Senate passes Iraq withdrawal.
Moments ago, the Senate voted 51-47 to pass a “war spending bill that would require U.S. combat troops to leave Iraq by the end of March 2008, ignoring a veto threat from President Bush.”
UPDATE: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) voted against the spending bill. Sens. Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Chuck Hagel (NE) crossed party lines to vote for the bill. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR), who voted to remove the Iraq time line earlier this week, nevertheless voted for the full bill.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
finally.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:05 amwhat to what??? what was the vote count????
March 29th, 2007 at 11:06 am“Require” as in binding or non-binding?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:08 amAs for the veto threat, “bring it on Chimpy”.
The more you stonewall, the more momentum will build to bring you to your knees.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:08 amTroops need to ’suck it up’ and stick with the surge. How many of these troops want to see IEDs, truck bombs, chlorine attacks right here in Main Street, USA? These guys are from small towns, they wouldn’t want to see another 9/11 in their areas.
RN
March 29th, 2007 at 11:08 amI hope the Cheerleader’s pen runs dry from vetoing.
He can hurl all the BS he wants at Congress while ignoring American’s wishes, but history & the voters see the truth.
Worst. President. Ever.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:10 amIf the president vetos this bill, the american people WOULD KNOW who is withholding funds from our military. Can someone loan george a hearing aid?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:10 am#5
March 29th, 2007 at 11:11 amwhy don’t you go over there and fight if it’s so important for “main street”? The senate is responding to the wishes of the majority, unlike your draftdodging commander in chief.
Senate passage of the Iraq withdrawal is a start. Now, shouldn’t we think about withdrawing from the next war before it starts?
And a little barking poodle shall lead them? U.S. Navy war games in Persian Gulf. Captured British sailors. Blair nipping at Iran’s heels. Is this the long-awaited incident that escalates into war? Shouldn’t we be paying more attention?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:11 amwhat to what??? what was the vote count????
51-47
March 29th, 2007 at 11:11 amL Thomas:
If Congress passed a spending bill that included a provision that all people who post on Internet blogs with screen names beginning in “L” are sent to Gitmo, would a veto be O.K. then?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:13 amTo #8:
This isnt a war that I need to fight. Let the less fortunate go over there and fight it. THey need the money.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:14 amIncredibly stupid move by the Dems.
Not only do we tell the enemy when we will be leaving — so they can mark their calendars and wait; but they loaded up the bill with unbelievable amounts of pork that have nothing to do with the main purpose of the bill.
Brilliant! This is the bill the Repubs would have drafted for the Dems to get them to shoot themselves in the foot!
Suddenly I’m not so worried about 2008 anymore…
March 29th, 2007 at 11:14 amIf Bush vetos the spending bill, and Congress does not enact another, the war will be over. Veto it George. Dems - get the balls to not pass another.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:14 am#9: cough cough **Gulf of Tonkin** cough cough
March 29th, 2007 at 11:14 amI remember in ‘75 when the North Vietnamese army followed us home, just like we were warned. Well, you all know how the entire Asian continent turned communist, and Soviet and Cuban paratroopers invaded our small Colorado town until me and my high school buddies drove them out WOLVERINES!
That’s exactly what will happen in Iraq. I only hope Sylvester Stallone isn’t too old to go in and set things right again.
Help us Zombie Reagan!
March 29th, 2007 at 11:14 amWhat should be noted is that by waiting until March 2008 to withdraw the troops [though the troops will be, in all likelihood, not withdrawn, but redeployed “over the horizon” where they can be rushed back into Iraq at a moment’s notice], a thousand more Americans would most likely be returned to this country in flag draped coffins and thousands more returning to this country grievously wounded and maimed and crippled. Waiting a year to simply BEGIN the process is hardly the best way of supporting the troops. Cut off the funding and bring them home- now.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:14 amHey, whiteyfresh — how’s it hanging? Did I miss anything big yesterday?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:15 am#8 Why don’t you see if your local community college offers a night class in sarcasm?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:15 am“How many of these troops want to see IEDs, truck bombs, chlorine attacks right here in Main Street, USA?”
False choice. The more enemies we create by immorally invading and occupying other countries, the more likely we are to get attacked.
Involving ourselves in an Islamic civil war does not make us less likely to suffer Al Qaeda attacks in the US.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:16 amThis isnt a war that I need to fight. Let the less fortunate go over there and fight it. THey need the money.
Comment by Real RedNeck
Huh?? I bet your one of “brighter” ones of the Bush’s base!!!:D
March 29th, 2007 at 11:21 amIf Congress passed a spending bill that included a provision that all people who post on Internet blogs with screen names beginning in “L†are sent to Gitmo, would a veto be O.K. then?
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 11:13 am
Just change your screen name.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:25 amSo will bush support the troops or will he veto? Both House and Senate bills have all funding that was asked for, so a veto will mean lack of support for the troops.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:26 amInvolving ourselves in an Islamic civil war does not make us less likely to suffer Al Qaeda attacks in the US.
Comment by lw
I hear this one a lot. First of all, it is not a civil war (according to the Iraqi people anyway).
Second, the idea that you don’t lessen an attack here by confronting them over there fails all logic tests. Of course you do. They have limited resources and if they are focused on fighting us over there, well, you finish the rest…
March 29th, 2007 at 11:27 am“First of all, it is not a civil war (according to the Iraqi people anyway).”
you’re right again:
“MOSUL, Iraq, March 29 (Reuters) - Policemen who took part in the reprisal shootings of scores of men in northwest Iraq this week were arrested but then freed again to prevent unrest, the provincial governor said on Thursday.
Hours after truck bombs killed 85 people on Tuesday in a Shi’ite area of Tal Afar, up to 70 Sunni Arab men were shot dead in a town which only a year ago was held up by U.S. President George W. Bush as an example of progress towards peace.”
March 29th, 2007 at 11:30 amWorst prez ever . Should have been a hell lot better as a atand up COMEDIAN
March 29th, 2007 at 11:30 amNat:
Would the veto be O.K.?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:31 amThey have limited resources and if they are focused on fighting us over there, well, you finish the rest…
Comment by Cynicon Implant
So you propose to dangle our men and women in the armed forces as bait so that you can feel safe and comfortable sitting on your ass typing on the computer. F-you you cowardly SOB.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:31 amBob:
If Congress passed a spending bill that included a provision that all people with the name “Bob” are sent to Gitmo, would a veto be O.K. then?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:32 am1st, who is the Enemy? That’s where this White House hasn’t come clean. The average Iraqi wants the US out. By being deceitful about how long America plans to occupy Iraq, the US becomes the Enemy. 2nd, the Bill names three withdrawal start times intended to force the Iraqi leadership to take charge. It’s NOT America’s job to intervene in a civil war or to police or to keep the peace indefinitely. If Iraq is a failed state, it’s better to know sooner rather than later. If the Iraqi government exercises no authority beyond the Green Zone, then it’s a quagmire and no amount of surging is going to matter. 3rd, of course it’s a binding requirement. It’s a money bill. If Bush wants the money, he must accept the conditions. If not, he has to veto it. He can’t use a signing statement to wiggle out of it this time.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:33 amJake…totally off topic, totally insane questions, totally “It’s all about me and what I think!” Another day on TP.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:35 amThey have limited resources and if they are focused on fighting us over there, well, you finish the rest…
Comment by Cynicon Implant
Right. Because after all, every single terrorist organization is in Iraq right now fighting our troops.
Mind boggling…really.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:36 amRoflmao!: Unrelated, but insanely relevant:
http://tech.monstersandcritics.com/ news/ article_1284487.php/ John_McCain_learns_lesson_in_online_etiquette
This is not McCain’s week.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:36 amGood news I am heading for Beer bar.
http://www.tekno-world.blogspot.com
March 29th, 2007 at 11:37 amdavid:
The last time I read the Senate version, the March 2008 date was “non-binding” (the House passed a “binding” version with a later August 31, 2008 date BTW). The “enemy” are the terrorists who are trying to kill Americans — I understand you think President Bush fits that bill — we’ll have to agree to disagree on that. I hope you can at least agree, if this were a GOP Congress providing full funding for a Democratic President but adding unacceptable provisions for withdrawal, how this could be a problem when it comes to running wars?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:39 amSomeone else has now called you a coward Cynicon. What type of offensive do you think any group could accomplish over here? ever. Fighting them over there in the piss poor hamstrung manner we have been is draining our resources.
Fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here is the biggest crock of shit you’ve digested. It’s a fear tactic that doesn’t hold true.
We would light up several small countries if 20 carbombs were set off here.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:39 amLibStl:
Name another country were there are more terrorists trying to kill Americans?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:40 amIf Congress passed a spending bill that included a provision that killed the world’s most beautiful pony, would a veto be O.K. then?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:40 amAs Sean Hannity said, the Democrats are legislating for defeat.
Time to cut n’ run, embolden our enemies, and put our troops in harm.
Good plan libs!
March 29th, 2007 at 11:42 am#29
Using a FALSE hypothesis about Congress “sending to Gitmo” anyone with a first letter “L” for example.
How about:
1. The FUNDS that the TRAITOR little coxucker PUNK Bush asked for have been GRANTED.
2. They come with the conditions that our troops are PROPERLY EQUIPPED, TRAINED and RESTED. BASIC MILITARY POLICY.
So, it the little TRAITOR Bush vetoes what is BASIC MILITARY POLICY, does HE “support the troops”??? NOPE….
By the way, you NEVER replied as to WHY Bush and Cheney REFUSED TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH to the 9/11 Commission.
And their involvement with 9/11, the Bin Ladens, and the Saudi FINANCIERS OF TERRORISM (funding the Sunnis, presently).
Come on, “jake”.
Defend your MURDERER coxucker PUNK little TRAITOR to the USA of a “president”.
Bring it on, Nazi azzhole-licker of the TRAITOR coxucker PUNK!!!
God Bless America, the Democrats, and the WORLD!
March 29th, 2007 at 11:43 amNo. Ponies are not people.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:43 amCan you answer my question now?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:43 am#5 - if you think any of that’s going to happen here, you’re one cowardly little puppy dog who watches waaaayyyyyyy too much TV.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:44 amThat’s exactly what will happen in Iraq. I only hope Sylvester Stallone isn’t too old to go in and set things right again.
Help us Zombie Reagan!
Comment by cynical ex-hippie — March 29, 2007 @ 11:14 am
I say we let Brad Pitt supervised by Kurt Russell handle it so all the cowering neocons can come out from under their beds.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:45 amHey, whiteyfresh — how’s it hanging? Did I miss anything big yesterday?
WHITEYFRESH - don’t look, don’t look, Jake is trying to engage you. Quick duck. Oh, too late, sorry.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:47 amOnce Clinton takes over and has to clean up this disastrous country that Bush as created, I think it’s time to pass bills through congress to clean up the 2nd Amendment. I don’t want some bushie redneck shooting me because he’s drunk and thinks I look like a terrorist. Repugs are spinless trolls that need to be bashed into the ground!
March 29th, 2007 at 11:49 am“if this were a GOP Congress providing full funding for a Democratic President but adding unacceptable provisions for withdrawal, how this could be a problem when it comes to running wars?
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 11:39 am”
Somolia, Bosnia…..
Do any of those conflicts RING A BELL?????
The Republicans were telling Clinton how and what to do with his military in those conflicts….
HYPOCRITE!!!
March 29th, 2007 at 11:49 amComment by Cynicon Implant — March 29, 2007 @ 11:27 am
*Y A W N*
Hey if we wanted to hear Fox News bullshit we’d watch that instead of posting here.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:49 amIf anyone (NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€) wants to discuss the topic, let me know.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:50 am#5 Pretty much anyone who still believes the third grade simplification about fighting them over there to avoid fighting them here simply can’t be helped. This notion is so stupid it is hard to believe anyone ever bought it. Listen up, idiots: there is more than one country in the world. Sticking most of our army in Iraq detracts from our military coverage of the rest of the world, where most of the terrorists actually reside (sorry, Jake, but your attempt to imply that most of the terrorists are in Iraq is stupid, stupid, stupid, so shut the f*** up, you morally bankrupt a**hole).
March 29th, 2007 at 11:52 amWould the veto be O.K.?
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Hey Loser Jake - you were gone yesterday? That must be why the posts seemed less boringly ridiculous. Does that answer your question L?
How long until Nat figures out what a total a**hole you are. I suspect times up.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:53 amIf anyone (NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€) wants to discuss the topic, let me know.
Comment by Jake
*crickets*
March 29th, 2007 at 11:53 amHey, “jake”!!!
Any reply about WHY Bush and Cheney REFUSED TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH about their involvement with 9/11, the Bin Ladens, and
the SAUDI TERRORIST FINANCIERS????
Thought not.
YOUR “topic” is therefore IRRELEVANT.
God Bless America, the Democrats, and the WORLD!
March 29th, 2007 at 11:54 amLet the less fortunate go over there and fight it. THey need the money.
Comment by Real RedNeck
Less fortunate in what area. It seems like your rock bottom in every one that counts.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:54 amTroll basher:
Good luck repealing the 2nd Amendment then ; )
March 29th, 2007 at 11:55 amJake, let’s cut the crap. You aren’t here to discuss anything to any meaningful degree. You are here to peddle GOP talking points and generally disrupt the threads with misdirection and disinformation. Come on Jake, tell me otherwise, and I will call you a liar. Everytime.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:55 amLibStl or anyone else (NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€):
Name another country where there are more terrorists trying to kill Americans?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:57 amIf I would have told If I would have told you a year ago that the best way for a Democratic controlled congress to end the “war†in Iraq would be for them to attach a non-binding withdrawal timeline to a bill that provided full funding (even increased funding) for the “warâ€, you would have laughed at me and called me a “moron†or worse.
Today you applaud that very thing as if it were the Emancipation Proclamation. Who here has even read the phucking thing?
Meanwhile, many more Iraqis will be murdered, maimed, and terrorized. More of America’s sons and daughters will pay a horrific, if not the ultimate, price for our heinous act of aggression and oppression. And we are but the length of an 18 year old’s twitchy trigger finger away from an all out blood bath with Iran.
But, hey, this all makes for great TV! After all, it is all about our comfort and entertainment. Phuck the rest of the world and our sons and daughters. Phuck ‘em all.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:57 amjake - If Congress passed a spending bill that included a provision that all flatulent, right-wing nutjobs who post on Internet blogs with screen names beginning in “jake†are sent to Gitmo, a veto would NOT be O.K. .
March 29th, 2007 at 11:58 amthere, does that answer your question?
“Second, the idea that you don’t lessen an attack here by confronting them over there fails all logic tests. Of course you do. They have limited resources and if they are focused on fighting us over there, well, you finish the rest…”
No, sorry, not sure who concocted your logic tests, but they are flawed.
First of all, who are “them” or “they”?
They - the insurgents and the people killing each other in Iraq are mostly Sunni and Shiite citizens of Iraq. They were not attacking Americans before we attacked their country.
Al Qaeda, on the other hand, is all over the world, including in the US. However Al Qaeda represents a small percentage in Iraq. They are certainly not confined to Iraq. The people who set off bombs in Madrid and London and flew planes into the WTC were not from Iraq.
Your “logic” is the same “logic” I heard as a kid regarding the Communists in Vietnam. The same lie was told then. “We have to stop THEM there so THEY don’t come here.” Well guess what. Vietnam fell to the commies and the only ones who came here were the refugees. That argument is as bogus now as it was then. Now we are friendly with Vietnam and do business with them. The war was a complete waste of humanity.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:59 amComment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 11:39 am
*D I S C L A I M E R*
For all readers new to this post, pleae note that Jake is a known prevarictor of the highest order.
He tolls this site spewing lies fed to him from the Administration in the style of Karl Rove.
Because this is a Progressive site he is allowed to post here but his opinions are loaded with lies, bias and misrepresentations of the facts. If you should choose to read posts by this person please keep this in mind.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:59 amGood luck repealing the 2nd Amendment then ; )
Comment by Jake
I thought that was next on Bush’s hitlist.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:03 pmpablo:
No — changing my question is not “answering” my question — any questions?
Comment by
lw:
Name another country where there are more terrorists trying to kill Americans?
March 29th, 2007 at 12:03 pmIf anyone (NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€) wants to discuss the topic, let me know.
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
What a LOSER!
March 29th, 2007 at 12:03 pm“Name another country where there are more terrorists trying to kill Americans?”
ha! you’re right! no one can name one! because iraqis are terrorists! the people of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas thank you. [so now you’re a lobbyist?]
March 29th, 2007 at 12:04 pmName one country…..
Saudi Arabia!!!
Where 15 of 19 hijackers were from.
Where Bin Laden is from…
They are presently financing the Sunnis against the Shiite in Iraq.
So, Saudi Arabia has more TERRORISTS wanting to kill Americans.
Iraq, however, has more CITIZENS and INSURGENTS who want to kill Americans. BECAUSE THEY ARE OCCUPIERS OF THEIR COUNTRY.
Thanks for asking…
And you STILL didn’t reply to Bush and Cheney REFUSING TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH TO THE 9/11 Commission…
WHY does “jake” HATE the USA and
LOVE the TRAITOR coxucker PUNK Bush?????
WHY????
March 29th, 2007 at 12:05 pmI hope my beloved prez. starts www3.Fireworks will be worth watching.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:08 pmIf anyone (NOT on the “Ignore List”) can find me a link proving more than 3200 Americans have been killed by terrorists in Saudia Arabia in the last 4 years, I would be most grateful : )
March 29th, 2007 at 12:09 pmJake-
I may be new at posting on TP, but I’ve read it long enough to know that you rarely make any sense and probably aren’t worth responding to. However, if you’ve paid any attention at all to news reports from Iraq (Michael Ware of CNN especially) you would know that the main source of violence in Iraq is sectarian Suni vs Shia, not Al Qaeda. It would be a mistake to conflate the two.
I would also expect you to understand that terrorist organizations exist worldwide, including the USA. Fighting them there has nothing to do with not fighting them here.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:10 pmBecause this is a Progressive site he is allowed to post here but his opinions are loaded with lies, bias and misrepresentations of the facts. If you should choose to read posts by this person please keep this in mind.
Quite true.
If a Progressive, or ANYONE for that matter, was to try to post a comment critical of Bush,
it would be REJECTED immediately (Free Republic, etc.)
Moreover, Limbaugh, Malkin, etc. have NO FEEDBACK OPTION.
So much for “free speech” when it comes to the BushNazis…
March 29th, 2007 at 12:10 pmNow more of our brave young soldiers have died in Iraq than died in the 9/11 Attack.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:10 pmBut all these prowar morons feel safer keeping our troops in Iraq. We’ll win the war when all the Oil Contracts are tied up to our major corporations. When we beat the Iraqis out of their most valuable resource that is going to certainly create more terrorist. Only problem is even more soldiers will be dead, wounded or physically/mentally disabled.
Somebody, like you Jake, tell me how this helps Homeland Security?
Pakistan. Remember Jake, that’s where OBL and his group is hanging out. Quickly followed by Afghanistan where the largest concentration of Al Qiada is.
Didn’t the military just produce a report stating the Al Qiada in Iraq pose little threat to the US? I’ll hunt that down for you Jake.
Don’t care if you respond or not. I get the satisfaction of just showing how wrong you are.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:10 pm“Name another country where there are more terrorists trying to kill Americans?â€
But if there are no Americans in Iraq to kill then…wait I am trying to use logic on Jake…….
March 29th, 2007 at 12:11 pmI hope my beloved prez. starts www3.Fireworks will be worth watching.
I hope your “president” is executed by a US Army FIRING SQUAD of soldiers MAIMED and WOUNDED for Bush’s Iraq/WMD LIES.
THAT would be worth watching….
God Bless America, the Democrats, and the WORLD!
March 29th, 2007 at 12:12 pm#69 Jake is a Republican party operative. No doubt about it.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:12 pmName another country where there are more terrorists trying to kill Americans?
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Now STFU!
March 29th, 2007 at 12:13 pm#68 Jake, of course, defines anyone who kills an American troop in Iraq to be a “terrorist”. How convenient, Jake, but my, how dishonest. You know that most of them are just pissed off Iraqis who don’t like the heavy-handed U.S. occupation.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:15 pmIf anyone (NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€) can find me a link proving more than 3200 Americans have been killed by terrorists in Saudia Arabia in the last 4 years, I would be most grateful : )
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
And maybe you can provide the link with the exact number of US servicemen and women killed by terrorists in Iraq. That’s TERRORISTS, Jake…those associated with a known terrorist organziation like Al Qaeda.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:15 pmThat was just my second personality battling the democrat enlivening me.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:15 pmLibStl:
Regardless of where the “main source” of violence in Iraq comes from, that does not answer my question. Of course terrorist organizations exist worldwide, including the USA and other countries. Name one country, however, where there are MORE terrorists trying to kill Americans than Iraq. Let’s say I could prove there are 5000 al Qaeda in Iraq but you could prove there are 10000 al Qaeda in Saudia Arabia — where are they ACTUALLY TRYING TO KILL Americans? That’s the question (but I understand if you don’t want to answer).
March 29th, 2007 at 12:16 pmI hope my beloved prez. starts www3.Fireworks will be worth watching.
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
Why does Jake love his President more than America?
March 29th, 2007 at 12:17 pmthe i.s.g. report noted that saudis were flowing money to the sunnis in iraq; the sunnis are responsible for the overwhelming majority of u.s. casualties in iraq. please don’t let the straw man kill the pony.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:17 pmNow we can concentrate more on issues that really matter to us. We can spend the resources from the war on such important issues as global poverty. 191 global leaders made an agreement known as the Millennium Development Goals in 2000 and we should hold our govenment accountable to them. According to the Borgen Project, only $19 billion is needed to feed the world for a year.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:18 pm3200 Americans have been killed by terrorists in Saudia Arabia in the last 4 years, I would be most grateful : )
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
We invade Iraq and they are the terrorists. So war is terrorism? Then I guess with about 100,000 Iraqis presumed dead we are the biggest terrorists in the world. That’s a good way to make us safer here.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:19 pmWhy would the terrorist attack a small town? Doesn’t fit the MO of terrorists.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:19 pmLet’s say I could prove there are 5000 al Qaeda in Iraq but you could prove there are 10000 al Qaeda in Saudia Arabia — where are they ACTUALLY TRYING TO KILL Americans? That’s the question (but I understand if you don’t want to answer).
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
Do you consider plotting to kill Americans the same as trying to kill Americans?
March 29th, 2007 at 12:20 pmWould the veto be O.K.?
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 11:31 am
You provided an unrealistic scenario. Come up with something plausible and I’ll answer yes or no.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:21 pmGW Bush is a MURDER little COXUCKER punk TRAITOR to the USA!
The FACT that he REFUSED TO SWEAR TO GOD about his involvement with 9/11, the Bin Ladens, and the SAUDI TERRORIST FINANCIERS
makes that apparent.
EVERYTHING else associated with Bush is a LIE and a WAR CRIME.
May Bush the COXUCKER punk TRAITOR to the USA
BURN IN HELL for his EVIL.
Along side of Saddam, Osama, and Hitler.
ALL of whom were Bush family “business associates”.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:21 pmJake,
I knwo for a fact that there are 100,000 al Queda in Pakistan that are actually trying to kill Americans. But they can’t find any. Prove me wrong.
All we need to do is send some troops there so they can start killing them. Then we can stay there because they are killing our troops. Dur….dur…dur.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:21 pm“where are they ACTUALLY TRYING TO KILL Americans?”
that would be true for any country that had american (or any nation’s) troops occupying it
March 29th, 2007 at 12:23 pmJake:
March 29th, 2007 at 12:23 pmYour logic seems to be absurd. Of course Iraqis would kill Americans trying to occupy their homeland. What if tomorrow the British were to come back and try to take back the land under pretense that the Bush administration is wrong and needs to be reformed. Would you not partake in killing them and trying to free your OWN land from invaders? Agreed that the Saddam regime was by no means good, yet USA and GWB had no right to invade a country which had no direct threat to the US or its security.
Kyle Sampson told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Gonzales DID have a role in the firings.
Gonzo told Congress two weeks ago that he DID NOT.
http://news.yahoo.com/ s/ ap/ 20070329/ ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/ fired_prosecutors;_ylt=AolHWlqChFdLY8E4Ai7.EH2s0NUE
Gonzo has committed PERJURY.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:25 pmIf anyone (NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€) can find me a link proving more than 3200 Americans have been killed by terrorists in Saudia Arabia in the last 4 years, I would be most grateful : )
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
What does this have to do w/ anything? George Bush facilitated the deaths of those 3200 Americans.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:26 pmLibStl:
No — “plotting” = conspiracy under the law — “trying” = actual attempted murder.
Nat:
If I can’t even pin you down on the unrealistic scenario, then there’s no hope we’ll agree on something plausible. Have a nice life.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:26 pmJake, defining the Enemy as “terrorists who are trying to kill Americans” might be suitable in kindergarten, but the real world requires more precision. Who? Where? Why? How many? Iraq was not a threat prior to 2003. And if there are insurgents trying to kill Americans there, perhaps it’s because there are over 140,000 Americans there killing Iraqis. (And the private US security forces can do it with impunity.) The Iraqis want America to “Go Home!” And as far as the Senate withdrawal date being binding/non-binding, the House has the advantage here as ALL money bills must originate from the House.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:27 pmI probably would, Damien, but that was unfortunately the price for sucking the terrorists into Iraq. I didn’t think we would still be there, at this level of violence, 4 years later either but we have to finish the job now. As for no “direct threat” I agreed with Bush that we could not afford to risk waiting until Saddam was a DIRECT threat — even if he had obtained nukes, he was more likely an INDIRECT threat as worst — so, I disagree about what the U.S. had a “right” to do.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:30 pmThe USA.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:32 pmhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2007/ 03/ 17/ AR2007031701373.html
Here’s the post stating the threat of Al Qiada in Iraq isn’t what you think it to be Jake.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:32 pmdavid:
Please read my response to Damien — if that doesn’t answer your questions, please answer my pending question about trying the hands of future (possibly Democratic) Presidents and then I will return the same courtesy.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:32 pmYou see, folks, not a single moment of good faith debate from Jake. It’s all ridiculous hypotheticals meant to misdirect and confuse. One might conclude that Jake is an exceptionally stupid person, but it isn’t so. Jake is just working from today’s memo. Tomorrow there will be a new memo, and Jake will be back here to push its contents.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:33 pmNo — “plotting†= conspiracy under the law — “trying†= actual attempted murder.Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
Ok then. When you give me the number of terrorists in Iraq trying to kill Americans, I’ll find a country where there’s more.
Right off the bat, Afghanistan comes to mind.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:36 pmdlet
You are one sharp and intelligent individual.
Exactly. US invades a country on whatever excuse (as always). US forces then are getting killed. US asks, why are they killing us? It´s beyond ludicrous. Seriously.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:37 pmthe price for sucking the terrorists into Iraq.
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
I see. I must have missed that great big sucking sound. I must have been playing the music too loudly again. I’ll have to stop doing that.
So tell me, Jake, why are we still in Iraq? Shouldn’t we have been better prepared? We could have simply posted men at the borders and gunned down the long lines of terrorists marching in from all directions. How long would that have taken? A couple of weeks maybe?
stupid stupid stupid stupid….
March 29th, 2007 at 12:37 pm#96 I rate the first sentence of this post a 100 on the Inhofe scale.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:40 pmLibStl:
How many Americans have been killed by terrorists in Afghanistan?
March 29th, 2007 at 12:40 pmIf I can’t even pin you down on the unrealistic scenario, then there’s no hope we’ll agree on something plausible. Have a nice life.
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
Just come up with something plausible that the Democrats would put in an Iraq spending bill and I’ll answer yes or no.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:42 pmif that doesn’t answer your questions, please answer my pending question about trying the hands of future (possibly Democratic) Presidents and then I will return the same courtesy.
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
I’ll bet Jake is just thrilled at the prospect of a Democratic administration conducting warrantless wiretaps on his phone. When republicans had the power, they engaged in such momentous undertakings as investigating the Clinton’s Christmas card list; I laugh when wingnuts act like they have credibility to speak, on any issue.
It’s precious.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:44 pmSorry, Nat — Pelosi had to promise BILLIONS in pork just to make THIS bill plausible — I can’t do better than that. Don’t worry though. You are under no obligation to answer my questions ; )
March 29th, 2007 at 12:45 pmRedneck: “Troops need to ’suck it up’ and stick with the surge. How many of these troops want to see IEDs, truck bombs, chlorine attacks right here in Main Street, USA? These guys are from small towns, they wouldn’t want to see another 9/11 in their areas.”
Right, because we found out back in the 70’s that when we pull out of an illegal occupation, they follow us home. Remember all those Viet Cong attacks on the west coast in the years following the war in Viet Nam. The horror. The horror.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:46 pmHow many Americans have been killed by terrorists in Afghanistan?
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
3000; because some nitwit thought chopping brush on his “ranch” to be more important than doing his real j-o-b.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:47 pmAs for no “direct threat†I agreed with Bush that we could not afford to risk waiting until Saddam was a DIRECT threat — even if he had obtained nukes, he was more likely an INDIRECT threat as worst — so, I disagree about what the U.S. had a “right†to do.
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
Every country is an indirect threat to America until they become a direct threat. You don’t use a stupid argument like the one you put forth to start a war.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:48 pmLibStl:
How many Americans have been killed by terrorists in Afghanistan?
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
No Jake. The onus is on you. You were the one who asked where more Americans were being killed by terrorists than Iraq. Now you must tell me the number of Americans killed by terrorists in Iraq first.
The point is that you can’t. You’re lumping terrorists and insurgents in the same category because to you, they’re all just brown people that deserve a whoopin’ by our Glorious Leader.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:51 pmJuan C,
March 29th, 2007 at 12:53 pmThanks for that. Though I have good days and bad days at that. Always enjoy your comments too. Very well thougth out and a great perspective from an “outsider”. I lived outside the US for a good amount of time and not as a government employee so I think that helps in seeing the US as what it really is.
Sorry, Nat — Pelosi had to promise BILLIONS in pork just to make THIS bill plausible — I can’t do better than that. Don’t worry though. You are under no obligation to answer my questions ; )
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Bush had no problem signing bills laden with pork for the first six years of his presidency. We all know he’s going to veto the bill because of the timeline.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:54 pmGee why do the right wing blogs have absolutely no tolerance for any level of criticism? I have experienced this first hand. What’s the problem, if they are so phucking correct, they shouldn’t have to worry about criticism. It also illustrates the lack of self-esteem and confidence. Also fear.
I was reading a right wing blog last week and the only commentor they had was some numbnuts blabbing about how the Congress was stripping the President of his inherent powers by taking the US Attorney provision out of the Patriot Act. This numbnut thought it was always that way. I was instantly deleted for bringing up the pure facts and discussing how the President has never had this power before the Patriot Act. They are all scared little pussies.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:58 pmOne man’s pork is another man’s bridge.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:58 pmWell, LibStl, according to the Washington Post, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is the United States’ most formidable enemy in that country — they point out that organization has undergone dramatic changes since 2003 — once believed to include thousands of “foreign fighters,” it is now an overwhelmingly Iraqi organization whose aims are likely to remain focused on the struggle against the Shiite majority in Iraq. I agree that’s a problem long-term. As for how many TERRORISTS are trying to kill Americans in Iraq, using the latest figures, somewhere between a couple hundred to a thousand.
Although AQI’s top leader, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, is thought to be Egyptian, most members “are Iraqis, both in terms of leaders and foot soldiers,” said one counterterrorism official. He and other officials estimated that Iraqis make up 90 percent of AQI’s several thousand fighters.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates last week put the number of foreigners now arriving in Iraq to join the AQI-led Sunni insurgency at “perhaps several dozen a month” from neighboring Syria, most of them volunteers for suicide-bombing missions. There is no doubt whatever the number of TERRORISTS there are in Iraq today, there are MORE there trying to kill Americans than in any other country.
Care to answer my question now?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:02 pmBlah. Its frickin’ non-binding anyway.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:05 pmI lived outside the US for a good amount of time and not as a government employee so I think that helps in seeing the US as what it really is.
Comment by dlet
Where did you live? (If, of course, it can be said here)
March 29th, 2007 at 1:05 pmGerman newspaper “Der Spiegel” claims Chuck Hagel (!!!!!!!) had mentioned impeachment as a counter to the veto threat.
As a rule they are pretty reliable, anybody heard of that??
March 29th, 2007 at 1:07 pmQuantify that with the amount of attacks by these new insurgents against US Forces Jake.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:08 pmSomeone else has now called you a coward Cynicon. What type of offensive do you think any group could accomplish over here?
Comment by hellinabucket
Being called names by people I don’t respect means nothing to me.
Your question is absurd. 9/11 ring a bell?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:13 pmComment by Juan C
Bulgaria
March 29th, 2007 at 1:14 pmCare to answer my question now?
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
No. I need the link to that article so I can read it myself instead of accepting your interpretation at face value.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:19 pmJake-
Your unrealistic hypothesis is illogical in this context, so I can’t logically respond.
Course, that apply to most of the repub talking points.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:20 pmQUIT FEEDING THE TROLL.
Look at this thread. You’ve ALL been owned by Jake.
Or are your lives so meaningless that kicking him around is the highlight of your week?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:24 pmLet’s be clear on something. The Bush cultist would like to muddy the waters here.
There was only one terrorist who even claimed to be with al Qaeda before the invasion and that was al Zarqawi. The pentagon approached the Bush people on 4 different occasions with plans to kill him, but, according to our own pentagon, the Bushies didn’t allow them to kill Zarqawi because they felt it would undermine their rational for invasion. Zarqawi went on to personally behead a number of Americans. Those Americans were killed because of a political manuver by Bush, period.
Since there was only one wannabe al Queda guy in Iraq before we invaded, what would the rational for al Qaeda to maintain a large force after we left? And, if the Viet Cong didn’t follow us home after we had ruined most of their homeland, what makes anyone think Iraqis will follow us home today?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:24 pmAnd Jake, even if you’re right, ask yourself why there are so many more terrorists in Iraq now than before the invasion. Then tell me how Americans are safer because of the Iraq War.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:26 pmQUIT FEEDING THE TROLL.
Look at this thread. You’ve ALL been owned by Jake.
Or are your lives so meaningless that kicking him around is the highlight of your week?
Comment by Not Canadian — March 29, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
I thought it would be interesting at first, but now I realize it’s just pointless.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:29 pmCorrection to post # 120
It was the “Sueddeutsche Zeitung” that mentioned impeachment may be under way.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:32 pmLibStl:
Link, as requested: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2007/ 03/ 17/ AR2007031701373.html
I have now addressed every point you made. If you still feel answering my pending question is “pointless” that’s fine by me.
Anyone else?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:36 pmOther than Bob?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:37 pmPelosi had to promise BILLIONS in pork just to make THIS bill plausible — I can’t do better than that. Don’t worry though. You are under no obligation to answer my questions ; )
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Yeah money to Katrina victims and agriculture is pork. But 8 billion missing from Halliburton is what?
March 29th, 2007 at 1:47 pmGerman newspaper “Der Spiegel†claims Chuck Hagel (!!!!!!!) had mentioned impeachment as a counter to the veto threat.
As a rule they are pretty reliable, anybody heard of that??
Comment by doro — March 29, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
Wow Germans bringing democracy to the United States. Can’t count on our own press to tell the truth. Sad.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:51 pmIts only down hill for Bush from here on out. He can veto the money for the soldiers… but it will be his hand doing it.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:09 pm9/11 ring a bell?
Comment by Cynicon Implant
20 guys with nail clippers? Yeah. I believe that.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:12 pmWell, Jake may be a talking points troll, but he reveals that this administration really hasn’t a clue what it’s doing and is relying on the kind of PR that passes for disclosure at a shareholders AGM. It is pathetic to suggest that our intelligence on the Iraqi insurgency is coming from the Washington Post. And it is simply not true that alQaeda is the #1 threat: that idea is more White House spin. There are numerous factions fighting in Iraq and, by not providing for an occupation, Rumsfeld insured it would devolve into a civil war. The truth is that alQaeda is fairly weak in Iraq: the principle fighters are nationalists, former Baath party members, sectarian members (either Sunni or Shia), some alQaeda imports (although the Christian Science Monitor reports that they’re playing a decreasing role), and small factions of freedom fighters who simply want the American occupation army, which is guilty of rape, murder, and torture, to be driven from the country. And frankly, it is largely Bush’s fault that the insurgency is so successful; huge Iraqi munitions depots were left unguarded during the invasion and allowed to fall into the hands of local militia.
The problem with talking point trolls like Jake is that they politicize the system in the same manner that Gonzales politicized the Justice Dept. We know what the Pentagon thought about invading Iraq: It was a bad idea. They went in with inadequate numbers and inadequate armor and no occupation plan. Trolls like Jake can’t plead ignorance: this was all common knowledge if you listened to the folks in uniform. It was the civilian chickenhawks who were all full of optimistic blarney about being “home by Christmas”. There were no WMD and Saddam didn’t even have a nuclear program set up. None. And Saddam would have been eager to rejoin America’s side in the war on terror. But no, Bush decided to embrace the crazy colonel in Libya instead.
Clausewitz said War is politics by other means. Trolls like Jake think Politics is war by other means. Still, Lies are lies. And Bush has never listened to the generals in the field. This White House has treated the troops like cannon fodder and at some point a decent general is going to stand up, point at the Commander-in-Chief, and call him a Goddam traitor. And that’s what he is.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:16 pmTROLLS!
March 29th, 2007 at 2:49 pmI’ll be on the Sampson threads then if anyone (NOT on the “Ignore List”) needs me.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:58 pmPORK WINS, troops lose.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:23 pmpatty - you hapless dope - in case no one else told you - you still don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:07 pmLIE-berman THE TRAITOROUS CREEP—-WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED AT ANYTHING DIS-honourable Joe DOES? Joe SHOULD RUN AGAIN, THIS TIME WITH FLIP-FLOP McPAIN—–GUARANTEED THEY’D GET THE LEAST VOTES OF ANY OF THE CANDIDATES, INCLUDING THAT DESPICABLE CREEP Newt Gingrich!!!!! PEOPLE OF AMERICAN DON’T LIKE UNPRINCIPLED LYING QUISLINGS LIKE Joe and McPAIN, AND THEIR UTTER LACK OF SUPPORT OR POPULARITY SHOWS IT!!!!! Hagel and Smith REALLY WANT TO GET RE-ELECTED IN 2008!!!!!
March 29th, 2007 at 5:22 pmI heard about this sight from a friend, and decided to check it out. Wow, you people are whacked out. After reading posts for 20 minutes, the vileness of comments is all that comes out of ANY discussion. I’m not a blogger, but I guess that’s what it’s all about, huh? Hate on everyone, whine about how terrible the country is, and then go and do whatever you like to refuel your hate. (oh yeah, you can do that because it’s a great free society we live in)
Good luck to you all in all your endevours, whatever party or agenda you follow. Is that so hard to say? Some of you folks need therapy…..
Oh yeah, the bill is a sham, it will serve no purpose but to bog down the money in partisan red tape and in-fighting. Nobody wins on this one kiddies. The administration is what it is, and this isn’t going to be “the final straw”. If anything, it just makes Pelosi look like a clown, for bringing in a bill that has no chance to be passed. Just my opinion……
March 29th, 2007 at 6:19 pmAccording to his own words, Bush has failed:
“The facts are stark and the facts are real. . . Our men and women in uniform love their country more than their comfort. They have never failed us, and we must not fail them. But the best intentions and the highest morale are undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment, and rapidly declining readiness.” –George W. Bush VFW Speech August 21, 2000
March 29th, 2007 at 6:30 pm.
Thanks for the comments, KT. I understand you frustration with some of these people, but I hope you will stay too.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:35 pmKT - meet patrick
patrick, KT
matches made in heaven really do come true!!!!
March 29th, 2007 at 8:09 pmRepublican values on display:
Relief money for Katrina and tornado victims? - pork!
A Alaskan bridge to nowhere? Taking care of constituents!
March 29th, 2007 at 8:25 pmPoor KT. He stomps his feet, balls his little hands in a fist, and, tears in his eyes, shakes his fist to the heavens. What on earth is wrong with these vile liberals???!!! Hey KT, if you don’t like it, f*ck off and go somewhere else, a-hole!
March 29th, 2007 at 8:28 pm[…] It’s on. […]
March 29th, 2007 at 10:09 pmPoor KT…HE HAD TO READ MY BLOG ON HIS INTRODUCTION TO TP——HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH!!!!! THE BLOGOSPHERE IS NO PLACE FOR LILY-LIVERED PANTYWAISTS, ME LAD!!!! AVAST, YE SWAB!!!!! BELAY YA HOGWASH LEST I FLAY THE FLESH OFF YA BACK WITH ME CAT-O-NINE TAILS AND KEELHAUL YA, YA WHEY-FACED PICAROON!!!!! ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!
March 30th, 2007 at 12:14 am