Bush bidding for party support

Mr Snow they are supporting the Troops with this resolution by saying no more failed policies that are getting them killed or wounded. The old we support the Troops when you cut their benefits at home will not work America has woke up

"It is going to be incumbent on members of Congress… to figure out how best to support the troops.''

Congress should cut back funding to stop the troop increase. That would help the troops.

"The one thing the president has said is, 'Whatever you do, make sure you support the troops'…

This from the guy who lied this country into war and so far has signed over three thousand death warrants.And eagerly wants to sign more.And angry old man McCain supports him!

What say you Bill/Jeff/Leo?

'Take whatever shots you want at me,' he says,'' White House spokesman Tony Snow says of the president's message about any resolutions or other votes on the war coming from Congress. "'But make sure that you do not do things that are going to weaken the troops.'''

It's really funny when they try to act like Bush is noble, rather than a craven politician who got in over his head and is now desperately trying to drag something out of a military misadventure that was doomed before it started.

No, Bushie: Sending troops and more troops off to the Middle East to set up a Shiite Theocracy isn't "looking out for the troops."

Whatever Dubya, you've screwed things up royally We've had enough of you. McCain's the leader of this party now.

Jeff-

How is McCain's policy on Iraq any different than Bush's at this point?

So then. What DO we do? I think we can all agree the president hasn't managed this war in any effective way. So what's the answer???

Obviously you can withdraw completely. You can't go back in time to reverse the mistakes. We have to fix them now. Congress is spending its time analyzing and creating focus groups to try to find what went wrong. Why can't they do that AFTER we've withdrawn from Iraq? They're crying over spilt milk while the milk is still spilling!

In my opinion, Iraq needs to step up and take some responsibility. Its happening too slowly. It makes me question if they truly want to be led by a dictator. At this point, if it continues on this course, we're going to pull out and the country is going to go right back to a dictatorship, this time it will just be a new religious sect in charge!

Dale, you really are becoming a tiresome little liar. Your VA wwatchdog stuff does not tell the whole truth either. Answer this question for me: If everything you say is true, then why does EVERY veterans group, from VFW to American Legion to countless others (and Wounder Warrior Project is a creation of conservatives such as Sean Hannity and Oliver North) overwhelmingly support this administration and Republicans??
Facts, Dale, not your continual one-note disortion.

John D, maybe you shouldn't be talking up Ollie North, as he's come out against the escalation also.

All I want is for Tony Snow and George Bush to tell me what their definition of "support the troops" is. What does support the troops mean to them? They think I'm not supporting the troops because I don't want the "surge," but I think that they aren't supporting the troops because they want to put more troops in and stretch them thinner. Instead of putting the burden on me, I'm putting the burden on them. Boys, explain to me how you're supporting the troops and I'm not...

In all honesty, let's all recognize that "support the troops" doesn't really mean anything at all. It is a phrase that has been used for decades by "hawks" to try and make "doves" look ungrateful to troops. It is an absolute sham. Look back three years ago to when nearly everyone was booing anyone who would speak against the war. It's amazing that I even have to explain this, but those people weren't speaking against the war because they wanted us to fail. They were speaking against the war because they knew it was a failed policy from the beginning. Keeping quiet and supporting the war effort is not required for support of the troops. Everyone supports the troops, period. The real question is, did the president take into enough consideration what would happen as a result of this war? No, he obviously did not. He supports the troops like everyone else, but he sadly is incapable of making the best decisions for the country to most effectively use those troops.

Bush is incredibly concerned about his image. He does no worry at all about the failed and rediculous war he started.
He does not encourage his darling daughters to go fight in Irag; why then can he send our young men and woman to do what he would not ask of his "own" to do?

Tony, the difference between Bush and McCain's war positions is that McCain has been consistent all along while Bush has said he was trying to help the troops achieve victory with his right hand while helping Rumsfeld hamstring their efforts with his left. That's the difference.

There are always lame brains who will support any cause such as this war. However, that means nothing. There is no valid reason to support the war in Iraq any further. All funding, other then whatever money it takes to get the troops home should be withdrawn. There are real enemies all over the world who want the U.S destroyed. We should regroup and start spending the money we are wasting in Iraq to for homeland security, special operations in Afghanistan, additional forces to be deployed to other parts of the world as needed and any other legitimate security threats we face. No sooner do we give Bush more troops for Iraq then we will become even weaker and less ready for other real enemies that we all know will are waiting. Iraq is a mistake that Bush will not admit to. It is very possible that Bush will have to be impeached. His leadership is a refection of his lifelong refusal to accept defeat regardless of the facts. Unfortunately, he is pulling the rest of us down his drainpipe. He is a loser who is unqualified to lead America but we are stuck with him. The first step is to take away his money so he cannot do more damage. Then, better minds can prevail.

Bush's dog Barney is the only one whose still on board with him these days.

Why to trash the Republican Party Jr!

I'm happy to see that most sane thinking Republicans in Congress are finally jumiping off the sinking W./Cheney ship.

I don't blame them.

George Jr. is not only accelerating a civil war in Iraq,he's destroying the Republicans shot at the 08 Prez job.

John McCain - stay the course/"surge" supporter
Mitt Romney - ditto
Rudy Guliani - ditto

Are any of the above Republican candidates going to want the worldwide unpopular Republican President LoneRanger to stump for them?

It's a shame that our fighting men/women are dying for W.'s stupidity.

Support the troops...surge...new way forward...This is all meaningless rhetoric that continues to ignore the reality on the ground. Thanks to us, Iraq now has a Shiite government controlled by al Sadr and Iran. This is a problem that a surge is not going to fix. The surge is like putting a band aid on a decapitation. Why bother?

The solution will ultimately be Iraq divided into three autonomous regions along sectarian lines. We actually already had this when our no fly zones were in place before our invasion. Our policy should now be to accelerate this division. Look at Yugoslavia for an example. When Tito died , the country splintered and after several internal wars is now completely divided. This same scenario has played out countless times around the world when dictators have been removed or died. Eventually peace is achieved according to regional interests.

This may not be perfect but it's better than the meaningless rhetoric coming from the administration.

If the Bush administration were really concerned about supporting the troops why didn't they inform the Iowa national guard soldiers stationed in Iraq's Anbar province that they were going to have their deployment extended for 125 days? The announcement came three days after we, here safe at home, learned about the extended deployment. Some of the soldiers found out about the extension via email or from relatives before the army announced it. The soldiers thought they would be comming home in a couple of months, there's a real moral booster.

It makes me sad to see how many of you have written these disparaging words. I can only ask you, why are you so callous? Why are you being so hard on our commander and chief? He is only doing this for us, for the country, for our good. That is his only motivation. We need to stand behind him as he has stood behind us. He has a hard job and he’s working hard at that hard job together with a lot of other hard working people who also like to work hard at their hard working jobs. His presidency will find a place of honor in the history of the Unites States and he will be remembered for his greatness; for it is he and he alone that has proven to the world that his father was not the worst president this country has ever had.

Support the troops -- bring them home.

I always thought that government shutdowns over a huge game of chicken were the worst thing that could ever happen, and ran contrary to the public good. When the Feds closed up shop for even just a few days during the Clinton Administration when wrangling over budgets, I thought that was a new low.

It seems that 10 years later I've changed my mind. Now it actually seems to me like a good idea to have a partisan spitting match between the president and congress, if that is what it takes to override the whims of a complete moron at the wheel of the USA. GWB might say that the decision to send more troops to Iraq rests with him, but he doesn't have a huge ATM card linked right to the treasury to pay for that.

I so would like to see congress cut funding for this war as the ultimate stick-it-to-the-man protest. Let Bush sulk and crow about he's trying to pave his way forward, accuse congress of not supporting the troops, but still have congress stand tall with arms locked and jaws tight saying "We're tired of hearing your voice, drop dead and get out of office as quick as you can."

I'm glad to see there are several other who share my views on the "support our troops" slogan. It would be hilarious to me that the same people who sent unprepared troops into war without the proper equipment, support, and planning are the ones calling on the rest of us to support the troops, were it not for the fact that our friends and families are the ones suffering the losses for their hypocrisy.

I hate the fact that there really is no answer to this problem, short of magically conjuring up about a hundred thousand extra troops. We simply do not have the manpower to handle the disaster our president and his flock of hawks have created.

I still think the only surge that we should be considering, however, is one in which Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, and anyone else who was behind the decision to go to war in the first place are handed helmets, flak jackets, rifles, and a poorly-armored humvee and dropped into Baghdad. Let them sort out the mess they forced upon our troops and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Finally, John D, I pose this question to you: if the Republicans (or, at least, the handful that are still supporting the president) and the White House still have the support of all of the veterans, than why have so many of the generals that formerly led this very invasion spoken out against the policies of this war? Or do they not count as veterans, because they've chosen to speak their minds?

At this point, if it continues on this course, we're going to pull out and the country is going to go right back to a dictatorship, this time it will just be a new religious sect in charge!

Posted by: sj | Jan 17, 2007 10:33:52 AM

====

sj:

That is what will happen, whether we pull out or not.

And, unfortunately, most experts predicted that result before the war even began.

The other experts predicted the country would break up into warring factions, which is still a possibility.

No expert bought into Bush and the Neocon's "Happy Little Democracy" scenario.

But, who needs experts when you got faith, huh?

There should be no strings or conditions attatched to the war debate. This is why the "support the troops" rhetoric is infuriating. It is clearly intended to stifle the debate. Well, we can't cut funding because it would hurt the troops or we can't redeploy because it would hurt the troops. Supporting the troops is not even the issue at all.

Congress needs to tell the president that all options are on the table, not just those favored by the president. It's time to play hardball and let the chips fall where they may. Iraq will survive in some form and we will survive too despite all the dire scaremongering being thrown about.

John D you better rethink calling Larry Scott a liar, As to the American Legion they have loss focus. They are going after the ACLU and are more worried about Bingo Games and their bars them Veterans Benefits. Their New Commander is just like you John uninformed

Gotta love Jr. He is still trying to sell that old line if you are againt ME you are against the troops. If you do not support ME you are unpatriotic. This moron must have completely blanked Nov 7th out of his memory. George realy does think he is King

W seems pretty dumb but his handlers aren't compete idiots. This is all a setup to blame the dems and the Iraqis when the whole thing melts down.

One Bush per billion; Unacceptable!

The best thing would probably be to bring the troops home. This whole thing has reeked of greed and empire from the outset. Two wrongs don't make a right, and one hundred thousand wrongs ought not make an armageddon.

You know, the same bunch of rightwing fat cats brought us Vietnam, Watergate, the behind-the-back dealings with the Iranians during the 1980 election, Iran-Contra, a 40 MILLION DOLLAR investigation into whether or not Bill Clinton got a b.j., and now a quagmire/civil war in Iraq that's just about completely drained the greatest nation in the history of the planet's resources...

should we maybe consider giving someone else a shot?

"Congress needs to tell the president that all options are on the table, not just those favored by the president. It's time to play hardball and let the chips fall where they may. Iraq will survive in some form and we will survive too despite all the dire scaremongering being thrown about.

Posted by: Fred Carani | Jan 17, 2007 2:35:21 PM"

Fred,
There are times you make COMPLETE sense.

We need to ask George Bush:
Why did you start this war in Iraq?

George deserves a good "payback" which is exactly what he is getting these days for lying/careless and his uncontrolled arrogance.

Sending more troops to Iraq is about saving face for the president, not about supporting the troops. The president does not want to admit defeat. The president of Iraq is meeting with Iran and Syria this week because according to President Talibani "America's interests are not the same as Iraq's, we have to get along with our neighbors." President Bush is accusing Iran and Syria of causing the violence. The 2 presidents are not even on the same page.

This is the ruse Bush is playing on Congress asking to support the troops.

He already made up his mind to the surge of new troops. He said he does not need Congress's permission because he is the Commander in Chief and does not have to take orders from Congress, the American people or anybody else. He said he also does not need any funds since he has enough to send the troops.

Once the troops are deployed he will be asking Congress to support the troops, and what is Congress to do, abandon them?

Maybe what he is really doing is daring Congress to impeach him. There are plenty of reasons to do so if only Nancy Pelosi stopped being soooo nice and did her duty to the troops and to the American people and the rest of the world.
E.B.

I think the best we can do is wait until someone else takes office, someone who is willing to negotiate with other middle-eastern countries, and hope that diplomacy can somehow salvage this abominable voyage.

In the meantime Mr. Bush will do whatever he does. No one can have any affect on him.