, where both parties
have
been
seeking a compromise with the White House
http://www.cnn.com/
So, the troops get no money, and it's all Bush's fault.
Then again, we always knew that Bush only 'thinks'
of our troops as cannon fodder.
Bush also could, of course, have signed the last bill and just issued
one of his 'signing statements' saying that the time tables really
didn't apply and he could ignore them. It's not like he hasn't done
such
things before. Now he wants to veto the partial funding bill which
doesn't even have the timelines. All it wants is for him to show
progress.
The only conclusion is that he doesn't want to fund the troops so he
can
pin the blame on the Democrats for 'losing' Iraq.
But, Bush is too stupid to realize that isn't working.
The Democrats are proposing the bills that the
people want and Bush keeps turning them down.
He damages himself more and more each time he
vetoes a bill that the American people want. I guess
having a popularity rating of 28% isn't low enough
for him.
Well, Bush is not the brightest bulb on the tree. He probably believes
that he can spin the inevitable defeat so that someone else takes the
blame. But you are right. The American people after a long sleep are
finally waking up to his tricks. It's looking better and better for the
Democrats in 2008.
Thank goodness.The people probably wouldn't even
be fooled if bin Ladin was suddenly 'found'. Bush has
pulled rabbits out of his hat too many times.
How many al Qaeda "leaders" have we killed now? It seems that we bump
one off almost every week.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
14 May 2007 07:57:09 PM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-088E26.16312614052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <_IudnYH4hurKmNXbnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-CB7744.22423913052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <gc-dnVwF_f3mS9vbnZ2dnUVZ_tGvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-9FF1A2.00285713052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <X-mdnQ-EesCslNjbnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"Fafnir" <fritz@spamexpire-200705.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>
wrote
in
message
news:bf6365f469d9a520b1b70f8f6acb8c2a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
War funding vote ignores Bush's veto threat
The House of Representatives approved a $96 billion war spending
bill
Thursday that would make continued funding of the Iraq war
dependent
on
a
July progress report -- defying President Bush's threat to veto
the
bill a
second time. The bill now goes to the Senate, where both parties
have
been
seeking a compromise with the White House
http://www.cnn.com/
So, the troops get no money, and it's all Bush's fault.
Then again, we always knew that Bush only 'thinks'
of our troops as cannon fodder.
Bush also could, of course, have signed the last bill and just
issued
one of his 'signing statements' saying that the time tables really
didn't apply and he could ignore them. It's not like he hasn't done
such
things before. Now he wants to veto the partial funding bill which
doesn't even have the timelines. All it wants is for him to show
progress.
The only conclusion is that he doesn't want to fund the troops so he
can
pin the blame on the Democrats for 'losing' Iraq.
But, Bush is too stupid to realize that isn't working.
The Democrats are proposing the bills that the
people want and Bush keeps turning them down.
He damages himself more and more each time he
vetoes a bill that the American people want. I guess
having a popularity rating of 28% isn't low enough
for him.
Well, Bush is not the brightest bulb on the tree. He probably believes
that he can spin the inevitable defeat so that someone else takes the
blame. But you are right. The American people after a long sleep are
finally waking up to his tricks. It's looking better and better for the
Democrats in 2008.
Thank goodness.The people probably wouldn't even
be fooled if bin Ladin was suddenly 'found'. Bush has
pulled rabbits out of his hat too many times.
How many al Qaeda "leaders" have we killed now? It seems that we bump
one off almost every week.
Another 'highly placed' leader just this week. I'm
starting to wonder if Al Qaeda is all leaders and
no followers.
Hey, lookit this. Keith Olberman said that Bush
is a great leader! Of course, he was referring
to Reggie Bush...
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
14 May 2007 11:56:27 PM |
|
|
In article <-N2dnVnM5qPGmNTbnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-088E26.16312614052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <_IudnYH4hurKmNXbnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-CB7744.22423913052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <gc-dnVwF_f3mS9vbnZ2dnUVZ_tGvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-9FF1A2.00285713052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <X-mdnQ-EesCslNjbnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"Fafnir" <fritz@spamexpire-200705.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>
wrote
in
message
news:bf6365f469d9a520b1b70f8f6acb8c2a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
War funding vote ignores Bush's veto threat
The House of Representatives approved a $96 billion war spending
bill
Thursday that would make continued funding of the Iraq war
dependent
on
a
July progress report -- defying President Bush's threat to veto
the
bill a
second time. The bill now goes to the Senate, where both parties
have
been
seeking a compromise with the White House
http://www.cnn.com/
So, the troops get no money, and it's all Bush's fault.
Then again, we always knew that Bush only 'thinks'
of our troops as cannon fodder.
Bush also could, of course, have signed the last bill and just
issued
one of his 'signing statements' saying that the time tables really
didn't apply and he could ignore them. It's not like he hasn't done
such
things before. Now he wants to veto the partial funding bill which
doesn't even have the timelines. All it wants is for him to show
progress.
The only conclusion is that he doesn't want to fund the troops so he
can
pin the blame on the Democrats for 'losing' Iraq.
But, Bush is too stupid to realize that isn't working.
The Democrats are proposing the bills that the
people want and Bush keeps turning them down.
He damages himself more and more each time he
vetoes a bill that the American people want. I guess
having a popularity rating of 28% isn't low enough
for him.
Well, Bush is not the brightest bulb on the tree. He probably believes
that he can spin the inevitable defeat so that someone else takes the
blame. But you are right. The American people after a long sleep are
finally waking up to his tricks. It's looking better and better for the
Democrats in 2008.
Thank goodness.The people probably wouldn't even
be fooled if bin Ladin was suddenly 'found'. Bush has
pulled rabbits out of his hat too many times.
How many al Qaeda "leaders" have we killed now? It seems that we bump
one off almost every week.
Another 'highly placed' leader just this week. I'm
starting to wonder if Al Qaeda is all leaders and
no followers.
Yep. Anytime that he wants a bump up in support for his illegal war we
kill another 'leader'. I think that the people are getting wise to him
now.
Hey, lookit this. Keith Olberman said that Bush
is a great leader! Of course, he was referring
to Reggie Bush...
I saw that. Funny. He hasn't done one of his 'special comments' in a
while. He's certainly had plenty of material lately.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
15 May 2007 02:13:30 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-7DE5C0.21562714052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <-N2dnVnM5qPGmNTbnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-088E26.16312614052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <_IudnYH4hurKmNXbnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-CB7744.22423913052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <gc-dnVwF_f3mS9vbnZ2dnUVZ_tGvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-9FF1A2.00285713052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <X-mdnQ-EesCslNjbnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"Fafnir" <fritz@spamexpire-200705.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>
wrote
in
message
news:bf6365f469d9a520b1b70f8f6acb8c2a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
War funding vote ignores Bush's veto threat
The House of Representatives approved a $96 billion war
spending
bill
Thursday that would make continued funding of the Iraq war
dependent
on
a
July progress report -- defying President Bush's threat to
veto
the
bill a
second time. The bill now goes to the Senate, where both
parties
have
been
seeking a compromise with the White House
http://www.cnn.com/
So, the troops get no money, and it's all Bush's fault.
Then again, we always knew that Bush only 'thinks'
of our troops as cannon fodder.
Bush also could, of course, have signed the last bill and just
issued
one of his 'signing statements' saying that the time tables
really
didn't apply and he could ignore them. It's not like he hasn't
done
such
things before. Now he wants to veto the partial funding bill
which
doesn't even have the timelines. All it wants is for him to show
progress.
The only conclusion is that he doesn't want to fund the troops so
he
can
pin the blame on the Democrats for 'losing' Iraq.
But, Bush is too stupid to realize that isn't working.
The Democrats are proposing the bills that the
people want and Bush keeps turning them down.
He damages himself more and more each time he
vetoes a bill that the American people want. I guess
having a popularity rating of 28% isn't low enough
for him.
Well, Bush is not the brightest bulb on the tree. He probably
believes
that he can spin the inevitable defeat so that someone else takes
the
blame. But you are right. The American people after a long sleep are
finally waking up to his tricks. It's looking better and better for
the
Democrats in 2008.
Thank goodness.The people probably wouldn't even
be fooled if bin Ladin was suddenly 'found'. Bush has
pulled rabbits out of his hat too many times.
How many al Qaeda "leaders" have we killed now? It seems that we bump
one off almost every week.
Another 'highly placed' leader just this week. I'm
starting to wonder if Al Qaeda is all leaders and
no followers.
Yep. Anytime that he wants a bump up in support for his illegal war we
kill another 'leader'. I think that the people are getting wise to him
now.
Hey, lookit this. Keith Olberman said that Bush
is a great leader! Of course, he was referring
to Reggie Bush...
I saw that. Funny. He hasn't done one of his 'special comments' in a
while. He's certainly had plenty of material lately.
Maybe he's waiting for the Squatter's next veto.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
15 May 2007 06:46:18 PM |
|
|
In article <CsadnRa90OANwNTbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-7DE5C0.21562714052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <-N2dnVnM5qPGmNTbnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-088E26.16312614052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <_IudnYH4hurKmNXbnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-CB7744.22423913052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <gc-dnVwF_f3mS9vbnZ2dnUVZ_tGvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-9FF1A2.00285713052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <X-mdnQ-EesCslNjbnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"Fafnir" <fritz@spamexpire-200705.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>
wrote
in
message
news:bf6365f469d9a520b1b70f8f6acb8c2a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net.
..
War funding vote ignores Bush's veto threat
The House of Representatives approved a $96 billion war
spending
bill
Thursday that would make continued funding of the Iraq war
dependent
on
a
July progress report -- defying President Bush's threat to
veto
the
bill a
second time. The bill now goes to the Senate, where both
parties
have
been
seeking a compromise with the White House
http://www.cnn.com/
So, the troops get no money, and it's all Bush's fault.
Then again, we always knew that Bush only 'thinks'
of our troops as cannon fodder.
Bush also could, of course, have signed the last bill and just
issued
one of his 'signing statements' saying that the time tables
really
didn't apply and he could ignore them. It's not like he hasn't
done
such
things before. Now he wants to veto the partial funding bill
which
doesn't even have the timelines. All it wants is for him to show
progress.
The only conclusion is that he doesn't want to fund the troops so
he
can
pin the blame on the Democrats for 'losing' Iraq.
But, Bush is too stupid to realize that isn't working.
The Democrats are proposing the bills that the
people want and Bush keeps turning them down.
He damages himself more and more each time he
vetoes a bill that the American people want. I guess
having a popularity rating of 28% isn't low enough
for him.
Well, Bush is not the brightest bulb on the tree. He probably
believes
that he can spin the inevitable defeat so that someone else takes
the
blame. But you are right. The American people after a long sleep are
finally waking up to his tricks. It's looking better and better for
the
Democrats in 2008.
Thank goodness.The people probably wouldn't even
be fooled if bin Ladin was suddenly 'found'. Bush has
pulled rabbits out of his hat too many times.
How many al Qaeda "leaders" have we killed now? It seems that we bump
one off almost every week.
Another 'highly placed' leader just this week. I'm
starting to wonder if Al Qaeda is all leaders and
no followers.
Yep. Anytime that he wants a bump up in support for his illegal war we
kill another 'leader'. I think that the people are getting wise to him
now.
Hey, lookit this. Keith Olberman said that Bush
is a great leader! Of course, he was referring
to Reggie Bush...
I saw that. Funny. He hasn't done one of his 'special comments' in a
while. He's certainly had plenty of material lately.
Maybe he's waiting for the Squatter's next veto.
Which shouldn't be long in coming. I think the Senate is supposed to
debate the Iraq funding bill today or tomorrow.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "A Veteran" |
|
| Title: Re: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
15 May 2007 07:22:01 PM |
|
|
In article <jhachmann-B57C36.16461815052007@news.giganews.com>,
johac <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <CsadnRa90OANwNTbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-7DE5C0.21562714052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <-N2dnVnM5qPGmNTbnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-088E26.16312614052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <_IudnYH4hurKmNXbnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-CB7744.22423913052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <gc-dnVwF_f3mS9vbnZ2dnUVZ_tGvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-9FF1A2.00285713052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <X-mdnQ-EesCslNjbnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"Fafnir" <fritz@spamexpire-200705.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>
wrote
in
message
news:bf6365f469d9a520b1b70f8f6acb8c2a@msgid.frell.theremailer.ne
t.
..
War funding vote ignores Bush's veto threat
The House of Representatives approved a $96 billion war
spending
bill
Thursday that would make continued funding of the Iraq war
dependent
on
a
July progress report -- defying President Bush's threat to
veto
the
bill a
second time. The bill now goes to the Senate, where both
parties
have
been
seeking a compromise with the White House
http://www.cnn.com/
So, the troops get no money, and it's all Bush's fault.
Then again, we always knew that Bush only 'thinks'
of our troops as cannon fodder.
Bush also could, of course, have signed the last bill and just
issued
one of his 'signing statements' saying that the time tables
really
didn't apply and he could ignore them. It's not like he hasn't
done
such
things before. Now he wants to veto the partial funding bill
which
doesn't even have the timelines. All it wants is for him to show
progress.
The only conclusion is that he doesn't want to fund the troops
so
he
can
pin the blame on the Democrats for 'losing' Iraq.
But, Bush is too stupid to realize that isn't working.
The Democrats are proposing the bills that the
people want and Bush keeps turning them down.
He damages himself more and more each time he
vetoes a bill that the American people want. I guess
having a popularity rating of 28% isn't low enough
for him.
Well, Bush is not the brightest bulb on the tree. He probably
believes
that he can spin the inevitable defeat so that someone else takes
the
blame. But you are right. The American people after a long sleep
are
finally waking up to his tricks. It's looking better and better for
the
Democrats in 2008.
Thank goodness.The people probably wouldn't even
be fooled if bin Ladin was suddenly 'found'. Bush has
pulled rabbits out of his hat too many times.
How many al Qaeda "leaders" have we killed now? It seems that we bump
one off almost every week.
Another 'highly placed' leader just this week. I'm
starting to wonder if Al Qaeda is all leaders and
no followers.
Yep. Anytime that he wants a bump up in support for his illegal war we
kill another 'leader'. I think that the people are getting wise to him
now.
Hey, lookit this. Keith Olberman said that Bush
is a great leader! Of course, he was referring
to Reggie Bush...
I saw that. Funny. He hasn't done one of his 'special comments' in a
while. He's certainly had plenty of material lately.
Maybe he's waiting for the Squatter's next veto.
Which shouldn't be long in coming. I think the Senate is supposed to
debate the Iraq funding bill today or tomorrow.
!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
13 May 2007 09:29:08 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 May 2007 00:28:57 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
So, the troops get no money, and it's all Bush's fault.
Then again, we always knew that Bush only 'thinks'
of our troops as cannon fodder.
Bush also could, of course, have signed the last bill and just issued
one of his 'signing statements' saying that the time tables really
didn't apply and he could ignore them. It's not like he hasn't done such
things before. Now he wants to veto the partial funding bill which
doesn't even have the timelines. All it wants is for him to show
progress.
The Democrats wanted to fun the troops for 2 months at a time and then
revisit the issue, essentially taking control of war policy. Plus the
pork is still in the bill. Bush isn't going to have any of that.
The only conclusion is that he doesn't want to fund the troops so he can
pin the blame on the Democrats for 'losing' Iraq.
That's your take on it, perhaps. However there is no "lose" Iraq. The
US has won every single insurrency war against it, incluiing Vietnam.
Vietnam fell 2 years after the US left and because the
Democrat-controlled Congress deliberately ALLOWED the South to fall.
--
I'm on a journey in search of myself.
If I get back first, let me know that I'm
looking for myself and don't let me leave.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fafnir" |
|
| Title: Re: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
14 May 2007 12:21:57 AM |
|
|
In article <dk7e43plcg13offtl8f0d5jdpuo9p91uaa@4ax.com>
orionca@earthlink.net wrote:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 00:28:57 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
So, the troops get no money, and it's all Bush's fault.
Then again, we always knew that Bush only 'thinks'
of our troops as cannon fodder.
The Democrats wanted to fun the troops for 2 months at a time and then
revisit the issue, essentially taking control of war policy. Plus the
pork is still in the bill. Bush isn't going to have any of that.
Then the war ends in July of 2007.
Due to a presidential veto of the troop funding bill.
Suits me fine.
That's your take on it, perhaps. However there is no "lose" Iraq. The
US has won every single insurrency war against it, incluiing Vietnam.
Vietnam fell 2 years after the US left and because the
Democrat-controlled Congress deliberately ALLOWED the South to fall.
Actually, Vietnam fell to the communists because Richard M. Nixon signed an instrument of surrender, one which withdrew US troops from South Vietnam but allowed the NVA army to remain in South Vietnam.
That's the very definition of surrender.
And we can confidently say that every American who died in Vietnam died for nothing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
14 May 2007 12:44:50 AM |
|
|
In article <dk7e43plcg13offtl8f0d5jdpuo9p91uaa@4ax.com>,
wrote:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 00:28:57 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
So, the troops get no money, and it's all Bush's fault.
Then again, we always knew that Bush only 'thinks'
of our troops as cannon fodder.
Bush also could, of course, have signed the last bill and just issued
one of his 'signing statements' saying that the time tables really
didn't apply and he could ignore them. It's not like he hasn't done such
things before. Now he wants to veto the partial funding bill which
doesn't even have the timelines. All it wants is for him to show
progress.
The Democrats wanted to fun the troops for 2 months at a time and then
revisit the issue, essentially taking control of war policy. Plus the
pork is still in the bill. Bush isn't going to have any of that.
Then that's his problem.
The only conclusion is that he doesn't want to fund the troops so he can
pin the blame on the Democrats for 'losing' Iraq.
That's your take on it, perhaps. However there is no "lose" Iraq. The
US has won every single insurrency war against it, incluiing Vietnam.
Not exactly.
Vietnam fell 2 years after the US left and because the
Democrat-controlled Congress deliberately ALLOWED the South to fall.
We lost Vietnam because even though we won all the big battles, we mever
won the people.
--
I'm on a journey in search of myself.
If I get back first, let me know that I'm
looking for myself and don't let me leave.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
13 May 2007 11:21:41 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 May 2007 07:29:08 -0700, wrote:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 00:28:57 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
So, the troops get no money, and it's all Bush's fault.
Then again, we always knew that Bush only 'thinks'
of our troops as cannon fodder.
Bush also could, of course, have signed the last bill and just issued
one of his 'signing statements' saying that the time tables really
didn't apply and he could ignore them. It's not like he hasn't done such
things before. Now he wants to veto the partial funding bill which
doesn't even have the timelines. All it wants is for him to show
progress.
The Democrats wanted to fun the troops for 2 months at a time and then
revisit the issue, essentially taking control of war policy. Plus the
pork is still in the bill. Bush isn't going to have any of that.
The only conclusion is that he doesn't want to fund the troops so he can
pin the blame on the Democrats for 'losing' Iraq.
That's your take on it, perhaps. However there is no "lose" Iraq. The
There is no "win". Every single day we're there makes it worse.
They don't want us there. The so-called "insurgents" (a loaded word
which implies an unjustified legitimacy for our presence) are what we
called freedom fighters when they did it eg in Afghanistan under
soviet occupation.
If there needs to be a foreign presence as the result of our own
appallingly inappropriate actions which we shouldn't even have done in
the first place, it should be handed over to the UN, with troops from
the Muslim world who are at least sensitive to local mores and aren't
as trigger happy.
We also have to return everythinb we have taken - eg their oil
industry which we privatised. As well as compensation, clean up
(especially DU), repair and rebuilding etc.
US has won every single insurrency war against it, incluiing Vietnam.
Bwaaaaaaahahahahahahaha.....................
There was no "insurgency". We took sides in somebody else's civil war.
Organising a leader we wanted for one of the sides, who then "invited"
us in to support him.
Vietnam fell 2 years after the US left and because the
Democrat-controlled Congress deliberately ALLOWED the South to fall.
Rewiting history.
Another war where the US lied to the world because it wanted a fight.
Where it pulled out because it had lost.
Ho Chi Minh saw himself as a patriot, uniting the country that the
colonial power had partitioned.
Partition never works - whether it is India/Pakistan,
Northern/Southern Ireland, Greek/Turkish Cyprus, North/South Korea,
Nort/South Vietnam etc. Or even Iraq/Kuwait (which the Western
occupiers split off because that's where the known oil was).
Try a thought experiment:
If the soviets were occupying the US, what would you be doing about
it? Would that make you an insurgent or somebody using all possible
means to fight back until they they were kicked out? Would you play by
the soviets' rules?
Try another one:
A Hispanic majority in California declare indepedence, China
immediately recognises the newly independant country, ignoring
history. Washington sends in the troops and China comes to the aid of
the new country.
Which is effectively what happened in the former Yugoslavia - except
that it was the USA that did that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
13 May 2007 01:00:43 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 May 2007 12:21:41 -0400, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Try a thought experiment:
If the soviets were occupying the US, what would you be doing about
it?
Working within the system to moderate their occupation policy.
Soviets, you see, didn't "occupy" a country so much as pillage it.
Resistance was met with overwhelming force and they believed in
bouncing the rubble. As a KGB chief once explained, when they
encountered resistance they wiped the village off the face of the
planet. Then they shot everyone in the nearest village for good
measure. The kind of insurgency Iraq has expereinced would be
unthinkable under Soviet rule for much the same reason it was
unthinkable under Hussein's rule. They failed in Afghanistan largely
because they lost stomach for the kind of domination tactics they'd
used in previous campaigns.
You perhaps are too young to remember the invasion of Hungary in 1958
and/or slept through your high school history classes.
--
I'm on a journey in search of myself.
If I get back first, let me know that I'm
looking for myself and don't let me leave.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dianaiad" |
|
| Title: Re: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
14 May 2007 08:19:48 PM |
|
|
On May 11, 5:24 pm, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
"Fafnir" <f...@spamexpire-200705.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote in
messagenews:bf6365f469d9a520b1b70f8f6acb8c2a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...> War funding vote ignores Bush's veto threat
The House of Representatives approved a $96 billion war spending bill
Thursday that would make continued funding of the Iraq war dependent on a
July progress report -- defying President Bush's threat to veto the bill a
second time. The bill now goes to the Senate, where both parties have been
seeking a compromise with the White House
http://www.cnn.com/
So, the troops get no money, and it's all Bush's fault.
Then again, we always knew that Bush only 'thinks'
of our troops as cannon fodder.
Right. The congress tries an end run around the constitution, and
attempts to blackmail the administration by saying 'you want our
troops to have money? Then you agree to let a bunch of politicians
make the military decisions' And then when Bush does not bow to the
blackmail, it's HIS fault?
I don't think so.
Congress has the right to defund the war. That they are not doing
that, but are instead fiddling around with it in this manner, is
cowardice personified. Bush has to veto this. Even if he agreed with
the timeline, he needs to veto this. We cannot tie the hands of the
military in this way--that way DOES lie a VietNam. Those of us who
were around at the time are well aware of that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Carroll" |
|
| Title: Re: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
14 May 2007 08:26:19 PM |
|
|
dianaiad wrote:
On May 11, 5:24 pm, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
"Fafnir" <f...@spamexpire-200705.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote
in
messagenews:bf6365f469d9a520b1b70f8f6acb8c2a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...>
War funding vote ignores Bush's veto threat
The House of Representatives approved a $96 billion war spending
bill Thursday that would make continued funding of the Iraq war
dependent on a July progress report -- defying President Bush's
threat to veto the bill a second time. The bill now goes to the
Senate, where both parties have been seeking a compromise with the
White House
http://www.cnn.com/
So, the troops get no money, and it's all Bush's fault.
Then again, we always knew that Bush only 'thinks'
of our troops as cannon fodder.
Right. The congress tries an end run around the constitution,
Back to school for you fella!
and
attempts to blackmail the administration by saying 'you want our
troops to have money? Then you agree to let a bunch of politicians
make the military decisions'
Elected Officials with the power of the purse was what you meant wasn't it?
Bush was elected in part on a "personally responsibility" agenda.
And then when Bush does not bow to the
blackmail, it's HIS fault?
Er, Ah, peah. Pretty much. He is an incompetent fool after all.
I don't think so.
Congress has the right to defund the war. That they are not doing
that, but are instead fiddling around with it in this manner, is
cowardice personified.
No it isn't. It's an accurate assesment of the mood of the country.
Americans want to get something - FINALLY - for their money.
Bush has to veto this. Even if he agreed with
the timeline, he needs to veto this. We cannot tie the hands of the
military in this way
Sure "WE" can. It's happening and goober is going to either go alond or go
without. Our troops WILL have what they need.
--
John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "dianaiad" |
|
| Title: Re: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
14 May 2007 09:46:13 PM |
|
|
On May 14, 6:26 pm, "J Carroll" <jcarr...@machiningsolution.com>
wrote:
dianaiad wrote:
On May 11, 5:24 pm, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
"Fafnir" <f...@spamexpire-200705.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote
in
messagenews:bf6365f469d9a520b1b70f8f6acb8c2a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...>
War funding vote ignores Bush's veto threat
The House of Representatives approved a $96 billion war spending
bill Thursday that would make continued funding of the Iraq war
dependent on a July progress report -- defying President Bush's
threat to veto the bill a second time. The bill now goes to the
Senate, where both parties have been seeking a compromise with the
White House
http://www.cnn.com/
So, the troops get no money, and it's all Bush's fault.
Then again, we always knew that Bush only 'thinks'
of our troops as cannon fodder.
Right. The congress tries an end run around the constitution,
Back to school for you fella!
Congress has the right to fund or defund the war. It does not have the
right to make actual military decisions.
and
attempts to blackmail the administration by saying 'you want our
troops to have money? Then you agree to let a bunch of politicians
make the military decisions'
Elected Officials with the power of the purse was what you meant wasn't it?
Bush was elected in part on a "personally responsibility" agenda.
And then when Bush does not bow to the
blackmail, it's HIS fault?
Er, Ah, peah. Pretty much. He is an incompetent fool after all.
I don't think so.
Congress has the right to defund the war. That they are not doing
that, but are instead fiddling around with it in this manner, is
cowardice personified.
No it isn't. It's an accurate assesment of the mood of the country.
Americans want to get something - FINALLY - for their money.
You guys keep talking as if your congressional majority were actually
worth something...as you had more than a two Democrat majority in the
Senate, or that the House had a huge majority Democrat contingent. You
don't. How is that the entire 'mood of the country?' Since when are
the Democrats the only Americans who have an opinion worth noting?
Bush has to veto this. Even if he agreed with
the timeline, he needs to veto this. We cannot tie the hands of the
military in this way
Sure "WE" can. It's happening and goober is going to either go alond or go
without. Our troops WILL have what they need.
Yes they will. But they will in spite of the cowards in congress.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Carroll" |
|
| Title: Re: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
14 May 2007 10:02:03 PM |
|
|
dianaiad wrote:
On May 14, 6:26 pm, "J Carroll" <jcarr...@machiningsolution.com>
wrote:
dianaiad wrote:
On May 11, 5:24 pm, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
"Fafnir" <f...@spamexpire-200705.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>
wrote in
messagenews:bf6365f469d9a520b1b70f8f6acb8c2a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...>
War funding vote ignores Bush's veto threat
The House of Representatives approved a $96 billion war spending
bill Thursday that would make continued funding of the Iraq war
dependent on a July progress report -- defying President Bush's
threat to veto the bill a second time. The bill now goes to the
Senate, where both parties have been seeking a compromise with the
White House
http://www.cnn.com/
So, the troops get no money, and it's all Bush's fault.
Then again, we always knew that Bush only 'thinks'
of our troops as cannon fodder.
Right. The congress tries an end run around the constitution,
Back to school for you fella!
Congress has the right to fund or defund the war. It does not have the
right to make actual military decisions.
And they aren't. What they are doing is holding Bush to his promises. The
Iraqi's as well.
Gotta problem with that?
and
attempts to blackmail the administration by saying 'you want our
troops to have money? Then you agree to let a bunch of politicians
make the military decisions'
Elected Officials with the power of the purse was what you meant
wasn't it? Bush was elected in part on a "personally responsibility"
agenda.
And then when Bush does not bow to the
blackmail, it's HIS fault?
Er, Ah, peah. Pretty much. He is an incompetent fool after all.
I don't think so.
Congress has the right to defund the war. That they are not doing
that, but are instead fiddling around with it in this manner, is
cowardice personified.
No it isn't. It's an accurate assesment of the mood of the country.
Americans want to get something - FINALLY - for their money.
You guys keep talking as if your congressional majority were actually
worth something...as you had more than a two Democrat majority in the
Senate, or that the House had a huge majority Democrat contingent. You
don't. How is that the entire 'mood of the country?' Since when are
the Democrats the only Americans who have an opinion worth noting?
They don't, thank God, but it's worth noting that both parties have had it
with the current situation and the administration's constant fumbling.
Bush has to veto this. Even if he agreed with
the timeline, he needs to veto this. We cannot tie the hands of the
military in this way
Sure "WE" can. It's happening and goober is going to either go alond
or go without. Our troops WILL have what they need.
Yes they will. But they will in spite of the cowards in congress.
Whatever, there is plenty of money in the system to bring our troops home
without authorizing a single additional dime.
Listen. Congress will indeed vote the funds. What they are now doing is
"standing" Bush "Up". It isn't simply a ***** slapping.
The course of our actions in Iraq will indeed evolve whether Bush want that
to happen or not, and in a way that the public can support.
Were Bush a real leader, this wouldn't be happening. He hasn't brought the
country along with him properly so it is.
--
John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Syd M." |
|
| Title: Re: House defies Bush veto threat - again |
11 May 2007 02:54:55 PM |
|
|
On May 11, 2:22 am, Fafnir
<f...@spamexpire-200705.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
War funding vote ignores Bush's veto threat
The House of Representatives approved a $96 billion war spending bill Thursday that would make continued funding of the Iraq war dependent on a July progress report -- defying President Bush's threat to veto the bill a second time. The bill now goes to the Senate, where both parties have been seeking a compromise with the White House
http://www.cnn.com/
Pfff.. The only "compromise" the White House wants is "Yes, sir, no
strings sir."
"So, sit down and shut up, Democrats." -What Bush so wants to tell
them.
PDW
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
