Stupid, stupid Dems.

[StockTrader]

Explain to me why they are still trying to pass the war spending bill WITH a timetable ... what a waste of money, brains and time. Bush has said 100000 times that he will veto it. And all it's going to do is make the public pissed at Dem's, because they inadequately funded our troops.

Stupid, stupid Dems!

Nick

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by StockTrader

Explain to me why they are still trying to pass the war spending bill WITH a timetable ... what a waste of money, brains and time. Bush has said 100000 times that he will veto it. And all it's going to do is make the public pissed at Dem's, because they inadequately funded our troops.

Stupid, stupid Dems!

Nick

Last time I checked the public is pissed at the Republicans, and Bush in particular, for messing the war up and are looking to the Dems to get out of Iraq.

Hell since you seem to be parrotting whats said on Fox News (aka the Republican Propaganda Network), maybe you'd like to watch Bill Moyer's special that premiered last night on how the media helped led the charge to war in Iraq. I doubt you will since it points out all the lies and fallacies of the case for war against Iraq in the open, and has no comments from people like Roger Ailes (head of FNC) or Bill Kristol (frequent FNC panelist) because they were too chicken to talk to him about this subject (but they sure like to beat their chest when it comes to sending other people's kids to war). Its that "public" you're talking about thats finally caught up in the curve to some of us who were well ahead of it and no longer want to fight a war based on lies.

[Bill Shaw]

Originally Posted by -mmm-

Hell since you seem to be parrotting whats said on Fox News (aka the Republican Propaganda Network), maybe you'd like to watch Bill Moyer's special that premiered last night on how the media helped led the charge to war in Iraq. I doubt you will since it points out all the lies and fallacies of the case for war against Iraq in the open, and has no comments from people like Roger Ailes (head of FNC) or Bill Kristol (frequent FNC panelist) because they were too chicken to talk to him about this subject (but they sure like to beat their chest when it comes to sending other people's kids to war)...

Moyers is far from unbiased, as well as PBS.

The current funding flap is a political ploy, nothing more.

Even as such, it is starting to look like the Dems may not get the mileage they should from it AND may shoot themselves a few times in the feet in the process.

The debate tonight should be interesting.

[StockTrader]

Originally Posted by -mmm-

Last time I checked the public is pissed at the Republicans, and Bush in particular, for messing the war up and are looking to the Dems to get out of Iraq.

Except, if I'm Tommy's father and I see that the Dem's are trying to push legislation that the President has said 100000 times that he will veto, I will be pissed at the Dem's for not TCB [read as funding my son!].

Nick

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by Bill Shaw

Even as such, it is starting to look like the Dems may not get the mileage they should from it AND may shoot themselves a few times in the feet in the process.

On that we agree. Though I think the Bush administration will shoot out their feet, knees, hip, and arms off in the same process as they try to save face.

Originally Posted by Bill Shaw

The debate tonight should be interesting.

On that we dont.

I do await the petulant child Bush to come out when he vetoes it, you know the face he gets that almost looks like hes being a 7 year old brat having his toy taken away that he gets every time someone questions him about this bill. Heck you can see him shudder everytime he talks about it.

Originally Posted by Bill Shaw

Moyers is far from unbiased, as well as PBS.

Since I only referred to the FNC guys, after the fact I realized Id probably get a response like that. If you'd actually watch, the place he rips on the most is the New York Times, with WaPo close behind. Both papers that conservatives have repeatedly called being "too liberal". Heck I was upset he let Russert off the hook when they interviewed.

[hork]

Originally Posted by StockTrader

Except, if I'm Tommy's father and I see that the Dem's are trying to push legislation that the President has said 100000 times that he will veto, I will be pissed at the Dem's for not TCB [read as funding my son!].

Nick

even more pissed than you (as tommy's father) would be at the man who sent your kid over in the first place based on nothing but lies and personal vendettas? i'd be willing to bet there are more little tommy and tammy fathers out there who are going to be more appreciative about someone trying to bring their little ones home than there will be who are upset

[P562045]

There are several reasons why the democrats try the same old thing month after month so far.

It is quite simple in fact. The democrats do not have even close to the number of votes required to "override" a cloture vote in the senate and it takes even more votes in the senate to override a presidential veto. So the democrats are basically stuck at doing what they have already done how many time this year so far?

Let's see they go with no binding resolutions if you hear the word resolution it is non binding which basically means its intention is not to legislate. This needs a simple majority in the senate just as it did earlier today.

Now let's move on to how actual legislation becomes law. Last time I checked it needs 3/5 votes which in the senate is 60 votes to get past a cloture vote. Is 51 votes anywhere near 60? Now the president has said he would veto anything that remotely has a timetable how many times already this year?

So let's see to override a presidential veto the senate needs 67 votes because 66 percent is not 66 2/3 percent now is it?

So the democrats are going to have to have 16 republicans that are not yet willing to do so because the vote for the majority was 51 earlier today. And there just happens to be 49 democrats and 2 independents in the senate as of this moment.

I wonder how many times I would have to bump this up each time the democrats did this same legislative maneuvering. This is already the second or third time this year.

I have notice in the past few months that the president has been stubborn about this matter.

Now the question becomes and no one wants to really ask it because it may not be pleasant and my question is why has the president been so stubborn when it comes to Iraq in the first place?

[StockTrader]

Originally Posted by hork

even more pissed than you (as tommy's father) would be at the man who sent your kid over in the first place based on nothing but lies and personal vendettas? i'd be willing to bet there are more little tommy and tammy fathers out there who are going to be more appreciative about someone trying to bring their little ones home than there will be who are upset

I'm sorry, but that was a weak response at best. The troops are already over there, and are likely staying for some time. Now, are people mad at President Bush for starting the 2nd Gulf War? Sure. But as a parent, I am going to understand that my son/daughter signed up and "gave" his life to the Armed Services. Stepping back, who am I going to be more pissed at, the Dem's who continue to waste time and money trying to pass something that isn't going to ever get passed, or President Bush, for not accepting a timetable which will defeat the whole purpose of the Iraq War?

Nick

[hork]

Originally Posted by StockTrader

I'm sorry, but that was a weak response at best. The troops are already over there, and are likely staying for some time. Now, are people mad at President Bush for starting the 2nd Gulf War? Sure. But as a parent, I am going to understand that my son/daughter signed up and "gave" his life to the Armed Services. Stepping back, who am I going to be more pissed at, the Dem's who continue to waste time and money trying to pass something that isn't going to ever get passed, or President Bush, for not accepting a timetable which will defeat the whole purpose of the Iraq War?

Nick

talk to me when you have kids. until then it's really a moot point i suppose

[ldzppln]

Bombers strike at Iraqi army, civilians
By LAUREN FRAYER, Associated Press Writer
Thu Apr 26, 4:19 PM ET

Bombers struck an Iraqi army post northeast of Baghdad and civilian targets in the city as violence across Iraq killed at least 72 people Thursday, including the bullet-riddled bodies of 27 men dumped in the capital — apparent victims of sectarian death squads.

Still, the top American military spokesman insisted the U.S. command felt "very comfortable" that it is making "steady progress" in restoring order in Baghdad.

"We are seeing those initial signs of progress being made," Maj. Gen. William C. Caldwell told Associated Press Radio.

. . . .

The deadliest attack occurred about 9 a.m. when a suicide car bomber killed 10 Iraqi soldiers at a checkpoint in Khalis, a longtime flashpoint city about 50 miles northeast of Baghdad. Ten other soldiers and five civilians were wounded, police said.

The city is in Diyala province, which has seen some of Iraq's worst violence recently. Mostly Sunni Arab insurgents are thought to have fled to the area to escape the security crackdown in Baghdad that U.S. and Iraqi troops launched Feb. 14.

In the capital, a car bomb exploded near Baghdad University, killing eight civilians and wounding 19, including some students, police said.

Associated Press Television News footage showed an elderly woman screaming, "Oh, my son," as she sobbed beside twisted debris.

Ahmed Jassim, who works in a nearby hotel, said he rushed outside after hearing the explosion and helped carry the wounded to ambulances.

"The insurgents were surely targeting civilians because there was no military presence in the area," he said. "I saw small pieces of flesh and a small blood pool."

Four other civilians were killed and nine wounded when a roadside bomb exploded near a market in central Baghdad, police said. The blast missed its intended target — a passing police patrol.

In the city's sprawling Shiite Muslim neighborhood of Sadr City, U.S. troops killed three militants during a gunbattle, the military said. Later in the day, a funeral procession was held in the district for an Iraqi who residents said was killed in the fighting.

Two suicide bombers attacked an office of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Massoud Barzani, leader of the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq.

The blasts killed three security guards and wounded five, police said. Casualties could have been worse if guards had not opened fire on the two attackers, forcing them to detonate their explosives at least 50 yards from the office, police said.

. . . .

Two civilians were killed and 12 wounded when mortar shells exploded in the southern Baghdad district of Dora, police said. One civilian died and four were wounded when a car bomb exploded in the Baiyaa district of southwestern Baghdad.

At least 30 tortured bodies were found, including 27 who had been shot to death and left in different parts of Baghdad and three decapitated bodies found south of the capital.




Raquel Delatorre cries over the casket of her son U.S. Marine Lance Coporal Jesse D. Delatorre, 29, during graveside services in Montgomery, Illinois, April 26, 2007. Delatorre died April 16 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq.


This undated U.S. Army photo shows Sgt. Michael Vaughan. Vaughan, 20, of Otis, Ore., was one of nine 82nd Airborne Division paratroopers killed Monday, April 23, 2007, in a suicide truck bombing in Iraq, the military said on Thursday.


This undated U.S. Army photo shows, Sgt. Randell Marshall. Marshall, 22, of Fitzgerald, Ga., was one of nine 82nd Airborne Division paratroopers killed Monday, April 23, 2007, in a suicide truck bombing in Iraq, the military said on Thursday.


This undated U.S. Army photo show Staff Sgt. Kenneth E. Locker Jr. Locker, 28, of Wakefield, Neb., was one of nine 82nd Airborne Division paratroopers killed Monday, April 23, 2007, in a suicide truck bombing in Iraq, the military said on Thursday.


This undated U.S. Army photo shows Spc. Michael J. Rodriguez. Rodriguez, 20, of Sanford, N.C., was one of nine 82nd Airborne Division paratroopers killed Monday, April 23, 2007, in a suicide truck bombing in Iraq, the military said on Thursday.


This undated U.S. Army photo shows Spc. Jerry King. King, 19, of Browersville, Ga., was one of nine 82nd Airborne Division paratroopers killed Monday, April 23, 2007, in a suicide truck bombing in Iraq, the military said on Thursday.


This undated U.S. Army photo shows, 1st Lt. Kevin Gaspers. Gaspers, 26, of Hastings, Neb., was one of nine 82nd Airborne Division paratroopers killed Monday, April 23, 2007, in a suicide truck bombing in Iraq, the military said on Thursday.


In this undated U.S. Army photo shows, Staff Sgt. William Moore. Moore, 27, of Benson, N.C., was one of nine 82nd Airborne Division paratroopers killed Monday, April 23, 2007, in a suicide truck bombing in Iraq, the military said on Thursday.


US President George W. Bush addressing the nation on Iraq
beneath a banner reading "Mission Accomplished" aboard the
nuclear aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln as it sails for Naval Air
Station North Island, San Diego, California, May 2003.

[StockTrader]

Originally Posted by hork

talk to me when you have kids. until then it's really a moot point i suppose

I don't think so. I have a sister, soon to be brother-in-law, a cousin all in the AF. I had a cousin in the Army. My father fought in Operation Desert Storm. I understand what it's like to have a loved one fighting overseas. I still support the choice, and and pissed off at the Dem's for wasting my taxpaying money!

Nick

[hork]

Originally Posted by StockTrader

I don't think so. I have a sister, soon to be brother-in-law, a cousin all in the AF. I had a cousin in the Army. My father fought in Operation Desert Storm. I understand what it's like to have a loved one fighting overseas. I still support the choice, and and pissed off at the Dem's for wasting my taxpaying money!

Nick

i know you can't understand and i would never discount the personal ties you have (although let's be honest destern storm and the current fiasco were two entirely different situations at least the first bush had legit reasons for war and a clear exit plan he didn't have to wing it and make up reasons after the fact due to being caught in multiple lies and trying to rationalize) but i too have had many family members who have served including several who are VFWs. that said it's not the same thing as when it's your own kid. clearly I can't expect you to understand yet, but someday god willing you will when you hold your own in your arms and look into his/her newborn eyes. trust me everything looks different then and suddenly you realize you don't have the answers to all the world's questions.

[ldzppln]

Here's why the Democrats (and some republicans) passed the funding bill with non-binding US troop withdrawl dates:

from tomorrow's Washington Post

... Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), a critic of Bush's war policy who opposed the Democratic bill, conceded that pressure is building for Republicans and Democrats to reach a bipartisan consensus. One unhelpful development: the Iraqi parliament's intention to recess for two months this summer. That news appeared to bolster resolve among lawmakers to at least retain the bill's Iraqi government benchmarks, as a way of urging political and diplomatic progress.

The recess "would send a very bad signal to the world that they don't have the resolve that matches the resolve of the brave troops that are fighting in the battle today," said Warner, a supporter of benchmarks who said he has his own compromise plan in the works.

. . .

Republicans signaled today that they are ready to negotiate. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said the veto "will give us a chance to sit down with our colleagues across the aisle and find common ground." McConnell said his goal was to produce a bill "without withdrawal dates, without pork."

"There are a number of members of my conference who do think that benchmarks could be helpful, depending upon how they're crafted," said McConnell. "And that'll be among the many items we discuss in moving forward."

<end>


I think maybe Bush is slowly figuring it out... if not, maybe someone will tell him - "...you have to deal with the US Congress you have, not the US Congress you want"

[Bill Shaw]

Originally Posted by -mmm-

On that we agree. Though I think the Bush administration will shoot out their feet, knees, hip, and arms off in the same process as they try to save face.

Perhaps not necessary. Not that I care how Bush "looks". Reason being...

On that we dont.

I do await the petulant child Bush to come out when he vetoes it, you know the face he gets that almost looks like hes being a 7 year old brat having his toy taken away that he gets every time someone questions him about this bill. Heck you can see him shudder everytime he talks about it.

...was referring to the Democratic Candidate Debate.

You remember them... have absolutely no idea what to do, so long as it isn't what we are doing, or that stuff they approved of (unaware they were masterfully disguised fabrications).

Since I only referred to the FNC guys, after the fact I realized Id probably get a response like that. If you'd actually watch, the place he rips on the most is the New York Times, with WaPo close behind. Both papers that conservatives have repeatedly called being "too liberal". Heck I was upset he let Russert off the hook when they interviewed.

Yeah. Citing a blatant Republican critic on the most unpopular populist network kinda' bought that.

The next time he rails against a genuine liberal target of any consequence, you let us know.

Originally Posted by ldzppln

Bombers strike at Iraqi army, civilians

blah, blah, blah...

Is there a patently offensive tactic you won't trot out?

Just remember... neither you, nor your lot, will ever possess a fraction of the courage of those you feign concern for in the name of pushing a political agenda.

Stick to being one of the three or four bots that posts crap wrapped around the words illegal, stupid, and crazy every couple days.

If it were a true agenda, or had any merit, it wouldn't need the push.

[spoc22]

Originally Posted by -mmm-

Last time I checked the public is pissed at the Republicans, and Bush in particular, for messing the war up and are looking to the Dems to get out of Iraq.

You guys just keep telling yourselves that it was the war that resulted in the last election results. The Dems ran a major anti war guy against Lieberman in a very strong Dem state and pro-war Joe kicked his arse. The reason the Repubs lost the last election was because people were pissed at them was because when they finally got control of both bodies, they didn't do what we elected them to do. They spent like drunken Dems, couldn't stand up to the Dems and acted like they were still the minority party.