Bush: 'I am about to veto a bill'

Bush said. “I believe that there's a lot of Democrats that understand that we need to get the money to the troops as soon as possible…

So sign the bill and give the troops the money they need. The bill requires to start bringing the troops home next year. How many years do you think the American people want this to go on? Over 60% want to get out now, imagine a year from now, they'll want to tar and feather the republicans by then.

The Cheerleader in Chief is going to veto a funding bill for our troops on "Mission Accomplished Day" ?

You mean the ubiquitous W signing statements won't cut it anymore?!!

Congress should send the same damn bill right back to him. pResident Pissypants needs to realize that Congress controls the purse. Hopefully, the Dems will show some spine and tell him where to go.

Just another failure for Bush to add to his impressive resume. Cheerleader, DUI, multiple business failures, breaking the USA.

Don't think the Dems are not guilty of blood for oil either. See this post from: http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentPrint.aspx?DocumentID=63687
"Kucinich Statement on the Iraq Supplemental Conference Report HR 1591

Washington, Apr 25 -

WASHINGTON, DC — Following passage of the supplemental conference report this evening, Congressman Dennis Kucinich released the following statement:

This “Supplemental” is a plan to extort Iraq’s oil wealth under the guise of a plan to end the war. Funds for the security of the Iraqi government are contingent upon Iraq giving up control of oil. This legislation is a repugnant, high pressure tactic to force Iraq to pass a “hydrocarbon act” which will effectively privatize the oil wealth of Iraq. The key deception is that the hydrocarbon act, which sounds like an environmental law, lets Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds “share” whatever is left after US oil companies take unconscionable profits. This bill is not a plan for peace. It is blood for oil. It is a guarantee of more war and the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq."

http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

The president said he will veto the bill because it, "imposes the judgment of people here in Washington on our military commanders and diplomats.’'

Excuse me, did Bush just say that he has "diplomats?"

Please tell me more about these diplomats. Who are they and what are they doing to end the war?

Dear Readers-

I do not get it. If Bush vetoes the military spending bill then he still has no money to cover the war cost. So, Congress still has to give him a "clean" bill he will sign. What if the next bill, for whatever reason, is still not satisfactory and he must veto it again? Can he run out of money by default or can he find enough money, even without a new,acceptable bill? What are his deadline dates before he cannot fund the war anymore? Would there be enough money to bring the troops home?

Two points,

Where in our lives do we get unlimited funds for failed projects? Think about it would we continue to give a contractor funds if this was a home or work project. Can you image what our managers would say if we continued to fail to deliver on projects? Please don’t give me the “we’re fighting terrorist” because the reality is terrorist hits are up 25%. see attached link.

Also, something to think about, the Iraq Parliament planning their two month vacations. Our men and women are over there fighting and dieing we’re spending another 100 billion and the government goes on vacation. Think they would go if there was a timetable?

I think Congress should just pass the exact same bill again and again no matter how many times Georgie vetos it.

Bill r is an ill informed moron!

the problem still is .
this is bush's war and he wants to keep it going as long as he can .he just don't have any smarts nor does he seem to care .

I for one will not vote for a single candidate that does not do everything in their power to end this war and get our troops home. The president has not and will not admit that he has led the Americans down a path of failure based on lies and false hoods - instead of owning the issue that he created he will leave it for the next president to resolve. This president is not an honorable man.

What get to me is this is called a Defense Spending Bill but it has tens of millions of $ for non defense areas. It should be vetoed but not for the timetables but for all the pork that is in it.

Agree or disagree with The President's policy, but why waste all this time on a useless, un-passable bill? Fund the troops (or not) and then get back to petty bickering, name calling, and other Democrat stratgies.

The Democrats' position is clear - they are following the French Doctrine and surrendering prematurely. Let's give them all berets, white flags, and pretty pink tutus and let them get back to their responsibilities of running our country! THESE 2ND GRADERS ARE RUNNING OUR COUNTRY, PEOPLE!!! What in the hell are we going to do about it?

Let him veto the bill and then send him the same one - over and over - until he ends the war himself with a lack of funding.

The Democrats, Al Qaida and Iran all agree - get out of Iraq now.

Interesting that Nancy Pelosi traveled to the middle east to seek counsel with America's enemies, but she seems to have no time for conversation with the government of Iraq or the US military.

It seems the Dems have tied their political future to US defeat and an Al Qaida takeover of Iraq.

If Democracy were to win in Iraq, the "Democratic Party" would be the big losers.

Congress should hold firm to bringing the troops home immediately. We have a very ill president who should either be committed to an institution or brought to trial for his behavior in creating this war. Too many have already died, our kids, husbands, wives in the Bush War.

This is incredible. We’re expected to continue to fund this, put our men and women in harms way and PM Maliki’s office is firing Iraq military commanders that come down on Sadrs’s militia.

See quote from a US commander “"Their only crimes or offenses were they were successful" against the Mahdi Army, a powerful Shiite militia, said Brig. Gen. Dana J.H. Pittard, commanding general of the Iraq Assistance Group, which works with Iraqi security forces. "I'm tired of seeing good Iraqi officers having to look over their shoulders when they're trying to do the right thing."

Link to article.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18386897/

Why doesn't Bush listen to the American people? Yes, we want to fund the troops, but the majority of us want the U.S. to pull out. What part of that doesn't he understand??

If Bush does not listen to the Congress, who represents we the people, it is time to get him out of the White House!!!!

How many more Americans must suffer due to lost of lives!!
- It is time for inpeachement!! for both Bush and Cheney!! -
GIR-R-DONE!!

Imagine if you ran a company the way the congress is running the country. The leader clearly stated that he would veto - and he will. Meanwhile the rest of us go to work and come home hearing the same garbage on the news and Internet. At this time I do not care who knew or didn't know about WMDs. I care about a congress that is supposed to be smart enough to put aside their differences for the GOOD of the country, not the good of their political beliefs. If the republican's are sooo evil - then the democrats need to all stand together and offer a clear and concise plan for getting out of Iraq - without posted withdrawl. If not - then congress needs to accept FULL responsibility for any backlash we will recieve once Al Queda has taken over Iraq. PS. Remember the good ol days when everyone used to drive around with US flags on their cars?

So veto the bill already so the Democrats can pass another one with even tighter restrictions! That should be the plan here, every time Bush vetoes a bill, send him another one with less than the previous one. He'll get the message eventually.

Kenny

If the president lacks confidence that his plan is going to work and doesn't think he'll be able to hit his highly publicized benchmarks over the next year, then there is no point in approving the money he wants. On the other hand, if he approves the bill as is, he can always ask Congress to extend the timeline based on the progress that has been made. The next bill from Congress should cover just the cost to bring our troops home.

If the president wants the funds but not the milestones he once supported, all he has to do is accept the funding bill and issue a signing statement, as he did with his exceptions for torture and the other 100+ exceptions in signing statements.

If the president vetoes the funding, there will be only one person responsible for the funding delay--himself.

Bush simply refuses to appear wrong, as his greatest fear is in being compared to Bush Sr.'s policies. This is about Bush "saving face", rather than the good of Iraq.

Actual news excerpts:

"Baghdad - US President George W Bush has talked with Iraqi Vice President Tarek al-Hashimi on the latter's possible move to bring his party out of the Iraqi government, the news agency Aswat al-Iraq reported on Monday as violence - including a suicide attack that killed 25 people at a funeral in Diyala province. In the talk which occurred via telephone Sunday evening, al- Hashimi had said the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party which he leads felt 'sidelined' in the cabinet."

"Widespread corruption, an unwieldy bureaucracy and inadequate funding threaten the Iraqi government's ability to complete or maintain U.S.-funded reconstruction projects, according to an oversight report to be released today. The report from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction says some projects portrayed as successes by U.S. officials have started breaking down because of poor maintenance, shoddy construction or simple neglect. Those problems, as well as the continuing violence in Iraq, have prevented the United States from meeting its goals for the $34.8 billion appropriated for postwar reconstruction, the inspector general, Stuart Bowen, concludes in his quarterly report to Congress."

The whole bill is a political show. It's a perfect demonstration of how the system works. Politicians sing and dance, and everybody loses.

They need to get on with it and start funding troops with a realistic bill.

"Over 60% want to get out now, imagine a year from now, they'll want to tar and feather the republicans by then."

It's political suicide for any politician to back the prez right now. LOL @ Tar and Feathers. Not returning to Congress is fine with me.

I have seen several responses to this situation elsewhere which hold a viable answer: Congress should not draft another bill; if there is no funding, the troops must be withdrawn.

Headline you will not see in the liberal media: "Bush denies troops funding."

How 'bout the Democrats shouldn't even have passed the bill in the first place. They knew it was going to get vetoed. It's just political grandstanding and should be abhorred. Not to mention the fact that this bill barely passed the House. They've wasted weeks on this and will waste more coming up with a bill that will pass. Don't blame Bush on this one.

It is still somewhat surprising to me that the media and the American people still allow the likes of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to spread their rhetoric and liars without contention. W bandies about that "we need to get the troops their money" while the Federal Government's own watchdog group has published a report that unequiviocally shows that current spending will not exceed the current budget until at earliest the fall and that over half of the monies requested have nothing to do with either the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. What is most troubling is Bush's continued use of our soldiers as props. He wants us to steadfastly believe his concern that "the troops need this money for supplies, body armor..." while this is the same man who allowed the famously derisive comment to go unchecked from his former Secretary of Defense regarding the lack of supplies and body armor. Furthermore, no one is asking the question "why is the President always requesting emergency spending bills"? Shouldn't these requests just be a part of the "normal" budget...we've been at this for some time now you would think planning and budgeting would be old hat by now. Well, the quick answer is that the chosen method employed by W means that little to no scrutiny can be made regarding the requests and the title "Emergency Spending" will elicit nationwide support since "we" all believe "the money is going to the troops". If you believe that, stop one of those troop members next time you see them and ask. I bet you'll be surprised by what you hear. So what does this all mean. Lies continue to be used as facts, soldiers die fighting the wrong war and our security is no better off than it was on September 10, 2001.

Imposing a limit on how long the troops can stay is not 'MICROMANAGING" the war - it is ordering the war to stop, and giving a reasonable time to prepare for its ending. I believe most impartial assessments would agree that staying longer is not going to accomplish much, unless further erosion of the US standing in the world is an accomplishment .. (for Al-Qaida only).

I WANT THE SOLDERS TO COME HOME LIKE ALL AMERICANS BUT IT IS HOW THE SOLDERS COME HOME AND WHY THAT IS IMPORTANT? IT IS NOT THAT THE SACRIFICE OF OTHER FALLEN SOLDERS SHOULD BE DISHONORED BY THOSE WHO CARE NOT ABOUT THEM BUT ABOUT HOW THEY CAN THEN SPEND MONEY AT HOME , BUT SPEND WE WILL WHEN THE WAR COMES TO AMERICA AND NOT IN IRAQ. OUR SOLDIERS DESERVE AND UP AND DOWN VOTE FOR SUPPORT ANYTHING E LESS HEROIC, IS COUNTER PRODUCTIVE. BRING THE SOLDERS HOME WITH AND A CONTINUING WIN OVER RELIGIOUS ANTI-FREEDOM ZELOTS REMEMBER 9/11, REMEMBER THE FIRST ATTACK IN NEW YORK , REMEMBER ARE SOLDIERS ON THE USS COLE, REMEMBER BEIRUT ALL THESE LIVES THEY DIED LET US NOT FORGET THESE LIVES IN TIMES OF QUICK AND EASY ANSWER, THAT LOSSERS FOLLOW AND WINNERS LEAD.

To hear Tony Snow accuse the Congressional majority of "making a political statement" out of war funding makes my head explode!

How much longer, Mr. Bush? How many more of our servicemen and women have to die so you don't have to face your own incompetence?

Unfortunately, the titans must battle. The only people who suffer are the troops.

Bush must deal with some accountability embedded in the bill. Congress will not give him a blank check. Veto-ing this bill is irresponsible and simply makes the troops wait *longer* to get the funds they need. Eventually, time will run out and Bush will be scrambling for money. Everything else is just political "posturing". Bush has the under hand.

The Dems know they don’t have the votes to override a veto, and yet they have postured and preened in front of the cameras and microphones for well over a month. Any shred of respect I may have had for any Democrat in power has long since gone. Pass a clean funding bill and stop playing politics with our young men and women in uniform.

"More than four years into war, with a 30,000-troop escalation of U.S. forces in Iraq still underway, the White House is refusing to accept any limitation that Democratic congressional leaders hope to impose on U.S. military commanders."

It's a shame to see a news source buying into the White House rhetoric hook, line, and sinker (although not something new.)

The proponents of this bill are not imposing limitations (at least no more so than commanders normally have "imposed" on them) or "micromanaging" the commanders as Mr. Bush keeps ardently trying to claim. Military commanders do not decide when to go to war and they don't decide when the war is over. They decide how to wage the war.

When Mr. Bush decided to invade Iraq and deploy troops noone complained that he was micromanaging the commanders by not letting them invade Poland instead if they wanted to do that. It was a political decision to start the war and it will eventually be a political decision to end it.

Just some thoughts from another lefty loonie?

April 28, 2007, 0:45 a.m.

The Waning of the GOP

By William F. Buckley Jr.

The political problem of the Bush administration is grave, possibly beyond the point of rescue. The opinion polls are savagely decisive on the Iraq question. About 60 percent of Americans wish the war ended — wish at least a timetable for orderly withdrawal. What is going on in Congress is in the nature of accompaniment. The vote in Congress is simply another salient in the war against war in Iraq. Republican forces, with a couple of exceptions, held fast against the Democrats’ attempt to force Bush out of Iraq even if it required fiddling with the Constitution. President Bush will of course veto the bill, but its impact is critically important in the consolidation of public opinion. It can now accurately be said that the legislature, which writes the people’s laws, opposes the war.

Meanwhile, George Tenet, former head of the CIA, has just published a book which seems to demonstrate that there was one part ignorance, one part bullheadedness, in the high-level discussions before war became policy. Mr. Tenet at least appears to demonstrate that there was nothing in the nature of a genuine debate on the question. What he succeeded in doing was aborting a speech by Vice President Cheney which alleged a Saddam/al Qaeda relationship which had not in fact been established.

It isn’t that Tenet now doubts the lethality of the terrorists. What he disputed was an organizational connection which argued for war against Iraq as if Iraq were a vassal state of al Qaeda. A measure of George Tenet’s respect for the reach and malevolence of the enemy is his statement that he is puzzled that Al Qaeda has not, since 2001, sent out “suicide bombers to cause chaos in a half dozen American shopping malls on any given day.” By way of prophecy, he writes that there is one thing he feels in his gut, which is that “Al Qaeda is here and waiting.”

But beyond affirming executive supremacy in matters of war, what is George Bush going to do? It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq. The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month to month. In South Vietnam there was an organized enemy. There is clearly organization in the strikes by the terrorists against our forces and against the civil government in Iraq, but whereas in Vietnam we had Hanoi as the operative headquarters of the enemy, we have no equivalent of that in Iraq, and that is a matter of paralyzing importance. All those bombings, explosions, assassinations: we are driven to believe that they are, so to speak, spontaneous.

When the Romans were challenged by Christianity, Rome fell. The generation of Christians moved by their faith overwhelmed the regimented reserves of the Roman state. It was four years ago that Mr. Cheney first observed that there was a real fear that each fallen terrorist leads to the materialization of another terrorist. What can a “surge,” of the kind we are now relying upon, do to cope with endemic disease? The parallel even comes to mind of the eventual collapse of Prohibition, because there wasn’t any way the government could neutralize the appetite for alcohol, or the resourcefulness of the freeman in acquiring it.

General Petraeus is a wonderfully commanding figure. But if the enemy is in the nature of a disease, he cannot win against it. Students of politics ask then the derivative question: How can the Republican party, headed by a president determined on a war he can’t see an end to, attract the support of a majority of the voters? General Petraeus, in his Pentagon briefing on April 26, reported persuasively that there has been progress, but cautioned, “I want to be very clear that there is vastly more work to be done across the board and in many areas, and again I note that we are really just getting started with the new effort.”

The general makes it a point to steer away from the political implications of the struggle, but this cannot be done in the wider arena. There are grounds for wondering whether the Republican party will survive this dilemma.

Why does he NOT get it.
This is the voice of the AMERICAN people.
GET OUT NOW!!
" I'm about to veto a bill."
-congrats cowboy

An important point that's often overlooked is that the bill had "goals" and "guidelines" for troop withdrawals, but they were non-binding. The president would have been fully within his rights to sign the bill and flout the "deadlines." His refusal to sign the passed bill is simply posturing. The article states that the bill "demands" troop withdrawals by certain dates, but is inaccurate at best and misleading at worst.

Talk about prayer Mr. Snow - we all need to PRAY REALLY hard that we can get enough people on the “Hill” to override King George’s veto!

This morning Tony Snow made a very disparaging comment about Democrats just before he went into his first daily briefing. Sadly, none of the reporters have chosen to mention his comment. Everyone is just so enamored with his cancer story, that they are looking right past it.

I saw it on the CBS Early Show. It was something to the effect that the Democrats are just fooling around and wasting time with this bill. How dare he make a comment like that! The Democrats are only reflecting exactly what the American public wants. And good for Harry Smith. He said exactly that to Snow, who simply brushed him off.

When will this administration - and all of their supporters - like Tony Snow - realize this is not a dictatorship or monarchy? The vast majority of people out here do not want to be in Iraq.

God help us all!

President Bush stated: "I look forward to working with members of both parties to get a bill that doesn't set artificial timetables and doesn't micromanage and gets the money to our troops,"

President Bush is requesting American taxpayers fund this war by getting money to the commanders he put in charge of fulfilling his vision.

Denying his vision is not denying money to to the troops. If the troops are of primary concern -- which I believe all parties should agree they are -- then it's incumbent upon the president not to defy the will of the taxpayers who no longer support his fancies. The charge card is at it's limit and the public is in no mood to pay the additional charges and penalties.

Perhaps the best way the President can truly support our troops is to start pulling them out from harms way. He can also step aside from any further strategic decision making until someone newly elected can figure out a way to recover from the strategic blunder of invading Iraq -- and depleting our treasury and our armed forces from this quest for the holy grail.

Why doesn't Bush sign the bill and add a signing statement that reserves the right to ignore any or all parts of the bill, as poster ScottG suggests?
He's done it about find hundred times in the past.

If the country could stomach it, ( I, for one, couldn’t), there is a solution....let the Democrats ask for more troops and an open ended commitment. That way Rove could demand that we bring our troops home now because those lousy Democrats are endangering our troops for no good reason.

That works on children, it should work famously on this gang of spoiled children bunkered up in the White House. They care about nothing but winning politically, even if it costs more American lives than 9/11.

OMG... where did this man learn english?

He said, "“I believe that there's a lot of Democrats that understand that we need to get the money to the troops as soon as possible…

It's NOT "...a lot of Democrats THAT, the proper english is a lot of Democrats WHO... No wonder he can't get any support; the man Bush is an idiot.

As usual, scrappleface.com has the best satirical take on the bill:

"(2007-04-27) — Al Qaeda in Iraq today announced it would cease all martyrdom operations, bombings, kidnappings and attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces just a day after the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate sent a bill to President George Bush that sets a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.

“Under orders from our supreme ruler, Usama bin Laden, we announce our complete surrender and ask for mercy from our triumphant conquerors,” said an unnamed spokesman on a prerecorded audio statement released on al-Jazeera and CNN. “We are defenseless in the face of the Democrats’ aggressive pull-out schedule — Allah be praised.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi plan a trip to Baghdad next week to receive the surrender documents from an al-Qaeda emissary who has committed to meeting them in a public marketplace for the historic ceremony."

Bruce, keep drinking the kool-aide pal, as long as you and your Neocon friends don't have to die in W.'s civil war everything is just peaches,huh?

Stay the course Brucebot!

The Democrats have got to understand that the military-industrial complex, as she is represented by the Halliburton/Exxon White House, has become dependent upon those war dollars.

Let there be no mistake about it. The surge is working. Just look at Exxon's most recent quarterly earnings and the price of gas at the pump. The war is accomplishing exactly what it was intended to accomplish.

Bill r is an ill informed moron!

Posted by: L.Dobbins | Apr 30, 2007 3:08:27 PM

Hey...I resemble that remark!
Seriously..A year ago, the president thought that stay the course would work with the people..I believe the elections showed that. Now he is having trouble with the surge and look at the numbers of people have decided this is not to our benifit anymore, since a year ago. One more year of this and there will be hell to pay from the American people....Mark my words!

We have already lost our country but have not gotten smart enough to realize it!

First, George W. Bush is our president whether you are a democrat, republican, independent or other. It's that simple, but to listen to all those in congress debate openly what our foreign policy is and telling our enemies what and how we are going about it is treasonable. Reid should be held accountable for those remarks - treasonable!

Second, the only time this country comes together and rallies around the flag is in times of great tragedy like 911 and Pearl Harbor. I can not believe that democrats are telling our enemies openly of how we stand with regards to the war. THE WAR IN IRAQ IS LOST, Reid states, and second he's defining the date of surrender. George W. Bush is also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces - another hat that he wears and the Democrats want to wear that one too!

Since George W. Bush is Commander in Chief of the Armed forces and he gives his orders to the Generals who carry out his orders isn't it rather strange that the democrats are putting our soldiers, yes our young men and women, in harms way! How can you run a war with saboteurs amongst us? If our enemy knows our plans then they will simply have advanced knowledge of our plans and can counter by stepping up the bombings to frighten the American people and hence the democrats will become louder with their rhetoric and we'll run home like scared sheep in a stampede.

Yes, we have lost over 3000+ lives in Iraq, but we are there for good reason. At some point, you must draw a line in the sand and stand up for freedom.
In WWII, over 50 Million men, women and children died so that we and the rest of the world would have freedom. Would you rather we lost WWII and would now be under the NAZI flag? Thought NOT!

The most disturbing dialogue coming from the Democrats are pretending that they back our troops. (Just think for a moment that your son or daughter was in IRAQ and you just heard Senator Reid state: The WAR IS LOST IN IRAQ!) As a direct response the enemy is going to do everything in their power to prove him correct like more bombings, more deaths and more deaths.

How do you like your son or daughters chances now?
The likely hood of them being killed has just gone up! Their chances of returning unscathed is now less and less.

For the democrats to attach strings to the war - pork belly line items adding to the War spending bill is ludicrous...that's the only way that some congress folks will vote for the bill - Unbelievable!

I am a member of the Republican Party and once supported the President. However, he has long since gone beyond the pale in regard to continuing this senseless(and endless)war in Irag.

Meanwhile a million illegal aliens a year flow across our southern border unimpeded by the great "decider".

We are approaching a 10 trillion dollar national debt and fiscal meltdown could begin at any hour.

Impeachment proceedings are in order.

IRAQI PARLIAMENT TO TAKE A TWO MONTH RECESS! THIS JUST IN.

Well, while our troops are dying in Iraq, and chimpy is telling us he owns the timetables, the Iraq parliament thinks that taking June and July off will help us establish a democracy that much faster.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/29/le.01.html

So now we know how important timetables are to the Iraqi parliament, and American lives.

I wish the Democrats would stop being disingenuous about their demands to “End the war”…If this was truly their goal they would submit a bill completely de-funding the war without any “pork”.

It is truly within their constitutional authority to do as such and by doing anything else than that in an effort to end the war makes their motives questionable.

Congress voted for the utilization of force in Iraq.

Congress has continued to fund the war in Iraq.

Congress voted for the promotion for General Petraeus as the new theater commander.

Congress approved his plan to implement a new strategy for Iraq.

Now Congress wants to surrender without fully supporting the plans that they voted for without the full implementation of those plans?

Quit playing games for political profit and give General Petraeus the resources you voted for and let’s finish the job.

Can anyone tell me why our President seems to think that he is entitled to whatever he asks of Congress (interms of spending bills). Okay George W let's go back to American History 101. Our founding fathers created three EQUAL branches of the federal government. The President may be commander-in-chief, but the Congress controls the money. It's called checks and balances. Why do I get the impression that W missed that class?

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” - George W. Bush April 1999

Hopefully Democrats in Congress will not deliver the troop reduction bill on May 1, since May Day has long been the international Socialists' day of celebration for all the wrong reasons. Who can forget the huge sabre rattling May Day military parades of the Soviet Union? Why not delay until Wednesday to avoid any connotations which might be drawn from the date.

Bush to Planet Earth: The war goes on, the war goes on, go home and die.

Essentially, the Dub is playing chicken with our troops. What his position seems to be is that if he doesn't get his money, he's going to leave American troops in harm's way to get shot at and killed, rather than remove them from harm's way and insure their safety. And of course the Dems don't have the heart to play chicken. So the Dub will keep on dubbing, come hell or high water, until he leaves office. And all his cronies will keep on doing their stuff with impunity and refuse to resign (to wit, Gonzo and Wolfie) and disregard subpoenas (like Condi), because they're all above the law.

I think the C in C should be impeached promptly, and the others held in contempt of Congress and swiftly removed and punished accordingly. Otherwise, we will have reduced ourselves to a nation not of laws but that of hooga! hooga! hooga! (think apes).

Our dictator(yes dictator because he does what HE wants and not what the American people want) just don't get that we are fed up with his lies and we want out of this bogus war that NEVER should've taken place at all. Iraq was NOT I repeat NOT behind 9-11. When Japan bombed pearl we did not invade Brazil or Sweden. We went after who was responsible. We must impeach this madman before it is too late for our great country.

Why not delay until Wednesday to avoid any connotations which might be drawn from the date.

Posted by: Shaka | Apr 30, 2007 6:55:44 PM

Very true. May 1st MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html

If Democracy were to win in Iraq, the "Democratic Party" would be the big losers.

Posted by: Patrick Henry | Apr 30, 2007 3:14:32 PM

Patrick come on. Wait until you have something that isn't totally insane to add. Bringing the propaganda neo-con Kool-Aid drinking hard line!!!

Poor Ron - -

See his post "by: Ron | Apr 30, 2007 5:20:33 PM"

He can't see the forest for the trees. Listen to your Republican friend Jerry Reeves. The thinking people of this country are starting to stand up and we HAVE been heard. Thank GOD the Dems are listening.

We cannot afford another 10 years in Iraq. We can't even afford to repair our levees in this country, much less rebuild Iraq.

And more than 1/2 of the Iraq parliment voted to ask us to leave their country.

It is about time that we did!

Those who still continue to believe that because violence is going on, the solution *must* be ongoing military involvement, consider it "irresponsible" for the Democrats to interrupt the three years' inertia of this war and ask people to think for a minute about how long we want to walk on a treadmill.

Folks, the violence unfolding is the scratch on the surface. Let's start spending money on putting an x-ray on the systemic underpinning of all this violence.

Well, that approach has been well taken care of with the side-casting myth that "they hate us for our freedom," and they're just looney (must be something in the water) jihadists hell bent on killing anything that looks different from them.

America tends to forget the step-by-steps of our military activity abroad as the years go by, but people who have been killing each other over faith for 1500 years don't. They see U.S. soldiers as if they were figures from scriptures from several centuries ago. They are destabilized in their environment, divided, underprivileged and easily susceptible to hardcore rhetoric because it is an intense culture.

Yes, this is wholly a political issue right now. A massive failure of diplomacy on the sideline of war.

So I don't care if adding an "artificial timetable" causes the entire mission to fall apart militarily... The military is a huge bandaid right now, and a more ideal band-aid would consist of 300,000 troops.

Until we put an ebb on perceptions that will last in Muslim culture for another 1,000 years, we're simply playing whack-a-mole and entering men and women into a game of chance with bullets and roadside bombs.

P.S.: "If we pull out, they'll just follow us home." If you ask me, I think there will be a monumental international celebration on the scale of the lowering of the Berlin Wall when the United States finally gets out of Iraq, which would likely lead to an international coming together on ideas of how to calm the middle east down.

I wholeheartedly agree with the Jerry Reeves post. While we are fighting this Iraq War, which was was created by the neocons in the throes of giddy power-grabbing, millions of illegal aliens cross our borders. While we are fighting this war, millions of uninsured Americans are being denied access to quality healthcare. While we are fighting this war, our federal budget has exceeded our GDP by almost 200%. While we are fighting this war, the rest of the world is aghast at the incompetence of our leader and the passive public that has allowed this happen. While we are fighting this war, Japan and other European countries have replaced America in the realm of inventions that are both environmentally-friendly and profitable. While we are fighting this war, we have become immune to the countless lives of Iraqis who have been killed, maimed and crippled - yet, we spend a week of media-mourning for the lives of 32 college students in Virginia. It's time to sit back and put things in perspective. This war, created by falsehoods, will surely haunt America well after Bush has left the presidency.

Don S,

I continue to be perplexed by the ongoing reminders that Petraeus was confirmed unanamously. What's your point?

I don't care who we put in charge in Iraq. Resurrect MacArthur if you can - it doesn't matter - because Korea, like Vietnam, like Iraq are civil wars and our troops don't belong in the middle of it.

By the way, how do you suppose Petraeus feels about Dubya wanting to establish an Iraq Civil War Czar? A position outside the regular DoD chain of command. (I bet Oliver North is waxing nostalgic over this looney idea.)

It's not Petraeus that's the issue - IT'S THE POLICY STUPID!

It's a treacherous position this administration has put us in. Of course we want the troops back yesterday. However, the prospect of a disastrously destabilized Iraq becoming a new haven for terrorists in a pique of brutal irony is one which would not only have future historians wagging their fingers at the shortsighted pullout, but more importantly would create untold political fallout which could cost more lives in the Middle-East and innocent terrorist victims in Europe and the U.S.

I feverishly protested the war before it began, but now I'm in the uncomfortable position of having to support a large military presence until a more reasonable level of self-sufficiency and stability is achieved in Iraq, and Heaven knows when that will be. With Iraq's newly unrepressed internal sectarian differences getting expressed with brutal violence every day, do we really believe that a steady American pullout will improve the mess we started? If it was irresponsible to start this war and carry it out so shoddily, it's even more horrendous for us to pack up and leave when the Iraqi government is clearly not yet up to the task of steering the country away from civil war.

"The Cheerleader in Chief is going to veto a funding bill for our troops on "Mission Accomplished Day" ?

Posted by: John E | Apr 30, 2007 2:18:47 PM"

John E,
Yeah, I thought the whole thing was over; 6 months max.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6607739.stm

I love the comments section. The people with BDS are out in strength today. You weak-minded fools would rather have the people here killing Americans. Good luck trying to tackle this as a series of criminal events. Well, I'm sure that at some point the government will go back to seeing the murder of hundreds or thousands of Americans by undocumented immigrants from the Middle East as a crime and nothing more.

Only an idiot would condemn his children to the stupidty you people advocate.

It's about time! If the President had done this over the past six yrs, he wouldn't be dealing the inmates of the asylum right now

" A'm the vetoer."

I understand the democrats are having an elaborate signing ceremony to send off the bill to the president.

Do you think Pelosi will wear a new party dress to this shindig? Will there be a covered bar?

I mean really, what's important.

" Any shred of respect I may have had for any Democrat in power has long since gone. Pass a clean funding bill and stop playing politics with our young men and women in uniform."
How is it that when the republicans do what they like with the troops and get them killed its OK, but when the Dems try and save their lives it's "politics" What kind of lame double standard is this? Get real.

Bush has brought us to a damned if you do--damned if you don't position with his ineptitude and stubbornness, and we wouldn't be caught in this trap if the administration had not lied to us.

But if we pull out now, we destabilize the Middle East, just as Bush one was careful to avoid. And if we don't pull out now, we continue doing exactly what Bin Laden planned for us to be doing--losing American lives and dollars at an enormous rate and creating far more potential terrorists than we manage to kill.

So don't blame the Democrats for putting milestones on funding. They are speaking for the majority of American votes who want representation.

And Bush could have his funding right now by issuing a signing statement to ignore the milestones. Pretending he can't is simply more posturing.

It's about time! If the President had done this over the past six yrs, he wouldn't be dealing the inmates of the asylum right now

Posted by: Terry | Apr 30, 2007 9:51:31 PM

I agree totally Bean Boy. If he would have vetoed all those Repub spending bills, he wouldn't have added three trillion to the Natl.Debt!

Bruce S. Said:

What get to me is this is called a Defense Spending Bill but it has tens of millions of $ for non defense areas. It should be vetoed but not for the timetables but for all the pork that is in it.

Posted by: Bruce S | Apr 30, 2007 3:12:14 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is the real world. I do believe that if you were elected by citizens from your town, state, etc. you would not want to see your town, etc. get something for electing you. Those Senators and Representatives are supposed to represent their constituents.

Which party would like to kill the idea of attaching their favorite bill to anything they can. I'll bet neither.

Mr. Bush was quoted as saying:

Bush complains that the bill which Congress has approved, demanding the start of troop withdrawals by October and setting a goal of full withdrawal by spring of 2008 “imposes the judgment of people here in Washington on our military commanders and diplomats.’'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It is difficult to believe the Bush team would source such comments - but it looks like it did.

Mr. Bush may have forgotten but Washington is the seat of America's government. And certainly the people in Washington have every right to help the Bush team "manage" that government. The Iraqi war effort is in dire need of competent management. Only the Bush team and its admirers might disagree with that.

If the average person had been toiling unsuccessfully on a problem for four years, that person in all likelyhood would gladly accept competent help - if offered.

But along with advancing help, there maybe "outsiders" viewing how America's "credit card" was being used. Would that pose a problem for the valid users of the "credit card"?

Could there be any reluctance on the part of the Bush team to want to hide how it uses America's "credit card"?

The OLD CONGRESS certainly pulled the money plug on that auditing team that found discrepancies in the American weapons program in Iraq.

The managers of the Iraqi war should want to keep close tabs on it military weapons - less they wind up in the wrong hands. It is strange why the Old Congress would pull the plug on the auditing activity.

But the Bush team is different.

You really have to laugh when I see nitwits like John D, airmanjocksman, Brock spout their little Republican talking points. The rest of the country has finally figured out they've been had. I can't wait for 2008 and the extinction of the Repuglican party.

Crazy Duck,

When I think the President has messed up, I'll call him on it. IMO - Not vetoing all the spending has been his biggest mistake. Others??? Does the name Harriet Meyers ring any bells?

Mark Simmons comments are "what oft was thought but ne'er so well expressed". If we only had half of the tax money back that has been burned because of our terrible foreign policy in the middle east over the last 50 years, and had put it into the social security and health care system, we wouldn't have problems in these areas today and we probably wouldn't have a deficit and we would probably be at peace with whomever would be running the middle east and gasoline would still be 60 cents a gallon. Give someone like George Bush a fine new army and he will have to try it out like a teenage boy would have to try out a new mustang sitting in his front yard. After all, what is the use in having a fine army if you can't use it on someone?