How to continue a war with one signature.
President Bush’s veto:
You can see his full letter HERE.
UPDATE: Speaker Pelosi on the House floor today:
The President said that we are substituting, Congress is substituting our judgment for the judgment of commanders in the field, 6,000 miles away. Wrong again, Mr. President. We are substituting our judgment for your judgment, 16 blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House. We are substituting the judgment of this Congress for your failed judgment. The American people have lost faith in the President’s conduct of the war. They have said they want accountability and a new direction — this bill gives them both.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
79 Responses to “How to continue a war with one signature.”
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Site
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Dobbs
Drudge
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Gore
Guantanamo
Hagee
Health Care
Immigration
Impeachment
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Terrorism
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
looks like :
love and kisses,
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:33 pmAdolph W. Hitler-Bush
Any graphologists in the house?
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:34 pmI’d love to see what handwriting analysis would reveal about this simp.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:36 pmIt looks like about three swipes with a pen will smite many.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:39 pmAnybody notice the big giant 13 in Bush’s sig?
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:39 pmWhat no signing statement?
Now that’s progress…
King George and his bunch of Incompentent Fools leads the way again.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:40 pmI love how he leaves all the letters out of his signature when he signs his name. What a piece of sh*t. The two bills he ever vetos are the two that could do some good for this country, and indeed humanity. He not only screwed all the troops in Iraq, he screwed the victims of Katrina yet again. His return letter is laughable. Where do we go from here?
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:40 pm13 is the Boy Emperor’s I.Q.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:41 pmWell, the usual talking points can be found in the refutation.
And he calls the legislation “unconstitutional” because “I can do what I want” (paraphrased). Not bad.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:41 pmSpudge_Boy,
Very astute. The antichrist!
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:44 pmPelosi: We are substituting the judgment of this Congress for your failed judgment. - - And then the House didn’t override the veto.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:45 pmahh, the signature that will put it in prison for the remainder of it’s depraved life.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:45 pmWrong again, Mr. President. We are substituting our judgment for your judgment, 16 blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House. We are substituting the judgment of this Congress for your failed judgment.
Please tell me where in the Constitution it states that we have 535 C-inCs.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:48 pmA quote from Bush’s speech yesterday:
“Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure, and that would be irresponsible.”
Bush apparently is saying that he would prefer that no date be set for his failure. Or in other words, it would be failure without end. Sounds about right for a man who has known nothing but failure.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:54 pmI can tell Nancy Pelosi just loves to hate the creep in the Whitehouse.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:57 pmI would love to provide her with more encouragment. Go, Speaker! Tell “We The People” the truth that they have been depraved of for so long. We are listening to your every word. Don’t back down one inch. The truth may be hard to swallow for some but it is refreshing as hell to a whole lot more.
I don’t get it–how does this signature mean that the war is continuing? The President just decided to reject the supplemental funding. Where’s he going to get the money he needs now? Bush has put himself in a position of hopeless weakness. Pelosi didn’t even need to override the veto, and neither does she need to go knocking at the President’s door. He’ll have to come begging if he wants to keep the party going. It’s game over, if the Democrats really want it.
Hell, if they were really in a snarky mood, they could impeach Bush for neglecting to fund the troops in a time of war. Going AWOL, if you will.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:00 pmAre you sure that quote is from yesterday. Because to me, it sounds like the same thing we have been hearing for years.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:10 pmPlease tell me where in the Constitution it states that we have 535 C-inCs.
We have 300 MILLION Commander-in-chiefs, who are the BOSS of this TRAITOR.
70% say he is a coxucker PUNK TRAITOR.
See YOU in hell, my Nazi azz-lickers,
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:12 pmMr. Bush
MURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COXUCKER PUNK TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM–BushCrimeCo, Inc.)
I bet that she could kick Bush’s Ass in a fist fight. What do you think?
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:17 pmYes, Madame Speaker, that’s the exact rhetorical tack to employ: the people versus the President. Hammer away!
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:24 pmThe Troops aren’t going to be without anything they need,they haven’t had what they needed, since Day One!
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:29 pmWe have 300 MILLION Commander-in-chiefs, who are the BOSS of this TRAITOR.
Comment by Mr. Bush Goes To Hell — May 2, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
You may try reading the Constitution next time (Article II Section 2)….
And take something for the turrets, would ya’.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:32 pmWrong again, Mr. President. We are substituting our judgment for your judgment, 16 blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House. We are substituting the judgment of this Congress for your failed judgment.
Exactly! This should have been said long ago. Congress can make war, and un-make war. Bush hasn’t made AYP standards yet. I’d say NCLB applies in the case of this manchild.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:36 pm>Please tell me where in the Constitution
>it states that we have 535 C-inCs.
Currently we dont even have one. I we did, why are they desparately looking for a “War PAtsy”…erm I mean “war czar”… congress has the power of the purse genius… read about in whats left of the constitution sometime…put can play his Command N Conquer seperohero role all he wants. can congress can cut off funding for it.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:51 pmCongress didn’t cut off the war funds. Bush did. He’s the decider.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:58 pmNO MORE SPENDING BILLS FOR IRAQ.
No money, no war. Call your congressperson and tell him/her that you oppose ANY additional funding bill going to Iraq. Tell him to tell the president to start bringing our troops home TODAY. Then, Congress will fund the withdrawal.
Period.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:09 pmYou may try reading the Constitution next time (Article II Section 2)…. And take something for the turrets, would ya’.
Comment by $ — May 2, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
You should read Article I, where it says Congress decides when Article II can declare and execute war - you know, that silly little thing called the CONGRESS of the REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY?
You Fascist c*nts are all alike.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:21 pmHow’s this for a compromise?
90 day funding, defined milestones, introduce legislation requiring all supplemental war funding to be paid for by immediate tax increases only.
120 days introduce legislation requiring supplemental funding to be contingent upon reinstitution of a draft.
Point being?
1: If a conflict is not important enough to make economic sacrifices for, it is not important enough for US forces to be engaged in (past x-number of years/months –something less than 4 years and counting), why fund it with deficit?
2: If a conflict isn’t important enough to require a draft after the volunteer forces approach exhaustion, why are we continuing it?
It would then be the “decider’s” choice to trigger these actions, not the grown ups who will get stuck with the choice 2 years from now, and not our grandchildren who will be paying for this excursion into nation building 50 years from now…
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:38 pmComment by $ — May 2, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
Congress’ power to define the C-in-C’s power:
Article. I.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:38 pmSection. 8.
…
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
…
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
…
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Is that really his signature? I thought maybe he was using a monkey proxy.
(if you squint really hard, it looks like of like Satan’s head on the left, there)
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:41 pmI’m so fed up with Chimpy Boy, I swear. Congress has the power of purse, but the “people” fill that purse up. Maybe we should just stop paying all federal taxes, that should get our point across.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:14 pmWhy not just sign it and override the timeline with one of his delicious signing statements? laws are fo suckers.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:15 pmThe veto letter was very well written so we all know it wasn’t lil’ Gerorgie that wrote it. In fact, I’ll contend that G.W. never actually signed it, someone else had to, cause he’d have signed it in Red Crayola.
I have a feeling Bush’s terrorist dictatorship will come to a close soon, hopefully before ‘08, and should be handled in the same manner as the Nazi war crime proceedings (or more recently, Saddam Hueissein’s hanging)
Screw you der führer!!!
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:46 pmAnyone do handwriting analyses out there?
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:24 pmThat’s some signature.
Does he use his crayons??
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:44 pmWe have a crazy man in the White House…and that makes his apologists look like what? That’s correct…morons.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:47 pmWell said, Speaker Pelosi.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:54 pmThat’s all true, pete. Congress could completely de-fund the war in Iraq if they had the balls. However, Congress did not do that. Which of those clauses do you think says Congress gets to determine where within the battefield the Commander-in-Chief gets to move troops? As for the President’s signature above, did you know that pen belonged to Robert Derga, whose son, Dustin, was KIA in Iraq’s Anbar province?
http://www.npr.org/ templates/ story/ story.php?storyId=9965764
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:26 pmAlso, that is not Bush “full letter” — see http://www.whitehouse.gov/ news/ releases/ 2007/ 05/ 20070502-1.html
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:42 pmHere’s the missing parts:
“This legislation is objectionable because it would set an arbitrary date for beginning the withdrawal of American troops without regard to conditions on the ground; it would micromanage the commanders in the field by restricting their ability to direct the fight in Iraq; and it contains billions of dollars of spending and other provisions completely unrelated to the war.
Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq is not a plan to bring peace to the region or to make our people safer here at home. The mandated withdrawal in this bill could embolden our enemies — and confirm their belief that America will not stand behind its commitments. It could lead to a safe haven in Iraq for terrorism that could be used to attack America and freedom-loving people around the world, and is likely to unleash chaos in Iraq that could spread across the region. Ultimately, a precipitous withdrawal could increase the probability that American troops would have to one day return to Iraq — to confront an even more dangerous enemy.
The micromanagement in this legislation is unacceptable because it would create a series of requirements that do not provide the flexibility needed to conduct the war. It would constrict how and where our Armed Forces could engage the enemy and defend the national interest, and would provide confusing guidance on which of our enemies the military could engage. The result would be a marked advantage for our enemies and greater
danger for our troops, as well as an unprecedented interference with the judgments of those who are charged with commanding the military.
Beyond its direction of the operation of the war, the legislation is also unacceptable for including billions of dollars in spending and other provisions that are unrelated to the war, are not an emergency, or are not justified. The Congress should not use an emergency war supplemental to add billions in spending to avoid its own rules for budget discipline and the normal budget process. War supplemental funding bills should remain focused on the war and the needs of our men and women in uniform who are risking their lives to defend our freedoms and preserve our Nation’s security.
Finally, this legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to direct the conduct of the operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the Presidency by the Constitution, including as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. For these reasons, I must veto this bill.”
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:52 pmHas any signiture expert looked at Bush’s scribble for this document?
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:01 pmIt is the worst scribble for a name. He just does a B and a very weak h for his last name. His first name is done with petulent anger and not readable. His signiture denotes someone who is crazy.
For the record, Bill Clinton’s signed “B” looks almost the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Image:Bill_Clinton_signature2.png
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:34 pmPelosi and the Dems will now demonstrate their complicity with the treasonous repubs. by not ending the war. They should all be tried for treason and hung.
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:10 amBush has no trouble signing a death warrant for our troops.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:00 amTime for impeachment.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:34 amIf the war is being continued with just one signature then why wasn’t the veto over ruled.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:37 amhttp://free-game-downloads.mosw.com/
Yeah time for impeachment because Bush is as smart as a door!
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:42 amC’mon guys, Its 2007!!!!! Stop war and other bs, it’s easy to sign any kind of ducument if you know that in couple of hours you’ll come back home and lay on your wife, but it’s hard to be the part of the war, because you dont know will to wake up tomorrow or you’ll be shot right now from the backwards! Take some fun: Funny Pictures
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:46 amThe President is the Commander in Chief. The Congress provides the funds. The President decides how our military proceeds. The Congress decides how much money is available for the military. If Congress wants the war to end then they must take away the money. They cannot end the war by non-binding resolutions and trying to pass bills that tell the President when the troops must come home. They need to stop funding the troops and the President would be forced to bring them home.
They know what they are doing. They do not want the troops home. They know what chaos that would cause in the Middle East. They just do not want to look like they are not trying.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:48 amI was thinking of making this movie where a pathetic imbecile who used to live in a rich man’s house as a gardener accidentally becomes president of the United States. Do you think this is too far fetched?
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:48 amCan’t we all just get along?
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:49 amThe “G W” is clearly a 666…then again, he’s a bit too dumb to be Satan…then again, Satan is supposed to be very sly and he pretends to be dumb…then again, W is REALLY dumb…he makes Homer Simpson seem like an intellectual…
Viva la Revolucion!!
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:50 amStupid post - obviously by someone who doesn’t understand that if you tell an enemy that you are going to quit and when you are going to quit fighting them, then they (the enemy) will certainly win the war. Obviously not the best way to boost moral for the troops. As a person with friends in Iraq (and one of them was hurt last week), I am completely appalled by the democrat politicians who are using our soldiers in Iraq as a way to further their own careers.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:51 amI’ll comment againg guys, but as long as i’m not an native english speaker, I spend some time in ersearching slang, so on an site, I’ve seen tagged word “smart”, i know what does it mean, but the urban explanation of this word checked me:
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:53 amhttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=smart
1. smart - Knowledgeable, witty, or intelligent. Not a popular thing to be in America these days.
2. smart - The opposite of George W. Bush.
Override the veto, jackasses!
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:56 amThank you President Bush for not cowering to the anti-war whimps. As bad as it is in Iraq, it would be much worse to leave and let Iran take over and have no allies in the Middle East.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:22 pmAt least he’s abiding by the constitution in this case.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:25 pmOf course, trying to restructure this country is laughable. The idea, concept or even mentioning an “uprising” is enough for some jackass out there to jump up and scream “terrorism”. It’s not terrorism, it’s CHANGE. Just the way the country changed centuries ago, it can change again. Nothing is constant.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:25 pmBush’s reasoning is so stupid. Why SHOULDN’T we substitute our judgement for generals. The generals should act based on what the people of their country want, and in the best interests in the company. Since when did America go to war because of what a general decided to do?
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:32 pmhow to cast a meaningless (but fun) vote in the presidential race for 2008
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:37 pmdoes any one understand what will happen if we pull out. I dont think many people do terroist will invade the country seeing how there is now military. I just love it how the democratics are whipped bitches and do what ever the people think is right. WEll the media lies to the people so the people are iggnorant
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:38 pmhey David Johnson:
Unless you are in Iraq or have been in Iraq, you are the wimp. Another chickenhawk.
How’s this for reasoning:
Whereas we gave the Iraqi government and people 4+ years of time, money, and US soldiers lives…
Whereas Iraq is still a mess and quagmire, and we have done our best, despite an incompetent president and administration…
Whereas the American people don’t want to spend one more dime or waste one more American life on a war that is going nowhere good…
We are giving funding with a timeline, as the AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT!
how’s that for a logical explanation to you?
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:51 pmFirst of all the surge was not the President’s Idea, it was the newly appointed General who was voted on by congress and passed by a large margin. I think that Iraq may very well be a lost cause, but if we are going to send this General over there I think we at least owe him a chance to implement his policy. As far as the comment about Generals acting on what the people here want that is not a Generals job their job is to do what they think it will take to achieve victory.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:52 pmI also think the idea that we should just pull out, i.e. Jack Murtha is stupid, and dangerous. One of the reasons we are in the mess we are in Iraq is because we failed to achieve victory in Vietnam and Korea, making the world think that we are nothing but a paper tiger. They think if they keep fighting us long enough we will give up and leave. If we let that be a valid strategy it will server to make any future war that we get involved in that much harder to win because we will have shown our enemies a weakness.
Rather or not we should have went to was in Iraq is a matter for historians to debate, but as for our congress, and president their job is to determine what we do now, today. May 3 2006, not what we should have done 4 years ago.
Today we are involved in a war against the greatest evil of our time. Most of our congress and for the most part out president refuse to recognize who our enemy is. The president and some members of congress at least realize our enemies are evil. But the idea of a war on terrorism is ridiculous. Terrorism is a tactic not an enemy that is as if during World War II we had declared war on blitzkrieg and not Nazism. Our enemy is fundamentalist Islam. It is an ideology that knows no bounds of state and country.
If you wish to educate yourself on fundamental Islam visit http://www.prophetofdoom.net there you will find one of the most comprehensive reviews of Islam ever written, it is totally free.
I have only one question to the people who think that we need to pull out of Iraq. What will happen next? For an idea go read about the massacres that occurred after we left Vietnam.
jake:
You are an idiot. You probably only pay attention to Faus News, which DOES lie to the people.
Whipped bitches? Just the opposite
How will terrorists invade our country, if the Bush administration really has done it’s job? The Bush administration keeps on saying that they have made our borders safer. Prove it!
And what a surprise that the Democrats are willing to do what the PEOPLE of the United States think is right. That is their job and why they were voted into office.
MORON!
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:55 pmJake — Your an idiot.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:57 pmI hate the argument Bush has used that we shouldn’t tell the enemy when we’re pulling out. Well, the don’t tell them! It’s very easy to put a classified stamp on the date/plan.. just have a damn plan.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:58 pmEvery time someone takes this “bill” seriously ALL they need to do is replay that press conference where Pelosi and Reid “explained” the Dem timetable. That was priceless. I mean it was so bad, I couldn’t watch it all. I can’t stand these people but even seeing them embarrass themselves so badly was more than I could take.
After Pelosi detailed the Dems’ suggested benchmarks and requirements for Bush, reporters asked her questions to try and get the point. “I’m confused” one reporter told the speaker. “Okay, well, let’s try again,” she responded. “If the president cannot demonstrate that progress has been made in reaching the benchmarks which he, President Bush, has established by July 1 of 2007, we begin — the 180-day period of redeployment begins, to be finished in 180 days.” But, what happens between July 1 and Oct. 1? a reporter asked. “If the president shows that progress is being made on July 1, say he can certify that, then we …” “All he has to do is say progress is being made?” the confused reporter interrupted. “Well, he has to certify and demonstrate that it has been. If he cannot — if he does that, that takes us to October 1, where we want to see the completion of those benchmarks. If that is not achieved, the 180 days begins.” Then people just started giggling throughout the room. So Pelosi grew very exasperated, and it got worse…
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:02 pmHey Todd can you tell me any war in history where we had a time table for withdrawl withdrawl is not a plan it is what you do when a plan fails.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:03 pmJake, how nice it must be to have figure your point of view out all by yourself? SMART terrorists are nowhere near Iraq. Those are the ones we need to worry about. The ones 6000 miles from Iraq. (if that’s too vague…the ones HERE ALREADY in the USA). I feel sorry for Iraq on many levels, but I don’t give a damn at this point if every terrorist on Earth decided to move there. At least we’d know where to drop the bombs next time. The only reason any are in Iraq right now is so they can pot-shot at OUR military and run like PUSSIES. And yes…THAT is effective against the USA on many levels! Removing our Troops from Iraq now would remove that opportunity from whatever terrorists are actually there. And every other looney who isn’t a terrorist but just likes to kill people in Iraq.
It’s not about Democrats vs. Republicans REALLY. It’s about being smarter than the WAR MACHINE we’ve unleashed.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:03 pmCongress has the power of the purse. Why do they not use it to “enforce the will of the people”and immediately cease funding altogether? Simple, because they dont’ have the support in congress or in the american public and it would politcal suicide for the appeasers. Go check the roll call votes, this thing barely passed in congress to begin with.
This a nothing more than politcal posturing and you all seem to buy into it. Dems posturing for a power grab in ‘08, “vote for us, we’re a bunch of pussies”, makes me laugh. They Dont care about the troops, don’t care about killing, terrorists, Dont care what would happen to the people of Iraq if we runaway…they just care about ‘08.
So when america was spun up about being attacked, Dems wanted to look ‘tough’ so they voted for this war. Now they want to look tough on the president so they vote for appeasing terrorism but don’t want Harry Reid opening his mouth and saying the truth of what the Democratic party believes, that we should surrender in Iraq return home and go back to the good ol’ days of clinton and answer terrorist attacks by issueing FBI arrest warrants, and back the ol’ go along with the impotent U.N issueing “resolutions to nowhere” to humor dictators that ignore ceasefire agreements after we’ve kicked their ass. You Go Nancy girl! and the rest of the girly Dems in congress.
Oh, and for all you little kids worrying about what a signature looks like … get a life, get off the left wing blog and try and actually learn something by applying some critical thinking while reading actual news articles from across the spectrum and not just following George Soros’ Marching orders from his thought police at Move on. moron
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:07 pmWe were all fooled. The “best intelligence available at the time” that the Republicans keep referring to was a LIE perpetrated on the American people by this administration. Democrats voted for war based on these lies. We all supported the war based on these lies. Richard Clark and George Tenet openly admit that the President was determined to go to war in Iraq with or without evidence. Impeachment for these crimes against humanity is absolutely mandatory. If a President cannot tell a lie about a personal relationship without being impeached, then certainly a lie that has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars is an impeachable offense.
“We will stay until the job is finished.” Please, can anyone define victory in Iraq for me? We all might have been fooled by the “Mission Accomplished” banner from four years ago, but apparently we haven’t “won” yet. Saddam is dead. There were no WMDs. There was no link between Iraq and Osama. Why on earth are we staying to referee a civil war?
“We must fight them there, so we don’t have to fight them here.” That is exactly what the Iranians tell their troops heading for Iraq about us. (ironic?) Do Republicans really have so little faith in our military as to believe we’d be invaded by terrorists? What are they going to do, swim here? If you do believe this, shouldn’t we be preparing our borders and harbors better, instead of spending all our time and money watching over Iraqs civil war?
Billions for Iraqs (shoddy,profiteered) reconstruction while New Orleans still lies in ruins. What are we doing here people? This is wrong. Speak up and tell anyone who will listen. I know I will.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:33 pmAfter reading these comments i am now certain that anti-bush, seething, democrats are really, really, really crazy.
Take a nap losers…
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:38 pmMr Bush
THANK YOU!! Although our present Congress lacks necessary male appendages to pursue and kill terrorists, mis-regulates and under-develops domestic resources needed to achieve energy independence, and knowingly disables our own industry and commerce through confiscatory taxation, your own example and actions inspire many patroits and we will prevail over the child-bombers and clorine-gas tactics of our enemy.
Please recall that fanatical WW-II populations in both Japan and Germany were determined to continue their war until the last breath - Soviet troops, American carpet bombing and Nuclear weapons disuaded this mind-set, the appearance of unlimited numbers of broken-limbed Nazis, plus their widows and orphans, finally and clearly spoke PEACE to the Axis leaders.
WW-II in Europe ended one morning when the home-town streets of German villages were covered in abandoned Nazi Uniforms, their former owners thereby denying the Nazi Party. This, the GI veterans reported to me, happened three weeks before the diplomats told the world that the Nazis surrendered.
WW-II in Asia ended with a pair of BRIGHT FLASHES, the second of which the Japanese War Council had assured the emperor that very morning could not happen because the Americans had detonated the ONLY such weapon we owned. (we had lots more ready)
If Carpet Bombing of unruly Iraqi villages is necessary, or Bright Flashes above sites of former Syrian or Iranian cities are the only means to a secure peace in Lebanon and Gaza, or (most especially) in the USA, we should continue with powerful wartime efforts until the surviving fanatics learn to pronounce, in English, “Peace”. Otherwise, they fail to understand either our determination or the enormity of their own acts.
William Dee
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:39 pmI mean listen to the replies. We’re all “Crazy” for trying to stop a WAR. Or we should start more wars to end this one. Are you guys listening to yourselves?
Look down the road a ways. See the consequences of our actions. If we want our country to survive the test of time we need to think and act like adults, not lash out like children.
The U.S. citizenry doesn’t want us in Iraq. Iraqis don’t want us in Iraq. We all agree that it’s time to go home. The only people still hungry for war just so happen to be in charge. I say we change that fact. Impeach both the President and the Vice President for twisting the facts to match their own political motivations and sending us into an unnecessary and costly war.
George W. Bush will go down in history as the President who cried “War”.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:05 pmGood luck, America. May you live long and prosper, under your new money-hungry communist regime.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:33 pmDid anyone even read the veto letter? There was a whole bunch of stuff in that bill besides a withdrawl date. I think one reason this bill actually got through Congress was the president’s intent to veto. It makes him look bad, and them look good. What tangled webs are weaved.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:53 pmReader
He starts off with vetoing it on the grounds of it setting a date.
Then charges that it is all about the pork.
And then huffily proclaims that he is commander in chief.
The first is, well, his real objection. The second claim has already been discussed here (The so-called pork is largely on veterans healthcare, and taking care of the wounded, as well as a bit on funding NO’s recovery from hurricane Katrina.)
And the third is just his usual hessy fit.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:47 pmThe pen is mightier than the sword…
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:29 pmRemember back in school… when you would cleverly put a field trip approval sheet just above the signature line for having flunked out in math? As dumb as Bush is I can’t imagine it would be any more complicated than that to end this freakin’ war. ~mjm
May 4th, 2007 at 3:11 am