Congress: We Support Our Troops - BULLSHIT

[Fiercely Proud American]

Personally, I am sick and tired of hearing this rhetoric from the DemLibSocs (and a couple of Republicans) in Congress, and watching them constantly attack President Bush (Commander-In-Chief) on a daily basis, and hear them say - "But we do support the troops" - "It's the war in Iraq / On Terror that we disagree with".

Unmittigated, unadultered bullshit plain and simple.

You cannot say you support the men and women of our Armed Forces, and in the same breath say you do not support the missions they are committed to, especially combat ones.

In case you're wondering just how Congress shows their support, consider the following portions of three articles:

FOXNews.com - Senate Ignores Veto Threat, Passes Iraq War Spending Bill - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Senate Ignores Veto Threat, Passes Iraq War Spending Bill
Thursday , March 29, 2007
Fox News
WASHINGTON —

The Senate on Thursday passed the Iraq war spending bill 51-47 after President Bush said he would likely veto the legislation over the inclusion of a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The $122 billion emergency supplemental bill funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but would require Bush to comply with orders to start bringing troops home from Iraq within four months, with a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008.

Senate Backs Pullout Proposal - washingtonpost.com

Senate Backs Pullout Proposal
Hagel Joins Democrats On War Funding Bill
By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 28, 2007; Page A01

Senate Democrats scored a surprise victory yesterday in their bid to force President Bush to end the Iraq war, turning back a Republican amendment that would have struck a troop withdrawal plan from emergency military funding legislation.

The defection of a prominent Republican war critic, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, sealed the Democrats' win. Hagel, who opposed identical withdrawal language two weeks ago, walked onto the Senate floor an hour before the late-afternoon vote and announced that he would "not support sustaining a flawed and failing policy," adding: "It's now time for the Congress to step forward and establish responsible boundaries and conditions for our continued military involvement in Iraq."

Democratic leaders think the 50 to 48 victory greatly strengthens their negotiating position as they prepare to face down a White House that yesterday reiterated its threat of a presidential veto. The Senate vote was also the first time since Democrats took control of Congress in January that a majority of lawmakers have supported binding legislation to bring U.S. troops home.

The Senate withdrawal provision, which sets a March 31, 2008, target for ending U.S. combat operations, is tucked into a $122 billion package to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a must-pass bill that Democrats view as their best shot at forcing Bush to change direction. The withdrawal language was nearly identical to that of a Senate resolution rejected 50 to 48 two weeks ago.

House Democrats accused of 'hijacking troops for pork' -- GOPUSA

House Democrats accused of 'hijacking troops for pork'
By Jim Brown
AgapePress
March 27, 2007

(AgapePress) -- House Democrats are being criticized for approving a war funds bill filled with their pet spending projects.

The House has narrowly passed a war spending bill that requires U.S. combat troops to leave Iraq by September of next year, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The bill also awards more than $13 billion in federal funds to spinach growers, tropical fish breeders, peanut storehouse construction, and livestock programs.

Brian Riedl, senior budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, says the Democratic majority is "hijacking the troops for pork" and essentially telling President Bush he cannot supply the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan unless he agrees to give fund special projects in the senators' home states.

"The troops are, in effect, being used as collateral for pork -- and there's place for that in the national security bill," says the conservative policy analyst. "I think this legislation is extremely irresponsible, and I think Congress should go back to the drawing board and make sure that a bill to fund our troops actually focuses on funding our troops."

Note: I refrained from including smileys at this time - and it wasn't easy.

 

[rivrrat]

You cannot say you support the men and women of our Armed Forces, and in the same breath say you do not support the missions they are committed to, especially combat ones.

And I'm sick and tired of people trying to tell me what I think.

I most certainly can and do support our troops, and most certainly do NOT support the mission their superiors put them on. The soldiers may have had a choice to enter the military, but they didn't know we'd have an imbecile for a president that would send them off to do the wrong things. The administration is wrong, not our troops. The troops in general are NOT the ones in the wrong here. And how dare you, or anyone else, try to tell me that *I* think they are. It gets tiresome, it really does. Get over yourselves and realize that supporting our troops doesn't have to equate to sending them off to fight a useless war and die or be harmed needlessly.

 

[Billo_Really]

Why don't Congress just take the President at his word? Bush stated, "Mission Accomplished." With that being said, why doesn't Congress go, "Okay, mission was accomplished, the mission is now over, so now were bringing everybody home. The troops completed their mission, so it's time to bring them back."

Then you would have Bush in the awkward position of having to argue that the troops have failed their mission and must stay to make it right!

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

I guess I will have to apolligize to Chuck Hagel. I thought there were no honest and patriotic Republicans in Congress.

 

[dragonslayer]

Personally, I am sick and tired of hearing this rhetoric from the DemLibSocs (and a couple of Republicans) in Congress, and watching them constantly attack President Bush (Commander-In-Chief) on a daily basis, and hear them say - "But we do support the troops" - "It's the war in Iraq / On Terror that we disagree with".

Unmittigated, unadultered bullshit plain and simple.

You cannot say you support the men and women of our Armed Forces, and in the same breath say you do not support the missions they are committed to, especially combat ones.

In case you're wondering just how Congress shows their support, consider the following portions of three articles:

FOXNews.com - Senate Ignores Veto Threat, Passes Iraq War Spending Bill - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum



Senate Backs Pullout Proposal - washingtonpost.com



House Democrats accused of 'hijacking troops for pork' -- GOPUSA



Note: I refrained from including smileys at this time - and it wasn't easy.

There will never be a democracy, in Iraq, and we have no reason for being there, but to let Bush use our military for targets of the Iragis.

The war is an obscene waste of lives and money. Protect our troops. They will live better back on military bases in the united States, where they can be used to protect the United States, if needed.

 

[oldreliable67]

I guess I will have to apolligize to Chuck Hagel. I thought there were no honest and patriotic Republicans in Congress.

On Dec. 20, 2002, Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska shared a byline on a Washington Post op-ed titled "Iraq: The Decade After." Biden and Hagel, both of whom had voted two months earlier to go to war with Saddam Hussein's regime, warned that it would not be an easy undertaking and that America had to be prepared for a long-term commitment:

Although no one doubts our forces will prevail over Saddam Hussein's, key regional leaders confirm what the Foreign Relations Committee emphasized in its Iraq hearings last summer: The most challenging phase will likely be the day after--or, more accurately, the decade after--Saddam Hussein.

Once he is gone, expectations are high that coalition forces will remain in large numbers to stabilize Iraq and support a civilian administration. That presence will be necessary for several years, given the vacuum there, which a divided Iraqi opposition will have trouble filling and which some new Iraqi military strongman must not fill. . . . Americans are largely unprepared for such an undertaking. President Bush must make clear to the American people the scale of the commitment.

Today, Biden and Hagel are among the leaders of the effort to retreat. Their "decade" turned out to last barely four years. The only plausible explanation is that the planet Biden and Hagel are from revolves around its sun in the equivalent of about 150 Earth days.

 

[oldreliable67]

Oops, forgot to include the link to the above-quoted op-ed. It can be found here.

 

[niftydrifty]

You cannot say you support the men and women of our Armed Forces, and in the same breath say you do not support the missions they are committed to, especially combat ones.

of course you can.

a more valid point is whether or not anyone could be said to support the troops, when they completely misunderstand the situation they are committing the troops to, and yet, eagerly send the troops into that situation. a situation in which the troops are going to be mired in an indefinite occupation, have no chance of winning, and will be redeployed ad infinitum. there were people in 2002-2003 whom were actually concerned about what would happen to the troops after the occupation of Iraq went badly. uh, nearly all of them were liberals.

 

[Tashah]

I have many problems with the situation in Iraq. I honestly do not believe that Iraq can be salvaged and thus for me, remaining there is no longer worth the steep price in American blood and treasure.

That said, I am also not proud of what the US Congress has done. Although the goal is indeed estimable, the methodology used is very bothersome. To be kind, the pork and perks included in this crucial appropriation bill... suggest something quite odorous and sleazy.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Tashah:
I have many problems with the situation in Iraq. I honestly do not believe that Iraq can be salvaged and thus for me, remaining there is no longer worth the steep price in American blood and treasure.

That said, I am also not proud of what the US Congress has done. Although the goal is indeed estimable, the methodology used is very bothersome. To be kind, the pork and perks included in this crucial appropriation bill... suggest something quite odorous and sleazy.

On this particular issue, I too am a little disappointed with Congress adding in all those subsidies. It just brings back that old argument for the "Line Item Veto!"

It was also kind of stupid for the Dems to do this. All they had to do was give the funding and this war would have been Bush's legacy.

Now, they share the pain!

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

On Dec. 20, 2002, Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska shared a byline on a Washington Post op-ed titled "Iraq: The Decade After." Biden and Hagel, both of whom had voted two months earlier to go to war with Saddam Hussein's regime, warned that it would not be an easy undertaking and that America had to be prepared for a long-term commitment:



Today, Biden and Hagel are among the leaders of the effort to retreat. Their "decade" turned out to last barely four years. The only plausible explanation is that the planet Biden and Hagel are from revolves around its sun in the equivalent of about 150 Earth days.

_______
I think you have to add the fact that everyone believed Bush about WMD and Saddam-Iraq being an imminet threat. Many have changed their minds after learning that these statements were not true.

 

[Fiercely Proud American]

:applaud Well - this sort of ruffled :argue a few feathers :caution: I shall return :gunsmilie

 

[dragonslayer]

Personally, I am sick and tired of hearing this rhetoric from the DemLibSocs (and a couple of Republicans) in Congress, and watching them constantly attack President Bush (Commander-In-Chief) on a daily basis, and hear them say - "But we do support the troops" - "It's the war in Iraq / On Terror that we disagree with".

Unmittigated, unadultered bullshit plain and simple.

You cannot say you support the men and women of our Armed Forces, and in the same breath say you do not support the missions they are committed to, especially combat ones.

In case you're wondering just how Congress shows their support, consider the following portions of three articles:

FOXNews.com - Senate Ignores Veto Threat, Passes Iraq War Spending Bill - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum



Senate Backs Pullout Proposal - washingtonpost.com



House Democrats accused of 'hijacking troops for pork' -- GOPUSA



Note: I refrained from including smileys at this time - and it wasn't easy.

Maybe we should show our support for the troops by letting them live.
I know that you find the idea of american troops coming home alive a bit outrageous. You right wingers are strange. We need to be out of Iraq now.
We have no mission there and no business there. Our wonderful young men are dying for nothing. One of those who died for nothing was my grand nephew, and he was fine young man. I taught him how to shoot at the local gun club, and Bush sent him to die for nothing.

U.S. Toll in March Is Twice Iraq Forces
By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer
3 hours ago

BAGHDAD - The U.S. military death toll in March, the first full month of the security crackdown, was nearly twice that of the Iraqi army, which American and Iraqi officials say is taking the leading role in the latest attempt to curb violence in the capital, surrounding cities and Anbar province, according to figures compiled on Saturday.

The Associated Press count of U.S. military deaths for the month was 81, including a soldier who died from non-combat causes Friday. Figures compiled from officials in the Iraqi ministries of Defense, Health and Interior showed the Iraqi military toll was 44. The Iraqi figures showed that 165 Iraqi police were killed in March. Many of the police serve in paramilitary units.

According to the AP count 3,246 U.S. service members have died in Iraq since the war began in March 2003.

At least 83 American forces died in January and 80 in February, according to the AP tabulation.

The Iraqi figures were gathered from officials who released them on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to give out the numbers.

Additionally, the Iraqi ministry figures listed 1,872 Iraqi civilian deaths for the month, about 300 more than the AP tabulation, which is mainly gathered from daily police reports nationwide.

The civilian death toll for the month was down significantly from 2,172 in December, the highest month casualty figure since the AP began keeping records of civilian deaths in April 2005.

However, the number of civilians killed in March was in the same range as for the first two months of this year; 1,604 in January and 1,552 in February, according to the AP count.

Nearly a third of the Iraqi civilian deaths, more than 500 people, where killed in three big bomb attacks in the last week of the month and revenge killings of Sunni men in Tal Afar the night after a Shiite market was bomb in the northwest Iraqi city.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published

Kill, Kill, Kill, kill, that is the Bush/cheney motto.

 

[Billo_Really]

 

[Iriemon]

On Dec. 20, 2002, Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska shared a byline on a Washington Post op-ed titled "Iraq: The Decade After." Biden and Hagel, both of whom had voted two months earlier to go to war with Saddam Hussein's regime, warned that it would not be an easy undertaking and that America had to be prepared for a long-term commitment:

When was the vote to go to war against Iraq?

Today, Biden and Hagel are among the leaders of the effort to retreat. Their "decade" turned out to last barely four years. The only plausible explanation is that the planet Biden and Hagel are from revolves around its sun in the equivalent of about 150 Earth days.

This is one reason why we will need our allies to help rebuild Iraq. Cementing a broad coalition today will keep the pressure on Hussein to disarm, build legitimacy for the use of force if he refuses, reduce the risks to our troops and spread the burden of securing and reconstructing Iraq. Going it alone and imposing a U.S.-led military government instead of a multinational civilian administration could turn us from liberators into occupiers, fueling resentment throughout the Arab world.

OP-ED: Iraq: The Decade After

This quote also from the op-ed piece. The key piece missing from the Bush led attack, from an administration that belittled those who called for a multi-lateral consensus.

Turned out to be very prophetic.

 

[Iriemon]

Personally, I am sick and tired of hearing this rhetoric from the DemLibSocs (and a couple of Republicans) in Congress, and watching them constantly attack President Bush (Commander-In-Chief) on a daily basis, and hear them say - "But we do support the troops" - "It's the war in Iraq / On Terror that we disagree with".

Unmittigated, unadultered bullshit plain and simple.

You cannot say you support the men and women of our Armed Forces, and in the same breath say you do not support the missions they are committed to, especially combat ones.

In case you're wondering just how Congress shows their support, consider the following portions of three articles:

FOXNews.com - Senate Ignores Veto Threat, Passes Iraq War Spending Bill - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum



Senate Backs Pullout Proposal - washingtonpost.com

House Democrats accused of 'hijacking troops for pork' -- GOPUSA

Note: I refrained from including smileys at this time - and it wasn't easy.

The mission of bringing our boys home after "mission accomplished" like we said we would isn't supporting them; but the Repubconfascists leaving them to die and be maimed in Iraq to save face for a "mistake" is.

Unmittigated, unadultered bullshit plain and simple.