Bush: Democrats 'irresponsible'

Bush is telling the Democrats to stop playing politics with Iraq? He's right.

After all these years, look where it's gotten him & us.

Vetos de Presidente Chimpy solamente cual es buena para la gente, el salir de su guerra constuida e investigacion de la celula de vastago. Dejenos Presidente Chimpy y censura del veto o acuselo.

Is sending troops to Iraq without proper training irresponsible? How about sending them there without body armor or up-armored HumVees? What about selling the public on a war using cherry-picked intelligence? And cutting VA funding and housing wounded soldiers in places like Building 18? What's that called? W is throwing stones from the comfort of his glass house.

Bush said, "It has now been 57 days since I requested that Congress pass emergency funds for our troops".

As an American, I say, "It has now been 2030 days since Osama Bin Laden attacked the US and killed 3000 people. Bush has not only done NOTHING to get him, he has boasted that he doesn't think about him."

I think you'd agree, that 57 days since requesting more pointless funding of endless death without plan or purpose seems ridiculous by comparison.

Why not get the people responsible for 9/11 - people that could have been, and continue to be, stopped from attacks against the US? The fact that Bush has a hands-off policy towards Saudi Arabia should not preclude AMERICA from protecting itself from it's enemies!

The funding for the troops will only be cut if Bush vetos the bill. How is that the Democrats fault? They were elected to put a stop to the administration's failed policies in Iraq and that is exactly what they are trying to do.

This moron is unbelievable.

The Dems are trying to end his illegal and immoral war and he calls them "irresponsible"?

I'll tell you what "irresponsible" is Chimpy.
It's you and your lockstep Republican Congress taking a $5 Trillion dollar debt in 2000,that took over 100 years to develope,and nearly doubling it to $9.5 Trillion in only 6 years.

"Irresponsible" is also having billions of our US dollars floating around in Iraq that you can't account for.

"Irresponsible" is expecting to have an open ended spending credit card on your war with no oversight.

"It has now been 57 days since I requested that Congress pass emergency funds for our troops,'' Bush said,

So we're 4 years into this and still requesting emergency funding. Why is this emergency funding? Because emergency funds and not scrutinized in the budgeting process. When are we going to hold him accountable?

Sounds like Bush is the one using the troops for political purposes.

He accuses Congress of playing a political game, but he clearly is, too. He is too stubborn and when he vetoes the bill, everyone will realize that he cares more about staying the course and having his way with things than funding the troops.

This Congress SHOULD stop playing political games and IMPEACH the imbecile. The sooner - the better, and then put him and his clique on trial for treason and abuse of the office.

Unflipping believable this prez...Irresponsible? Excuse me irresponsible is sending troops into to a pre-emptive war of choice unequipped and ill trained.
The height of irresponsible behavior is keeping them there; totally defying the will of the people of Iraq, the majority of our troops, their generals and the American people!

If the Democrats are serious about stopping the war by with-holding funding, as they say they are, why was it necessary to add 20 billion dollars in pork barrel programs to the bill to get enough votes?

There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around for everyone.

Yes, there is still an enemy that would like to do us harm. In fact, now there are many more of those in this world thanks to this administration. And so, does he (President Dumbass) think that prolonging an immoral war will turn our middle-eastern foes into friends? Give me a break!

Frankly I've lost all confidence in anything President Bush has to say. He is wrong no Democrat or Republican would ever leave our troops hanging. They may play politics behind the scenes but when the time comes to pay the piper they will come through. And just who is the President to accuse anyone of playing poltics? That is all his administration has done on every issue, bill or cause that has come before them. I say you go Democrats.

Why don't the Socialists... oops, I meant to say Democrats, just rename the Bill they've passed and call it the "Let's Surrender" Bill. All they want to do is surrender and run, they don't care who we surrender to... just surrender to someone and get the devil out of there. Left up to the Dem/Socialist party, we'd eliminate the military altogether, raise taxes to 100% and just feed everyone. Hail, hail, the Dem/Socialists are here! Now we can all be happy as we live off the public dole... I know I'm just thrilled to death.

"The Dems are trying to end his illegal and immoral war and he calls them "irresponsible"?

I'll tell you what "irresponsible" is Chimpy.
It's you and your lockstep Republican Congress taking a $5 Trillion dollar debt in 2000,that took over 100 years to develope,and nearly doubling it to $9.5 Trillion in only 6 years.

"Irresponsible" is also having billions of our US dollars floating around in Iraq that you can't account for.

"Irresponsible" is expecting to have an open ended spending credit card on your war with no oversight."

Hahahaha...right on.

The democrats are irresponsible!And the post by nffcnnr shows why.When the libs use the talking points about lack of body armor and up-armored hum-vees they have their beloved Clinton Administration to thank for that. B.J.Clinton cut the military to the bone so badly that they were taking parts off of some hum-vees to keep the others running,this was also true for the A.F.
When Rummy said,you go to war with the army you have,not with the army you wish you had,was a direct slap at B.J.for his failure to fund the military properly.
During the Clinton years we were attacked at home and abroad and the only thing he did was check his poll numbers...The dems are complete failures and irresponsible when it comes to terrorism and knowing how to deal with it.The party of defeat then and now.

Paulo

"This moron is unbelievable"

What about the morons that still believe in him?
rich morons?
stupid morons?
I just don't understend them...

This is clearly demonstrating why they can never pass the line item veto. It is one of the few ways to reign in a rogue President short of impeachment. Forcing him to sign A if he wants B.

You ignorant liberals enjoy the freedom of choice and the freedom to voice your opinion. We haven't been hit since 9/11/01. I personally enjoy your ignorant views on what you percieve is happening on OUR war on terror. Please don't forget what happened on 9/11.

It is time for Bush to shut up, and reverse the tax cuts he initiated for his rich friends and oil buddies. That money would more than pay for many of the issues we are having problems with. Such as health care, and TROOP FUNDING. Everyone is sick of hearing him and the vice.

Enough of this guy already!

It's not enough that Congress is finally showing some backbone and pushing back against the worst presidency this country's ever seen, the partisans on the minority side of this issue should also show the courage of the Democratic leadership and join with them to override his veto. And when that's done, move to impeach this criminal.

Whether Premier Bush likes it or not, we are a representative democracy with three equal branches of government whose ultimate power lies with the people and is protected by the Constitution. And the people want us out of his irresponsible war in Iraq and him out of the White House. Period.

A man without credibility saying something negative about someone would actually be a compliment would it not?

Again with the stopping terrorism at the source. Since when, and we've known this for 5 years mind you, was the root of terrorism stationed in iraq?

"I know it is hard work,'' Bush said of the war, insisting as he has before that if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq terrorists will follow Americans home. "You have to know they want to hit us again… There is still an enemy that would like to do us harm.''

Again I say, what does kicking Bin Laden out and developing Iraq have to do with terrorism?

Suggestion - the Democrats should propose passing the funding, without the add-ons that they tacked on. ONE CRITICAL PROVISO - by Labor Day, Congress meets, with a full right to review the situation in Iraq, and to vote for a wind-down. This requires a definition of "measurables" - not this nonsense where McCain and others say "things look better", but a set of quantitative tangibles for the Iraqi Government to meet - division of oil revenues, troop strength; protection for ALL their citizens; a resolution of Constitutional issues. In short, a demonstration that the Iraqis can run Iraq, so that we can plan a departure.

We also need a real definition of "the war" and "victory". "Victory" is up to the Iraqis - even our own generals admit that a military victory on our part is not going to happen. We are trying to control BOTH sides, Sunni and Shia, and that's a "civil war". The "war" began with retaliation against the Taliban and Al Qaeda for 9/11, and was renamed as a "war against terror", in order to justify an attack against Iraq, based on falsified "evidence".

Bush should demonstrate to Congress what the threat actually was from Iraq in 2002, or be called out for falsifying his claims. Cheney should be forced to reveal that "energy policy" that he and the coal and gas industry cooked up, and the claim of "executive privilege" in that instance should be knocked down.

If the Iraqis cannot do the job by September, we vote to withdraw.

The President is the most embarassing in American history. Yes President Clinton had some embarassing moments dealing with women,but that should have been a family matter, not a national matter. President Bush entered this war with baseless inteligence, intelligence that has cost this country its credibility with international allies. We are the most hared country in the world now due to his smug arrogance, and inability to take responsibility for what he has done to this country.

besides his usual insane patter, did you notice his bigoted mis-statement just before he left the podium? " then maybe the middle east can join the rest of the civilised countries of the world"
this is a man who holds hands with saudi princes... what a joke he and cheny would be if they were not real. instead they are war criminals.

Amen to james K and John E!!!!
But the USA should know this President has a real gift to deflect (and misinterpret) every situation. Those who conscientiously questioned going to war with Iraq were called traitors even though we now know more debate might have revealed lies coming from the Presidential office... and now he calls dissenting voices ïrresponsible, as so many have said before that is hypocritical. This president is dangerous when he cannot accept the democratic voice of the people who put him in office or maybe he is still listening to chads for political advice?

John E. took the words right out of my mouth. Let me add another.

"Irresponsible" is leading our great nation into bankruptcy by wasting all our money on a pointless war that in no way eliminates the terrorist threat. Osama is not cowering in a cave, he's probably sitting in a San Francisco apartment, laughing at every speech the president makes. Osama is waiting for our president to exhaust all of our resources, so that he can strike even more effectively next time. The only weapon of mass destruction we have to worry about is the grey matter in our president's head.

Thanks TRACY. That's a well thought out comment. Please come back when you learn more words so you can add more to the discussion.

And here is another idiotic lib post by James K Power...'It's been 2030 days since Osama attacked us and Bush has done NOTHING to get him'
Oh really? If I recall we have these big things that fly in the air called B-52 BOMBERS and they carry BOMBS and BOMBS blow things up.Bush used these countless times in Afghanistan to try to BLOW up Osama....and he's probably dead.
BUT,if he's NOT....B.J.Clinton had 8-12 chances to take him out and failed...AND this was BEFORE Osama went into HIDING!
Paulo

..."Please don't forget what happened on 9/11."...

...too bad...because Bush sure has...

Thanks Paulo. I was wondering how Bill Clinton was going to be dragged into this and you somehow have managed to do it. You seem to have an obesession with our former President. A crush perhaps?

Now, what about the media? Can you post something about how this is all a big conspiracy by the liberal media. There isn't a post like that yet.

Thanks.

"The dems are complete failures and irresponsible when it comes to terrorism and knowing how to deal with it."

Oh, yes, Paulo, please let the Neo-Cons show us the way to rightousness, salvation and a victory over terror! I seem to recall your guy in the Oval Office having 5 1/2 years to deal with the true terrorists and he's failed to do so.

"Please don't forget what happened on 9/11."

I haven't Tracy, but apparently President Chimpy has, otherwise he would have made an effort to bring Bin Laden to justice. Apparently that was too difficult, so he hid behind lies and attacked a stationary target in Iraq.

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"

What's impressive is what Bush has been able to do in three short months. Now that Democrats run the House and Senate, he can blame THEM for the 6+ years of damage that he's done to this country and the world.
Oh, NOW he's concerned about the well-being of the troops???

If there was "faulty intellegence" then the whole International community and our Congress and House that was privy to all intellegence was faulty. Not just Bush. All the years of UN sanctions also lended a credible thought that Iraq was hiding nuclear material too. How sure does the commander and chief need to be with our lives and America at stake ? 50 % , 10% ??? How much chance do you want to take given the responsibility with the lives of your family ?

Today , April 4th,there is progress in Iraq. And now the House and Senate are wanting to pull out and with hold funds. Finally progress is being made and you here very little reporting of that fact. McCain just came back from Iraq. He said he was amazed at the progress he saw. War is hell. Always has been and always will be. We have finally changed the terms of engagement and are seeing the difference. Being politically correct in war with an ememy that has no boundaries severely puts us at a disadvantage. Using women and children as they do puts our troops at risk. Our troops are us ! Americans just like us. Our support should be strong and steadfast. A question to ask is have you sent any of our troops supplies from home? Have you sent even a magazine they requested ? If your answer is no, then you are self absorbed and have lost your understanding of being American. Read through history and understand how America became what it is. Study with an open mind your history.

My American Flag flys at my home every day. It is for all the men and women all over the world that serve our country. Honor our soldiers and do everything you can to help them do there job. Congress should act quickly so our Democratic process works as it should. And don't pad with pork ! Give the troops the respect they so well deserve. Take care of them.

Bush is a complete failure. He lies - bottom line. The Iraq war that he started has cost the U.S. billions, wasted American lives and now he wants more - to do what? What a frinngn' joke. Congress needs to reel-in this lunatic (which is what they are doing) and impeach based on any one of the failures he and his good 'ol boy network is responsible for. Thousands have died because of his lie.

Remember this Republican administration when it comes time to vote for the next President.

"B.J.Clinton had 8-12 chances to take him out and failed...AND this was BEFORE Osama went into HIDING!"

Yes, Paulo, before he went into hiding after 9/11, which occurred on President Chimpy's watch. Clinton not taking care of Bin Laden does not excuse the Oval Office's current resident of his own failure to do so. Maybe your next argument will be than Carter should be blamed for 9/11 as he didn't order the CIA to assassinate Bin Laden when he was a young man in the '70s. Or maybe Kennedy was to blame as he focused on Cuba rather than the middle east.

Bush runs the military into the Middle of Iraq with no plan to get them out and he calls the Democrats irresponsible?

Bush runs the deficit out to limits that will probably never be recovered and he calls the Democrats irresponsible?

Bush should be tried for Criminal Negligence.

Bill Clinton had the opportunity to kill a citizen of another country on that country's home soil -- that is considerd an act of war by most countries, something the fairly responsible administration that preceded this monstrosity cared about (not completely damaging our reputation and making every single country in the world hate us).

We did not know then what OBL would eventually do, and yes, we can blame the Clinton Administration for that, just like we can blame Bush sr.'s administration for beginning the scaled back cuts of the military and intelligence after the end of the cold war.

How can you blame anybody for that -- the perceived threat from the "evil empire" was gone. Why did we need a huge standing army and an intelligence service with nearly unlimited funds? We neglected to forsee the advent of the terrorist as we know it today - JUST LIKE NEARLY EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

What most people forget is that we had no "real" enemies threatening us for most of the 1990's. Saddam wasn't threatening us; he threatened a neighbor, indirectly threatening our oil. So we went in and took him out of Kuwait. The warlords in Somalia weren't threatening us, but they were indirectly threatening our oil, and hurting many of their own people in the process...so we tried to do something to take them out. The Serbs weren't threatening us, but they were slaughtering based on ethnicity, so we tried to stop that.

In the 10 years after the fall of the U.S.S.R., it was mot until 9/11 that this country felt threatened by anything -- so why did we need the massive military and intelligence infrastructure of the cold war?

Paulo, I would like to see some kind of documented proof of these "8-12 chances" Clinton had to take out Bin Laden. I would like to see some kind of proof for two of these chances.

The bottom line is, like many posters have pointed out, the new Congress was elected on the basis of getting out of Iraq. Now that they are trying to accomplish those ends (one that is whole-heartedly supported by over 60% of the American public), the republicans are going ape because they're using it as a "political" tool. Well, Politics is the game they all play -- what do you expect them to do? Many representatives who probably could not ever get elected in a non-war situation were elected based on their approval of a nearly immediate pull out and DISSapproval of the current administration.

Sorry this was so long, but I had many points to make :)

Irresponsible?

Getting us into the war via lies = irresponsible

Not being able to come to the table and discuss with Congress how to manage this war from here on out = irresponsible

Congress may have no right to tell Bush how to run the military, but they do have 100% of their right to not fund Bush's irresponsible war.

Not knowing the U.S. Constitution, Mr. Bush, is irresponsible.

THIS "president" has the nerve to tell ANYONE they are irresponsible? He refuses to listen to or acknowledge the will of his boss, the people of the United States, and then has the nerve to say this nonsense? Amazing.

Lyn,

My American flag flies at my house too...in hopes that our brave fellow Americans will return home from this foolish war in Iraq.

If you go back and study recent history you will find that the "whole international community" did not support us going into Iraq after seeing the "evidence" manufactured by the Bush administration.

"It's all Bill Clinton's fault,everything I tell you,he's responsible for the change of seasons,he's responible for the Bears losing the Super Bowl,he's responsible for the Cubs going 99 yrs with out winning a World Series"

It makes me smile knowing that dimwits like "Paulo" are Republicans.

Bring our troops home from this mismanaged Iraq disaster,
Barack Obama in 08 !!!

What happened on 9/11? Who was president then? What? Not Bill Clinton?

Paulo: When the libs use the talking points about lack of body armor and up-armored hum-vees they have their beloved Clinton Administration to thank for that. B.J.Clinton cut the military to the bone so badly that they were taking parts off of some hum-vees to keep the others running,this was also true for the A.F.

Hey Paulo, you forget which party controlled the House and Senate durin the Clinton administration. It was the Republicans. They are responsible for cuts to the military not Clinton.

Here is a little reading for you to do.
http://www.okimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=165&condense_comments=false

I'll tell you what's wrong here. WE do not hold OUR elected officials to the oath they take.
Republicans & democrats alike are responsible for this joke of a government. You vote on abortion, god, immigration & war. When you elect someone you still have to look past the smoke & mirrors and hold them accountable for the money & the lives they spend.
This is pointless bickering & the only thing it gets us is closer & closer to the end of this country as we know it.

The Roman empire didn't last forever folks. Neither will ours. The worst part is that WE will be our own undoing. Keep electing ignorant ***holes & they'll keep treating YOU like ignorant ***holes.

Bush, our Supreme Court appointed President, is the one that is irresponsible. Highly irresponsible, to say the least. The worst President this country has ever had!!

The Capitalist,
And don't forget that B.J. pardoned 14 F.A.L.N. terrorists on his last day in office. B.J. has a thing for terrorists,it's called ,"I don't care as long as my poll numbers look good."
I feel your pain Capitalist,but 9/11 was planned for 3 years under B.J's administration's nose,but he failed to notice or to do anything about it,...MONICA,MONICA,MONICA was too important at that time in history.
Such a failure to our country...and his wife may be next...YIKES!
Paulo

Some important facts to consider when listening to the President prattle on:

1. If he would do the responsible thing and put the war cost in the budget, where it's supposed to be, he wouldn't have to worry about an "emergency" bill to fund a war he's been waging for over 4 years.

2. He didn't see the need to sign last year's "emergency" funding until mid-July, and the troops didn't suffer -- at least, not from that.

I'm not sure who this guy hates more: the voters of this country, who sent a clear message last November; or the troops who continue to bravely fight an unwinnable war against the wrong enemy in the wrong theater because he doesn't have the cajones and/or brains to admit his mistakes.

Paulo,
Do you work?

Find a job and write less here

Bush is a hypocrite to lecture Democrats about playing politics. He lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and about a connection between Al Queda and Iraq to appease the radical right. Shaking his finger at Democrats is rubbish.

To all the idiots who support this moron of a president: A pox on you and your house. How stupid and blind can you be? He will keep killing our troops ( yes, he is the one who put them in harm's way--under cover of a lie)until Congress has the spine to stand up to him and stop funding this debacle of a war.

Last time I checked, we were operating with a Constitution and in a democracy (though lately it appears less and less so). Bush can't "demand" any damn thing. The problem is, he thinks likes a dictator and has ruled as a dictator for six years. Now he has to compromise, though he doesn't even know how to.

Fidel/der Fuhrer Bush: if you don't like the bill, veto it and shut up (otherwise, aren't you just playing politics?). You can't always get what you want--this ain't Cuba or Nazi Germany.

i dont care who's responsible,just bring my son home now,he's been there for over 1 month and a camel looked at him and winked.
he needs to clean the basement,it's dirty.
JohnEsmom

Yes Tracy, we remember 9/11/01, and we remember who was President when it happened, and we remember who did nothing but hide behind a kid's book, then run away like the AWOL idiot he is. We remember that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We remember that Osama is still out there. We remember who lied about the war. We remember who waved their little flags and denigratred true war heroes like John Kerry. We remember who needed the supreme court and daddy's friends to steal our country away. and we will always remember how apologists like you put flag stickers and yellow ribbons on your car while spouting their Faux news and Rushbot bullsh*t while soldiers were dying in an illegal war while you were safe at home in your little tax-cut Repug dream world. We remember, and always will...

"You ignorant liberals enjoy the freedom of choice and the freedom to voice your opinion. We haven't been hit since 9/11/01. I personally enjoy your ignorant views on what you percieve is happening on OUR war on terror. Please don't forget what happened on 9/11."

Posted by: TRACY | Apr 3, 2007 12:30:21 PM

For this idiot to call the Democrats irresponsible is laughable. He has sent our military, unprepared, into a country that doesn't deserve our help. These people were dancing in the streets on 9/11. They do not deserve out help or sypmathy.

Bush has lied about the reasons for invading Iraq and now the country realizes it.

What Georgie boy doesn't even relize to this day is that 'No one is listening to him anymore!'. In November, the people of this country removed the 'Political Capital' he so boldy claimed he had when he was re-elected.

George: Stop This War, Stop your political grandstanding, Stop using the troops as a political tool, Stop trying to convince us that the world will go to hell if you are not running it, stop spennding hundreds of billions of MY tax dolalrs, Stop scarring people with all the "the terrorist are coming, the terrorist are comming", did you not read about the boy who cried wolf?

What Georgie boy doesn't even relize to this day is that 'No one is listening to him anymore!'. In November, the people of this country removed the 'Political Capital' he so boldy claimed he had when he was re-elected.

George: Stop This War, Stop your political grandstanding, Stop using the troops as a political tool, Stop trying to convince us that the world will go to hell if you are not running it, stop spennding hundreds of billions of MY tax dolalrs, Stop scarring people with all the "the terrorist are coming, the terrorist are comming", did you not read about the boy who cried wolf?

How an imbecile like g.w. is still in power is beyond me.He should have been gone long ago.The buffoon cannot see what damage he has done to this once great country.Ship him off to Paraguay where he will end up anyway.Bring the troops home!!

Bush protecting us from terrorism?

Is this the same man that ignored intelligence reports that Al Qaida was up to something big several weeks before 9/11? The same man who sat there several minutes after he was told a plane hit the WTC (Maybe he sat there because Karl Rove wasn’t there holding his hand)? Who lied to Americans about wmd’s, uranium cake, & Osama’s link to Sadam? Hasn’t there been successful Al Qaida bombings in Madrid, London, The Phillipines & the Middle East, among other parts of the world?

Bill Clinton still responsible for what’s happening in Iraq? Isn’t funding for the US military greater then the combined sum of all the militaries in the world combined? Where are the billions of dollars that’s unaccounted for in Iraq?; Money that didn’t help the US troops or help Iraqis? How much of that money has been wasted by Haliburton, or wound-up in the hands of insurgents our soldiers are trying to fight? How much money has been spent on training Iraqis security force that turn around & wind-up killing Shiites, Sunnis, or better yet, Americans?

I know. So many tough questions the con-artist conservatives have no answer for. This is why you’ve elevated spin to the art form you can lay claim too.

Paulo,

"MONICA, MONICA, MONICA" was the Republicans doing. They made the mountain out of a mole hill.

Which National Security Advisor ignored a report titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States"? I believe that was Kinda-sleezy Rice the lap dog of W., not Clinton.

I'm still waiting to see how your twisted logic brings the "liberal" press into this.

I forgot the names of the Iraqi terrorist involved in 9/11. I tried Googleing and also searched some big city newspaper’s archives and still can't find them. Could someone here at the Swamp please post the names of the 9/11 Iraqi terrorist… What!? Oh!... never mind.

"I know I'm just thrilled to death.

Posted by: Greg | Apr 3, 2007 12:16:46 PM"

I note you still have enough energy to post. You're promising, but when will you deliver??

I am reminded of a spoiled child who does not get what he wants and resorts to name calling because he has no other response. Bush knows the Democrats are right but is trying to look like a tough guy.... well he only looks stupid.

Bush is a scumbag. End of story.

Earth to Paulo; when Clinton bombed bin Laden's compound it was Republicans like you who accused him of "waggning the dog" to distract us from the Lewinsky scandal.

Back then you thought some guy living in a tent wasn't a threat to us, now you're singing a different tune altogether.

Clinton never had a dozen chances to take out bin Laden. You say otherwise? PROVE IT. Give us the link.

Yes Lyn, I did sent our troops supplies. Supplies bought from, transported and distributed by Haliburton via KBR via FatCat LTD. via Insidious Distributors. Each Bush-connected middleman adding a 500-1000% mark-up as those supplies made it to our underpaid overstressed troops. I plan on making another large contribution of supplies via the IRS this April 15th.

The Democrats and their lackys in the press would love nothing more than to see President Bush fail. Even if it means the sacrifice of our brave troops. Democrats and liberals (is there a difference?) never find an enemy of the United States they don't embrace. They are pathetic and god help us if they take the White House in 08'. Bin Laden nust be licking his chops for that day to come, for there is nothing these animals like more than weakness.

Does anyone ever see those hippie bumper stickers that say "What if they planned a war, and no one showed up?"

Now we have a chance to change the phrase again, and ask "What if they planned a war, and no one funded it?"

Seriously, I never want to see things happen to individual soldiers - like bouncing paychecks and infrastructure housing repairs going undone. But in this case, running out of money to fight this war could possibly be the best thing to happen to our soldiers. There is a chance that the war could end over a lack of funding long before even the deadline that the Democrats set, so long as both sides refuse to blink in this game of chicken.

only 57 days? the 109th do-nothing congress spent over 100 days getting chimpy's supplemental budget through in the past.

the truth is clear. Chimpy hates our troops by leaving them in harms way. I used to think that Democrats were the same vein as the GOP, no longer. The GOP is the party of hate, fiscal irresponsibility, ill-warrented war and stupidity.

So Liar in Chief George W Bush wants to talk about "Irresponsible" does he? Okay isn't it also
"Irresponsible" to attack another country to carry out your personal vendetta against Saddam
Hussein Here George W Bush for "Trying to Kill
My Daddy George H W Bush" or to lie about WMDs
as an excuse to Invade Iraq and how about your
letting Osama bin Laden get away at Tora Bora,
in Afghanistan Mr Bush?..The only thing that
the New Democrat Controlled Congress has been
"Irresponsible" on,is That Democrat Mental Midget
Madame Speaker Nutty Nancy Pelosi taking the
Impeachment of George W Bush and Delusional
Draft Dodger Dick Cheney off the table and also
Nancy Pelosi playing Sec of State!

To Paul, thanks for an excellent post. I'm a New York Democrat. I guess that's an automatic Liberal Commie to some of the posters.
On 9/11/01 I was outside my office, 5 blocks north of the WTC, watching 1 World burn. I then watched 2 World explode. I later watched 2 World collapse into ashes and rubble. My office is 5 blocks north of the WTC. I didn't see this on TV, I watched it happen. A friend of mine wanted to see Afghanistan turned into a solid glass, self-illuminating parking lot. I figured this was about right.
I fully supported our incursion into Afghinistan. We did a great job against the Taliban (there's a shock). We did a decent job chasing Bin Laden down. We even did a decent job cornering him. We then proceeded to let him get away. The man who's responsible for 9/11 and his #1 aide are out there planning God only knows what. So, what's the responsible thing to do? Why start another war that's completely unrelated! The country wastes billions of dollars and thousands of lives and We Forget About Bin Laden! Sorry for the rant, but this ain't justice! OBL deserves death. The 3000 who died in the WTC demand this. The destruction and devestation of 9/11 demand this. The simple concept of Justice demands this.
Once again, Thanks Paul. At least Somebody can see this.

Terrorists waiting for a Democratic President to be elected in ‘08”?

Terrorists aren’t that stupid. The worst president US history has been occupying the White house for over six years. Terrorists are still laughing at us after “Mission Accomplished” & Homeland Security’s call to stock-up on duct tape four years on. Osama is probably sitting in a café drinking tea in Pakistan, waiving at the clear skies as satellites orbit by.

That’s what America gets with a president that misunderestimates things.

Reading these responses from the lefties will make Al Queda smile....

I keep thinking- what is the Dems' plan to win in Iraq? Or do they want to cut and run, similar to Mogadishu? Binh Laden laughed at us when we cut and ran them, and he will laugh at us again.

But hey, to the Dems, they seem to favor the terrorists over Republicans any day of the week.

This is outrageous! Why does everyone slam Bush what he is doing? On Sept 11 EVERYONE supported the President, no matter how long it took, we had to win the war on terror. So many people have become fickle and double minded. I haven't forgot 9-11. I never will. They need to pay for their actions, and George W. Bush is the only man with the INTEGRITY to complete the mission Americans (AND SENATE AND CONGRESS) wanted after the terrorist attacks. Why are people so wishy washy?

Bin Laden nust be licking his chops for that day to come, for there is nothing these animals like more than weakness.

Posted by: jim s | Apr 3, 2007 2:35:00 PM

I think you may be wrong about that, Jimmy boy. They like mindless stubborness because it's so predictable and thus easy to deal with. They like having a cause for jihad. They've seen the years since 9/11 and thank their lucky stars that the United States is being "led" off a cliff by a slow-witted, inflexible, faux cowboy who only takes advice from people who agree with him. While W may have lost public support over the past couple years, the jihadists find great solace in knowing that people like you will continue to support him no matter what the facts may be.

W. and his flock of sheep should be tried for crimes against the American People. Why isn't the House and Senate looking for an impeachment?

One of the premises for going into Iraq was the thousands of tons of wma’s. We know after four years on, nothing has been found.

Conservatives like to argue that they still exist, they’ve just been hidden.

If that’s the case, is it being suggested that US intelligence can’t find them? Does it mean Al Qaida, or some other terrorist organizations got them? Does it mean sooner or later these wma’s are going to be used in a terrorist attack against Americans?

Other then neo-con-artists blaming their usual suspects, what’s your answer to this dilemma?

Will duct tape help protect us?

Paulo,

I meant to add that six months ago, you used to say Clinton failed to catch Bin Laden after 4-6 opportunities (also revisionist history). Now, its 8-12 times. So I'm guessing in another 6 months Mr. Clinton would have had around 16-24 chances, right?

To everyone of you who entered comments about the war - I'll bet you will all tell me to a person that you 'support our troops' - what a crock. I just said goodbye to my son, an officer with 12 years of service, who left for Iraq again and what he is tired of is all these politics being played out. The war would have been approached better (and yes, he feels it was necessary after what he has seen by a previous tour in Iraq and one in Afghanistan) if President Bush had not been worried about offending our sanctimonious citizenry who all expected a 'quick in- quick out' event. So he didn't push Turkey to let our 4th ID come in from the north - he didn't let our troops declare marshall law at the very beginning - he tried to fight a 'kinder/gentler' war to appease all you people who just wrote your nasty comments - and this is where we are now. Now that he is saying the hell with being politically correct, let's go in and do what we came to do and everyone is jumping down his throat, and in turn demoralizing our troops.

I did try on my son's body armor - I don't know how he stands upright in it, I did hear him say that every time we equip vehicles with armor they come up with something else to penetrate it. And he knows who is supplying these weapons. These people are doing this because they see how weak the American public and press is - thank God we didn't have this citizenship to fight during WWII. And he sees that if we don't do the job now and do it right, he and his soldiers will be in the mid-east time and time again while you all sit in your fancy SUV's wondering where to go for dinner tonight.

You are all obviously dumb enough to read everything the liberal press tosses at you - and the Democrats feed to them. Look back to who was in power during Vietnam and see that it isn't the Republicans with the track record of embarrassing our troops.

How funny the most totally irresponsible man alive Liar in Chief George W Bush lecturing the
Democrats on "Irresponsibility" when noone in
the history of the US Presidency has acted more
totally irresponbile then George W Bush and his
Vice Liar Dick Cheney! I can't stop laughing!

However,I also will say that it is extremely
"Irresponsible" of the Democratic Madame Speaker
Nutty Nancy Pelosi took Impeachment of Bush and
Cheney off the table,thus giving them free license to do anythimg they want and without
fear of being held Accountable and Responsible
for their actions and without Impeachment to help
rain their numberous excesses in!

Alex-

A propensity to over-spend in Congress is a bi-partisan effort. Corruption in Congress is a bi-partisan reality. An unwillingness to fight the War on Terror as great leaders like FDR and Winston Churchill would is a bi-partisan characteristic.

The real problem is that there is too much power in the hands of too few. We need politicians who are willing to de-centralize our Federal government, and the corruption and lobbyist-centric way of thinking will largely disappear.

Neither Party has a candidate who is serious about doing this, and that is what scares me the most. Do any of you want to head toward the socialistic quagmire that Europe has become?

We need serious "adult" discussions about the serious "adult" situations and problems we currently face. Wishing Bush or Pelosi or Hillary were not as dumb as they all are will not solve anything.

Oh, yessss, you are all so perceptive!

Your President is a moron.
He'done nothing since 9/11.
He has gotten us in an "immoral" war.
Your Democrats have every right to get us out of Iraq and Afganastan as soon as possible.
Your Democrats are justified in tieing strings to your war effort.Soon then our boys will not have to be where they had no business being in the first place.
Bush is just in there for the oil.
Bush is just trying to scare you with "the terrorists are comming"!
Here's proof he has lied to us all. There never were any weapons of mass destruction!!

Listen to me. The bottom line is that your president is scum and you should listen to your Democrats words of wisdom. Stop this immoral war and go home where you belong.

Signed,

Osama the Moral One. (We know whats right for you).

If he can request emergency funding, can't he request additional time and funding later?
GWB, sign the bill and start using some timeline/benchmarks to gauge any progress. If progress is made I'm sure Congress would address additional funding and time and, most likely grant it. If the plan isn't working then there's an endgame to this chapter of our long national (and international) nightmare.
If GWB can't act responsibly and do the business of the people he governs, maybe it isn't such a bad idea to have our "representative" act as the will of the people (like they are trying to do now).

Despite the defensive gibberish from (likely paid) right-wing multi-posters, the entire Iraq policy is a failure. No matter how much money is poured into it, or how long we're there, there is no evidence that an Iraqi government can sustain themselves without a large U.S. troop presence. Democracy is not a "Web download", and cannot be "plugged in" by Bush's declarations. Read the current news on the Ukraine, and how "democracy" has been undermined by factionalism - Iraq is a worse situation, because the factionalism is defined by religious beliefs.

Bush has done nothing useful since 2000, and the economy thrived because of Greenspan's cuts in interest rates, not Bush's tax cuts to the wealthiest 5 percent, who returned the favor by contributing to his party's campaigns.

The more wrong decisions the President makes, the more defensive he gets, and lashes out at those who disagree.

Time for impeachment of both the President and Vice President. If this were a publicly owned company, the shareholders would have voted them out, and the Board of Directors would have taken action. The concentration of power in the Presidency is a disaster. Lies, ineptitude, take your pick. Shame on the American people for putting up with this, and paying the price in lives and national debt.

Remember in 2000 when Bush campaigned as a "uniter not a divider". This latest display is another example of his utter inability to even act like what he promised. Now is the time to sit down and work with Congress, like it or not. The people have spoken. But this is a guy who got 51% of the vote in 2004 against a sorry opponent and said it was a mandate and he had political capital to spend. Not the biggest Hillary fan but her point that her husband had to listen to the other side and negotiate to get things done is the reality that Bush doesn't want to face. He talks about democracy but doesn't even understand that the principles of it demand he stop pouting and start working on what the country wants. Of course, Cheney is enabling the stubborness I am sure soit likely wont change and the Bushies are likely running out the clock so they can leave this mess for someone else and say "WE never gave up!"

This is a literal cesspool of liberal drivel. I don't even know where to begin; it's hard to rebut conclusory rhetoric because it is like trying to prove a negative, but here are a couple of points:

(1) Bush was not an emperor who invaded a country on his own. Congress passed the Iraq War Resolution of 2002 making specific findings that Iraq had WMDs, was in violation of multiple UN Resolutions, and was a threat to the security of the US. Stop trying to re-write history and put Bush on an island.

(2) Knock off the "Bush lied" crap. If I say something is "A" and it later turns out that it was "B", that does not mean I lied. I could be mistaken, been misinformed myself, etc. This is a concept that absolutely baffles liberals. Should we also impeach Senators Clinton, Edwards and Kerry who all voted for the War Resolution which made the specific finding that Iraq had WMDs? They will claim they were misinformed, which is a terrible argument because with the war power, Congress has a duty to make its own findings independent of the President. There is no proof any of them lied. The fact that no WMDs were found is troubling, but it was the best intelligence at the time.

(3) Another thing that annoys me about liberals is that they can't seem to make a distinction between their initial stance on the war, and what is best from this point onward. One has little to do with the other. Even if you didn't support the original invasion, you have to recognize that Iraq is now a hotbed of terrorists. The knee-jerk liberal response that we somehow created this situation only lends support to the argument that we have a responsibility to fix it.

(4) I would like to see more anger at the murdering monsters who drive trucks full of bombs into crowded market places and intentionally murder innocent civilians. The far left, in their twisted logic, would rather blame the US for being present in Iraq than the monsters who actually committed the crime. At most, the US underestimated how deranged, desperate and lacking in respect for human life Islamic terrorists can be, in that they are clearly willing to attack and murder fellow Muslim Arab civilians in a vain attempt to destabilize Iraq.

(5) Knock of the Bush impeachment rhetoric. It's not going to happen. There is no objective proof he lied about anything. If there was evidence that he knew Iraq had no WMDs and invaded anyway, then it would be the responsibility of Congress to impeach him. They do not have that evidence, and only idiots who can't distinguish between what they want to believe and what they can actually prove fail to grasp this concept.

I did my best to respond to the avalanche of liberal drivel in this post. To all you libs, keep it up with the empty rhetoric and always remember that if you hear an opinion on TV, it is important to repeat it like it is your own, even if you don't understand it.

This Congress SHOULD stop playing political games and IMPEACH the imbecile

Posted by: Andrey G | Apr 3, 2007 12:09:39 PM

Just in case you care Andrey you have to commit a felony to get impeached... lying to a grand jury would be a good example, I think Bill Clinton would agree with that.

We are the most hated country in the world now due to his smug arrogance, and inability to take responsibility for what he has done to this country.

Posted by: Oscar | Apr 3, 2007 12:37:55 PM

Hey Oscar if we are the most hated country in the world, why does everybody want to sneak in here, and work here, and live here ?

Swamp-
The most courageous move Bush could make would be to admit he cannot run the country and then resign. A true act of heroism is not always to fight. In his case, psychological problems are interfering with his judgement and many people have been injured and killed because of his actions. To admit his failures as he did with alcoholism would be his greatest triumph and possibly spare the world more grevious damage. Be a hero Mr President. Get out of Dodge.

Re the former: " ,,, So he didn't push Turkey to let our 4th ID come in from the north ... " - WRONG! Turkey, where 94% of the population opposed the war, had just come through elections, and elected a heavily Muslim leadership. The Turks asked for a payment in the billions in order to let us use the "northern front", and Bush turned it down. His offer was $6 billion, and the Turks wanted several times that amount.

" ... In the circumstances, it was understandable that the American government should be willing to pay for Ankara's co-operation. So it showed itself to be; it offered $6 billion in aid as a recompense for the Turkish parliament's agreement to allow the 4th Infantry Division and other American forces to enter Turkish territory. The inducement was not large enough; perhaps none could have been. The Islamic majority in the new Turkish parliament apparently placed religious affinity above historic political association. On 1 March 2003, the American proposal was rejected. Rather than appear anti-Islamic, the new Turkish parliamentarians were prepared to risk alienating the United States, the defence it had offered through NATO against Soviet Russia, Turkey's oldest and most formidable enemy, and the support it provided for Turkey's effort to enter the European Union.

Frantic diplomatic activity was to follow the rejection of 1 March; British as well as American diplomats attempted repeatedly to change the Turks' minds; but without success. It became clear that if there was to be a northern front to the attack against Saddam it would have to be opened by other means. ... "

More detail:

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/11/295

Either Bush lied, or was intentionally misled by those he asked for evidence, in his zeal to present Iraq as a threat in 2002. He's either gullible, a liar, or an idiot - perhaps all three. He blames everyone else for "misinformation", but it's the job of a President to sort that out, and to take responsiblity for gross failures of policy. He provided information to Congress that was inaccurate, and they voted for the war based on that false/inaccurate information.

The buck stops with Bush, as Truman would have said. Had he conducted a successful campaign in Iraq, we would not be having this discussion now.

Perhaps the Bushies applaud failure, but we don't. Perhaps Katrina can be excused by the Bush camp followers and troglodytes, but the American people should know better. This Admin. has been a succession of failures, and it's time for a change.

"Irresponsible"? Bush wouldn't know irresponsible if it bit him on his dumb, irresponsible ass. This coming from the hero who shirked his duty and later went AWOL.

What we have is the most irresponsible, so-called Commander-in-Chief that this Nation has ever had the misfortune to stupidly elect.

Dear jim s:

Was that a serious e-mail or were you auditioning for a part in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" at your local summer theater?

Please, I could fully support this President and the war in Iraq if someone would just tell me again, why is we are over there?

Was it an Al-Queda training ground? Was it the womb that birthed the 9/11 terrorists? Was it a country with exportable WMDs? Was it a country run by a lying tyrant suppressing a democracy-starved people? Was it a country begging to be freed? Did they have a squirrel infestation? Is it because they control 80% of the world’s pistachio output? How much for that camel? Do you want fries with that?

I’m so confused… and tired…and my head hurts. I’m going to lie down now.

Hey Liberals,

Thanks for keeping me laughing.

Just looking at you is enough to make me laugh (frail, pale skin, socks and sandals, possibly a wet spot on the front of your pants), and then I read the S%*t that you write....

I almost feel sorry for you and how life is really kicking your a#%!!!

Keep reading those scholarly internet sites and believing the Rosie crap!!!!!!! The stuff you write is comical!!!!

Thanks Again.

I think you may be wrong about that, Jimmy boy. They like mindless stubbornness because it's so predictable and thus easy to deal with.
Posted by: a blinkin | Apr 3, 2007 3:25:26 PM

Me think you may be wrong a blinkin girl. Faced with mindless stubbornness you are a very unpredictable foe. Their frustrations' would make them volatile and dangerous, contrast that to a group of socialists who are heavily invested in failure, with an abundance of naivete that some how they will be able to coexist with evil doers, the choice would be easy for them. Off with the infidels heads, luckily for you a blinkin, it's only hypothetical.

If we impeach the Chimp his "sheeple" GOP followers (Paulo) would crawl back into their holes and Darth Cheney would resign.....health reasons....and that would truly be "Mission Accomplished".

Also,the Dems need to find a way to send up W.,Cheney,Rummy and Rove inc. to be tried for war crimes in front of an international court.

pb, you assume that Bush either lied or was intentionally misinformed, but you provide no objective evidence of either. His excuse is the same that you so readily grant to Congress; he was misinformed. If you have objective evidence that Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq yet authorized the invasion anyway, let's hear it.

Additionally, your defense of Congress does not hold water. The excuse "well, the President told us this or that" is nonsense. An important check on the President's power is that Congress has the war power. If they were to just take the President's word for it, they are abdicating their duty. We're talking about the democratic party that throws a fit over the ambassador appointment to Belgium, but rubber stamps a foreign invasion? Something doesn't mesh. The truth is that everyone thought Iraq had WMDs back in 2002-3, including the Congress, the UN, Britain, and the Clinton Administration. Even if there were members of Congress who opposed the war at the time, they lacked the courage to say so. For them to speak up now when public opinion has changed makes me want to vomit.

Dear TTOTTB, The Capitalist, and Lyn:

Let's start real simple. What happened on 9/11? A group of at least 19 al-Qaeda terrorists initiated an vicious attack on thousands of innocent Americans. The group was largely Saudi in nationality and was directed by other al-Qaeda rerrorists operating in Afghanistan.
Bonus question - Does the word Iraq appear above?

That's right, Don B, we can't have someone who lies about an extra-marital affair to a grand jury (why the hell did they care anyway) in office when we can have an upright, patriotic puppet fabricating evidence to start an illegal 'war' that has killed thousands of people and bankrupts the nation.

It's amusing to imagine how the above comments would differ if the Bush and Clinton were reversed. Bush impeached for a blow and Clinton fattening up Haliburton. Just imagine Paulo's posts ranting on the liberals for wasting tax dollars on sex scandals!

Bin Laden is just biding his time till we're bankrupt. Just like how the cold war ended. We are doing more to destroy ourselves than any terror attack. Wake up people and stop being morons.

OK Herbie H. I'm willing to say Bush didn't lie about WMDs, but yikes, going down that rabbit hole is pretty scary. Outside the United States there were few who believed Bush and a few million who marched saying he was talking through his hat. When American military officials were saying they knew exactly where the WMDs were, Hans Blix begged for the information so he could inspect (at the time he had authority and the protection to do just that). Of course, no co-ordinants were forthcoming because they didn't exist. Most people caught on that the United States was bluffing, but apparently Bush thought it was all true-blue. Not only that, for months it was 'that's my story and I'm sticking to it.' Just how stubborn do you have to be oo look reality straight in the face and say, nope I'm going with Cheney's tale.

Dear ds,

I personally disagree with your comments on the war, having heard differing accounts from other soldiers. However, I have the utmost respect for you and what your family have gone through over the past years. I pray you get your son home safely, I can't even begin to imagine the sacrifices of not only the soldiers but their families as well.

Having said that, I absolutely love your comment, "he and his soldiers will be in the mid-east time and time again while you all sit in your fancy SUV's wondering where to go for dinner tonight."

Ain't that the truth. Whatever our beliefs are about the war, I think so many American's have forgotten what sacrifice is. And if this is truly a war about oil (which I believe it is), why in God's name are there still Hummers on the road? Why has America as a nation, as a culture, grown to be only more gluttonous over time. Whenever I think my life is "bad," I remember my cousin having to sleep in dumpsters in Baghdad, because dumpsters provided better shelter against bullets.

Suddenly, my life isn't so bad.

So I tend not to drive when I don't have to. I tend to turn off lights in rooms I'm not using. I tend to not waste food and energy and donate my time and effort to whatever cause I can... small a contribution as it may be. Perhaps if we as a people weren't so gluttonous, we wouldn't so desperately need the oil overseas? Perhaps if we all gave a little more time and money, things would be happier for all?

I think regardless of our ideas on war, or our opinions on this administration, we should pull together as a nation and start conserving. Let's pour our energy into helping each other, helping get these guys and girls home, and relying less on the resources of other nations.

He lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
Posted by: Craig | Apr 3, 2007 1:50:06 PM

Revisionist Craig : The supposed liar got almost 80% of congress to authorize use of force, how did accomplish that Craig ?

He provided information to Congress that was inaccurate, and they voted for the war based on that false/inaccurate information.

Posted by: pb | Apr 3, 2007 5:08:54 PM

Yeh. right pb... he took all those reports, from all the various intelligence agencies, all over the world, re-typed it and THEN gave it to congress. Fire up that bong again dude.

DonB, in case you'd ever want to check it out, actually Bush WOULDN'T need to commit "a felony" in order to be impeached. He wouldn't technically need to commit any crime at all. "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is used to include a whole variety of misconduct and abuses of power. According to those who wrote about Clinton's impeachment, anyway. I believe Ann Coulter went as far as to say that he (Clinton) could and should be impeached just for being untrustworthy. Surely the same argument would hold in Bush's case?

It's a myth that Congress had the same intelligence as the president. Congress only had what scraps the administration fed them.

Rumsfeld and his ilk set up their own team to "analyze" the raw intelligence and reach their own pre-concieved notions because they didn't like what the CIA was telling them.

Problem is, they cherry-picked whatever data backed up thier positions and ignored whatever didn't fit; without any filtering or consideration as to the accuracy of the information they were feeding us.

They simply assumed they had it right. Of course, the UN inspectors could have discovered that but the neocons were to hell-bent on invading Iraq (even before 9/11) that they were blinded to anything that didn't fit their agenda.

Re: "pb, you assume that Bush either lied or was intentionally misinformed, but you provide no objective evidence of either. His excuse is the same that you so readily grant to Congress; he was misinformed. If you have objective evidence that Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq yet authorized the invasion anyway, let's hear it.
---
Everything he publicly claimed re WMD and the supposed threats from Saddam was wrong, and "yellowcake" was in the State of the Union address. If he was misinformed, then let's put Tenet and the others on trial for lying to him, or being grossly incompetent. Bush caused the nation to go to war with no evidence, though he claimed that WMD existed - and Cheney still does. Who pays for this? Who gets the bill? The taxpayer.
---
Additionally, your defense of Congress does not hold water. The excuse "well, the President told us this or that" is nonsense. An important check on the President's power is that Congress has the war power ...
---
Post-9/11, the country got suckered into following this false trail, and it would have appeared unpatriotic for Congress to do otherwise. That's going to cause long-term damage, and Congress will long remember "the President that cried Wolfowitz", and the next President will have a harder time in getting a commitment, especially from our allies. There was no problem calling for war in Afghanistan, since we all knew that was the actual source of the 9/11 attacks. Bush had ample motive to see Saddam out, for personal reasons, and those involved in 1991 (Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al) made sure they fed Bush's paranoia. Bush's father had enough sense to leave Saddam in power, in order to keep the Shiites out of power - he dropped handbills over eastern Iraq asking the Shia to rise up and overthrow Saddam, and then pulled our troops out, leaving the Shia to suffer for the next 11 years.

The real shame is that the brainwashed Bushies forgive and support this multi-year tragedy, at the continuing cost of American soldiers' lives and health. We knew Bush was an idiot, but apparently it's contagious.

Re: "Yeh. right pb... he took all those reports, from all the various intelligence agencies, all over the world, re-typed it and THEN gave it to congress. ..."

Congress was played for a sucker, in the name of patriotism. Likewise, the American people. We figured out the scam.

That leaves YOU as the fool.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/01/13/proof_bush_deceived_america.php

" ... Risen, quoting a former senior CIA official who helped host the British for a session that lasted most of Saturday, July 20, 2002, reports that Tenet and Dearlove had a 90-minute one-on-one conversation, during which Tenet was “very candid.”

Risen adds that by the time of this “intelligence summit,” senior CIA officials had concluded that “the quality of the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction didn’t really matter,” since war was inevitable. That perverse attitude certainly prevailed two months later, when the fabricated National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and WMD was produced by Tenet’s National Intelligence Council in a successful attempt to deceive Congress into voting for war. ... "

To all chickenhawks, Bush-apologists, Crusaders and assorted charlatans, (and DonB, take your pick, but this goes especially for you)

It is time to put your money where you mouth is and sign up to fight this war that you support so loudly with your words. The armed forces need more bodies to maintain the empire. You MUST save the country, smite our enemies, and spread the sweet air of freedom throughout the world. After all, anyone who does not want to maintain the Occupation hates America. And we all know YOU don't hate America, right?

Onward Christian soldiers!

http://www.army.com/enlist/
GoArmy.com

Captain No Reality: Clintoon bombed an EMPTY Al Qaeda training camp and stopped there.

Bryan: No revisionist history. Clintoon had multiple opportunties to get bin Laden and decided it was something he was not interested in.

As far as the Dumbocrats, they are not just irresponsible, but they are basically traitors and treasonists.

Just think that if Monica or another intern was a little more amorous during B.J.'s first term the lies that brought upon his impeachment would have given us a new President,a true leader and war hero in Robert Dole.
9/11 may have never happened....think about that you 60 day flag waiving libs.

Paulo

fabricating evidence to start an illegal 'war' that has killed
thousands of people

Posted by: DD | Apr 3, 2007 5:47:52 PM

DD: You need to re-read Herbie H. post , he succinctly lays out what factually happened on the war vote, and not the liberal revised version. Like your crap.

Mr. Clintons' problems weren't so much about sex , but all about telling the truth to the grand jury. Although more than a couple women have accused him of assault, but I know DD they were lying too.

It's been widely reported by the French and Russian Intel. that Bin-Laden died of acute typhoid poisoning last August, that would be good news for Mr. Bush, hence the liberal media won't put impertinent material like that in their papers. Nobody has seen or heard from him for over two years , so i buy it.

Me think you may be wrong a blinkin girl. Faced with mindless stubbornness you are a very unpredictable foe. Their frustrations' would make them volatile and dangerous, contrast that to a group of socialists who are heavily invested in failure, with an abundance of naivete that some how they will be able to coexist with evil doers, the choice would be easy for them. Off with the infidels heads, luckily for you a blinkin, it's only hypothetical.

Posted by: Don B | Apr 3, 2007 5:27:27 PM

Is there a Lunatic-to-English translator in the house? I don't have a clue what this means.

Surely the same argument would hold in Bush's case?

Posted by: John | Apr 3, 2007 7:10:05 PM

WRONG John...You have to commit a FELONY I think the misdemeanor word is tripping up your Bush hating mind.

To all chickenhawks, Bush-apologists, Crusaders and assorted charlatans, (and DonB, take your pick, but this goes especially for you)
Posted by: The Sheriff | Apr 3, 2007 10:01:06 PM

I already served Sheriff, I was drafted in August 1968. By the way where are you the sheriff of ......KIDDYLAND.

Paulo, you still haven't backed up your claim that Clinton had a dozen chances to take out bin Laden.

You won't back it up because you can't, you just plain lied.

John D,

Clinton went after bin Laden (and missed him by a few hours) then people like you attacked Clinton because YOU didn't think bin Laden was a threat.

"It's been widely reported by the French and Russian Intel. that Bin-Laden died of acute typhoid poisoning last August, that would be good news for Mr. Bush, hence the liberal media won't put impertinent material like that in their papers. Nobody has seen or heard from him for over two years , so i buy it."

Two things jump out. First, if Bush wanted it to be news, it would be news, no? All he would have to do is mention the reports from the notoriously reliable French and Russian intelligence services (chuckle chuckle). Of course, you assume Bush would be better off with Bin Laden dead than alive, which strikes me as questionable. After all, besides homosexuals, who has been the GOP's more consistent rallying cry?

Furthermore, DonB, my paranoid and delusional friend, do you honestly in your sick head think the "liberal media" (again, chuckle chuckle. is that the same "liberal media" that regurgitated every Bush Administration talking point to help usher the nation into Iraq? The "liberal media" that was utterly indispensible in bringing the country to war?) would sit on legitimate information that Osama Bin Laden is dead? Simply because YOU think that would be good for the President.

JohnD, I hope for once you're out there reading. Here is an example of a truly loony righty. Are you going to pillory him for it?
DonB, I don't EVER want to hear you refer to liberals as "loony lefties," because what you have just suggested would plant you FIRMLY in the brainwashed loony righty crowd. Give me a break.

P.S. If Bin Laden died of natural causes while safely in hiding for years from the American military, would Bush still get credit for finding him "dead or alive?"

pb, you are backpedaling already about the "Bush lied" jargon, and now talk about putting Tenet on trial. If you have objective evidence he lied, then present it and I will be the first to support you. Again, just because someone is wrong, doesn't mean they lied.

As for your second paragraph, you seem determined to condemn Bush and give Congress a free pass about the reasons for going to war. I think you should re-read the Iraq Resolution of 2002 and see exactly what Congress said. You also say Bush had "personal" motives for invading Iraq, but then don’t say what they are. Are you privy to some information too sensitive for the Swamp?

Finn, you state in your post that “most people caught on that the United States was bluffing”. I disagree with you that the Administration was bluffing about WMDs. I believe they actually thought there were WMDs in Iraq. As Ted Koppel likes to say, “we know they had WMDs; we still have the receipts”, implying that the US secretly supplied such weapons to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. We also know Saddam used chemical weapons to crush the Kurdish uprising in the early 90s. The fact that none were found following the invasion is definitely troubling, and has undoubtedly cost the US credibility around the world. However, to suggest they were bluffing implies a pretext for a different motive. I find this difficult to believe. Indeed, if Bush were really this dishonest man who would lie about WMDs in Iraq to invade for some other sinister motive, it seems to me he would also be dishonest enough to plant a few chemical and biological weapons in Iraq to clear his name. The irony is he is probably too honest to do that, so he is stuck being called a liar. Additionally, if Bush was bluffing and knew there were no WMDs, he would have known all along that obviously none would be found. Then how do you explain his reaction, which you describe as denial, and I agree with. I think he honestly could not believe there were no chemical or biological weapons in Iraq, and was basically caught with his pants down, and had to admit publicly that none were found. You would think he would have a better explanation than this if he knew from the beginning that none would be found.

Is there a Lunatic-to-English translator in the house? I don't have a clue what this means.

Posted by: a blinkin | Apr 4, 2007 8:22:32 AM

Sorry, a blinkin i didn't realize you didn't get out of 8 grade.

Bryan: From the Right Wing BBC Have another glass of Kool-Aid Bottoms up !!

In its report, French regional daily L'Est Republicain said it had obtained a copy of a DGSE foreign intelligence service report dated 21 September.

"According to a usually reliable source, the Saudi services are now convinced that Osama Bin Laden is dead," it read.

"The information gathered by the Saudis indicates that the head of al-Qaeda fell victim, while he was in Pakistan on August 23, 2006, to a very serious case of typhoid that led to a partial paralysis of his internal organs."

Mr Chirac said: "I am surprised that a confidential memo from the secret services has been published, therefore I've ordered the defence minister to start an inquiry.

"As far as the information itself is concerned, it's not confirmed in any way. Therefore I have no comment at all

And to your other point of the liberal press, they were for the invasion in the beginning, and then when things got a little tougher they joined in with the hard left loony revisionists. Why
they did that is anybodies guess i suspect they just turned into Bush haters', like you Bryan.

In its report, French regional daily L'Est Republicain said it had obtained a copy of a DGSE foreign intelligence service report dated 21 September.

"According to a usually reliable source, the Saudi services are now convinced that Osama Bin Laden is dead," it read.

"The information gathered by the Saudis indicates that the head of al-Qaeda fell victim, while he was in Pakistan on August 23, 2006, to a very serious case of typhoid that led to a partial paralysis of his internal organs."

Mr Chirac said: "I am surprised that a confidential memo from the secret services has been published, therefore I've ordered the defence minister to start an inquiry.

"As far as the information itself is concerned, it's not confirmed in any way. Therefore I have no comment at all

Re: "pb, you are backpedaling already about the "Bush lied" jargon, and now talk about putting Tenet on trial. If you have objective evidence he lied ... You also say Bush had "personal" motives for invading Iraq, but then don’t say what they are. Are you privy to some information too sensitive for the Swamp?

=========================================

Your paranoid and accusatory rantings are the usual cover for the fact that Bush's policies are indefensible, and the easiest thing to do is shift blame. Congress gets no free pass, as they simply followed the false information given to them, and it appeared the patriotic thing to do - it was what the public expected of them, sadly. Bush publicly stated his belief that "Saddam tried to kill my dad" in 2002"

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."

The new language in discussing his fight with the Democrat-controlled Senate over homeland security was a reaction from Bush to sharp complaints from Democrats that he was being overly political in his speeches on issues related to the war on terrorism.

(And, what does this remind you of???)

Yet Bush did not back down from the thrust of his critique.

He said, in considering his proposal to create a Department of Homeland Security, the Senate wants "to micromanage the process. They want to tell the executive branch ... who you can hire, who you can fire, who can move there. ... I am not going to accept that."

DonB, actually, it would be YOU who is wrong (but I'll take "mistaken" or "incorrect" if that bruises your ego less). Neither a felony nor misdemeanor, nor necessarily a "crime" at all, needs to be committed (although committing one does make the process a lot easier). Check out the following, please:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v50/ai_21129268

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764613.html

http://www.c-span.org/questions/week119.htm

The general consensus is that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are whatever Congress decides they are. Perhaps you're mistaking impeachment as a legal process, whereas it's actually a political one.

And if you think THAT comment was "Bush-hating" (especially in the angst-ridden context of your own posts, which indicates a notably hypocritical nature on your part) you should see what I REALLY think of him.

And don't forget that B.J. pardoned 14 F.A.L.N. terrorists on his last day in office. B.J. has a thing for terrorists,it's called ,"I don't care as long as my poll numbers look good."
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | Apr 3, 2007 1:40:35 PM

We're still waiting for you to post a link that provides PROOF of this allegation - we've already seen how your previous link was nothing more than some right wing site whining about Clinton pardoning "terrorists", yet it too offered no proof to support its allegation.

The general consensus is that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are whatever Congress decides they are.

Posted by: John | Apr 4, 2007 12:33:31 PM

Good to see you're making progress John, now his your next tough task to sort out A High Crime would be a Felonious act ( i.e)Treason (Benedict Arnold), lying to a grand jury (Bill Clinton) accepting a bribe (Alciee Hastings.) Now a misdemeanor would be like not paying a parking ticket, or perhaps spitting on the sidewalk on Sunday. Do you really think congress would start impeachment proceedings for a misdemeanor John ? If you still don't understand i suggest you ask a judge.Thats who explained it to me. Nothing personal John, but i think I'll rely on the judges opinion, rather than a Bush hater like you John.You shouldn't be ashamed of that John all the other Bush haters wear it as a badge of honor.

You want links? I've got links. Here's that bastion of right wing thought, CNN.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/08/faln.pardon/

If you think for a minute that the FALN aren't terrorists you're only kidding yourself.

pb, you actually believe Bush pushed for an invasion of Iraq because Saddam tried to kill his dad? I'm done talking to you.

In response to DonB's claim (I'm getting really tired of this jasper, btw) that Osama bin Laden died in August of 2006, reported in several sources (including the French L'Est Republicain, CNN, WorldNet Daily and USAToday) in September, 2006, this was in BBC News' site on the 23rd of September, repeating the information quoted by DonB and then saying:

"The Washington-based IntelCenter, which monitors terrorism communications, said it was not aware of any similar reports on the internet.

"We've seen nothing from any al-Qaeda messaging or other indicators that would point to the death of Osama Bin Laden," director Ben Venzke told the Associated Press news agency."

Fox news had this to say in their 9/23/06 article, "U.S., French Intelligence Officials Say Bin Laden Death Report Unconfirmed":

A U.S. official told FOX News that he had seen no evidence to suggest the Al Qaeda leader was dead. "Don't believe it," he said. "I would not give credence to that report."

Time magazine reported Saturday that bin Laden contracted a "serious water-borne disease" and may already be dead. The article cited an anonymous Saudi source who said Saudi officials have not received concrete evidence of bin Laden's death.

French President Jacques Chirac said the information is "in no way whatsoever confirmed.""

The Saudis continued to deny bin Laden's death on the 25th.

Now, I'm not saying it's not possible for bin Laden to be dead. We haven't heard from him in a long time. I'm only saying that the most recent sources I can find won't corroborate the story and, in fact, deny its truth. If DonB has a more recent confirmation (of any of the MANY reported deaths of Osama), I'd like to see it. Oh -- and I'd like to see the WHOLE story, as he seems to be providing only the parts that support his claim, even when there's conflicting evidence in the same article.

John, I don't agree with your statement that impeachment is political rather than legal. I also strongly disagree that Constitutional provisions are what Congress says they are. Conversly, it is the Supreme Court that has the final say in interpeting Constitutional provisions. You can have your websites, I'll cite the Supreme Court:

The Constitutional Convention chose to permit impeachment of executive officers only for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It rejected language that would have permitted impeachment for “maladministration,” with Madison arguing that “[s]o vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate."
Bowsher v. Synar, 478 US 714 (1986).

Wikipedia has a page on Clinton's pardons. As to the FALN individuals in question:

" ... None of the 16 were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person, though they were sentenced with terms ranging from 35 to 105 years in prison for the conviction of conspiracy and sedition. Congress, however, recognizes that the FALN is responsible for "6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials." All of the 16 had served 19 years or longer in prison, which was a longer sentence than such crimes typically received, according to the White House. ... "

You can read the rest on Wikipedia and other links - none of the 16 at the heart of the clemency offer was convicted in any of the bombings. They were convicted on a variety of charges, ranging from bomb-making and conspiracy to armed robbery, and given sentences ranging from 35 to 105 years.

We live in a different age today, and you can expect this to never happen again. Bush's treatment of the border patrol agents is the opposite - pandering to the Hispanic vote, pardoning a drug dealer, and putting law enforcement officers in jail.

DonB and his Tin-Foil Hat,

Were you on board with the whole Freedom Fries, the French are terrorist-loving cheese-eating surrender-monkey rhetoric of the Iraq War run-up? Does this report mean that the French are now upstanding and trustworthy citizens in your eyes? Are we to trust their intelligence services now even though we discredited them back in 2002 when the war was being sold?

Loony righty alert.

Re the very dumb: "pb, you actually believe Bush pushed for an invasion of Iraq because Saddam tried to kill his dad? I'm done talking to you."

I gave you a specific link from CNN where Bush evidenced his hatred for Saddam.

Also, from 2002:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_36_18/ai_92589538

" ... President George W. Bush intends to finish off Saddam Hussein once and for all. A spectrum of options is at his disposal, from covert operations against the Iraqi leader to a range of military actions that include outright invasion in partnership with Iraqi resistance. Leaving Saddam Hussein in power, Bush told reporters as Washington officialdom reassembled after Labor Day, is "not an option." ..."

Do us ALL a favor, and just shut up. We get enough propaganda from official sources.

DonB, there's no "next tough task" for me. I put the information out there for you. If you don't want to read it, that's up to you. My work's done. I don't for a minute doubt that all the crimes you've laid out are defined correctly -- my contention is that none of them are necessary in order to impeach, if Congress so decides.

And thank you for your concern over my well-being. As a matter of fact, I do NOT feel any shame for being a Bush-hater, but I'd vastly prefer not to consider it a "badge of honor" as you suggest. "Badge of honor" reminds me too much of Dan Quayle and Ann Coulter, and I wouldn't want to demean myself to their levels.

Herbie H, "political vs. legal" is an opinion and you're free to disagree with no hard feelings.

Back to the topic - Bush is calling the Dem's irresponsible, but the current method of funding for the war denies the facts. Notice how the funding is requested in the "wrong" fiscal period, a year later than formerly, to create a crisis. This is why funding keeps getting called "supplemental" and "emergency".

The Web source is monstersandcritics.com, and the title is "Bush delays slowed war funding"

"The White House submits the annual Pentagon budget request in February -- 2008 is the latest -- six months PRIOR TO the start of the new fiscal year. That gives Congress six months to hold hearings, debate, and approve final legislation.

Since 2002, however, the White House has submitted the annual war funding request six months AFTER the fiscal year has already started. This automatically puts the bill and Congress into crisis mode and ratchets up political pressure to approve the $100 billion requests quickly to demonstrate their support of the troops.

But with half the year elapsed already with no war funding, the military every year dips into its procurement accounts, delays training exercises and defers scheduled weapons and vehicle repair until the war money comes through."

Are we to trust their intelligence services now even though we discredited them back in 2002 when the war was being sold?
Posted by: Bryan | Apr 4, 2007 4:17:57 PM

Bryan : I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had a comprehension problem. The French were 'GIVEN" the information from Saudi and Pakistani intel. agencies. Perhaps if you re-read it, it may be clearer to you. I
wouldn't give the French that much credit on gathering that infor-
mation all by themselves.
In regards to the French, i believe they are appeasers, and whores for money (food for oil scandal). It's a pity we left behind 65,000
young men on their shores to save that ungrateful country. Sorry
the Bin-laden death speculation thing upset you so much......I
didn't realize you were such a big Bin Laden booster.

Don B,

Very cute, and typical. I say that your conspiracy theory suggesting that Bin Laden is in fact dead but that information is being stifled despite the president's bully pulpit by the "liberal media" is completely nonsensical and your retort is that I am a "Bin Laden booster." You're right, because I disagree with a fascist hack such as yourself that MUST mean that ADORE Bin Laden.

The country is wising up to this garbage, Don.

So pathetic.

Don B,

Very cute, and typical. I say that your conspiracy theory suggesting that Bin Laden is in fact dead but that information is being stifled despite the president's bully pulpit by the "liberal media" is completely nonsensical and your retort is that I am a "Bin Laden booster." You're right, because I disagree with a fascist hack such as yourself that MUST mean that ADORE Bin Laden.

The country is wising up to this garbage, Don.

So pathetic.