Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Probably the fault was the Democrats for believing Bush, being president and all, might have access to something he hadn't shared with Congress. There was that possibility with Bush, so the Democrats played it safe, and gave the decision to Bush. It was Bush's decision, his call, Bush didn't have to invade. So did Bush make a bad decision?Congress could have blocked the decision. Congress could have cut off funding at any time, endign the war. Democrats ran on that exact premise in 2006/ But they were too fucking chicken shit to take responsibility for a move like that so they voted a 100 times to condemn the war instead.Once the Congress threw the decision into Bush's lap they then would support Bush's decision whatever it might have been, but it was still Bush's decision. Had they voted no on the authorization, they probably would still have supported the president.[
The vote was to authorize the president to invade as president Bush believed necessary.
The Congress threw that bomb into the president's lap and Bush, exercised it. It was Bush's baby, his decision.
Hillary voted to fund the invasion.
If it was wrong for Bush to authorize the invasion then wasn't it just as wrong for The Bitch to vote to fund it?
Why are you hypocritical about the invasion?
If you really think that the invasion was a bad thing then why in the hell would you throw out your convictions and vote for The Bitch that voted for the invasion just because she is the Presidential nominee of the Moon Bat Party?
I don't think you really have convictions. You are like most Moon Bats. You are either confused, delusional, hypocritical or low information. Maybe all of them.
Reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt sending the Great White Fleet on world tour with only enough fuel to go half way. Teddy sent the fleet anyway saying let the Congress get them back.
Democrats: The Party of Chickenshit.
but they are all military correct? They all follow the same military rules right?what was dishonest? peer is peer, unless you have a different way to say that. Then it is you being confused.Yeah and? And one must conclude you are a dishonest person or a poser.
So, assuming you were an enlisted man, how many times did you go to the officer's club and drink with the O-6? Conversely, if you were an officer, how many times did you drink in the EM Club?
Peers are equals, I served and knew the difference between the E-level and the O-level on day one, I was not an equal in the mess, in the rack and when I visited officer's country.
Wry Catcher is just blowing smoke to confuse the issue. Then again he may just be stupid. Nothing in the UCMJ says anything about a jury of their peers. The makeup of a military Court Martial is very specific in the code. One requirement is that all members must be of a higher rank than the accused.
You might want to read the posts above. It was not me who stated he would be judged by a jury of his peers. It was Easyt65.
Members of the Intelligence Committee had access to exactly the same information.Probably the fault was the Democrats for believing Bush, being president and all, might have access to something he hadn't shared with Congress. There was that possibility with Bush, so the Democrats played it safe, and gave the decision to Bush. It was Bush's decision, his call, Bush didn't have to invade. So did Bush make a bad decision?Congress could have blocked the decision. Congress could have cut off funding at any time, endign the war. Democrats ran on that exact premise in 2006/ But they were too fucking chicken shit to take responsibility for a move like that so they voted a 100 times to condemn the war instead.Once the Congress threw the decision into Bush's lap they then would support Bush's decision whatever it might have been, but it was still Bush's decision. Had they voted no on the authorization, they probably would still have supported the president.[
The vote was to authorize the president to invade as president Bush believed necessary.
The Congress threw that bomb into the president's lap and Bush, exercised it. It was Bush's baby, his decision.
Hillary voted to fund the invasion.
If it was wrong for Bush to authorize the invasion then wasn't it just as wrong for The Bitch to vote to fund it?
Why are you hypocritical about the invasion?
If you really think that the invasion was a bad thing then why in the hell would you throw out your convictions and vote for The Bitch that voted for the invasion just because she is the Presidential nominee of the Moon Bat Party?
I don't think you really have convictions. You are like most Moon Bats. You are either confused, delusional, hypocritical or low information. Maybe all of them.
Reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt sending the Great White Fleet on world tour with only enough fuel to go half way. Teddy sent the fleet anyway saying let the Congress get them back.
Democrats: The Party of Chickenshit.
[
Probably the fault was the Democrats for believing Bush, being president and all, might have access to something he hadn't shared with Congress. There was that possibility with Bush, so the Democrats played it safe, and gave the decision to Bush. It was Bush's decision, his call, Bush didn't have to invade. So did Bush make a bad decision?
Go back and read the comments by the Democrats before casting their votes. THEY - some of the same big Liberal politicians we have today, a former President, and key Democrats - MADE THE CASE for going to war, CALLED FOR going to war, and insisted Hussein had to be overthrown. It wasn't just a vote to go to war if necessary - some of the Democrats made the case from the floor of Congress on why we HAD to. So don't try to minimalize the Democratic party's role in the decision to go to war. Don't make excuses and try to make it sound like going to war was not what they signed up for. They did!Once the Congress threw the decision into Bush's lap they then would support Bush's decision whatever it might have been, but it was still Bush's decision.
[
The vote was to authorize the president to invade as president Bush believed necessary.
The Congress threw that bomb into the president's lap and Bush, exercised it. It was Bush's baby, his decision.
Hillary voted to fund the invasion.
If it was wrong for Bush to authorize the invasion then wasn't it just as wrong for The Bitch to vote to fund it?
Why are you hypocritical about the invasion?
If you really think that the invasion was a bad thing then why in the hell would you throw out your convictions and vote for The Bitch that voted for the invasion just because she is the Presidential nominee of the Moon Bat Party?
I don't think you really have convictions. You are like most Moon Bats. You are either confused, delusional, hypocritical or low information. Maybe all of them.
Go back and read the comments by the Democrats before casting their votes. THEY - some of the same big Liberal politicians we have today, a former President, and key Democrats - MADE THE CASE for going to war, CALLED FOR going to war, and insisted Hussein had to be overthrown. It wasn't just a vote to go to war if necessary - some of the Democrats made the case from the floor of Congress on why we HAD to. So don't try to minimalize the Democratic party's role in the decision to go to war. Don't make excuses and try to make it sound like going to war was not what they signed up for. They did!Once the Congress threw the decision into Bush's lap they then would support Bush's decision whatever it might have been, but it was still Bush's decision.
Not many people will remember this, but after Hussein invaded and took over Kuwait, Bush sent troops in to liberate Kuwait, to drive Hussein back into Iraq. The Democrats opposed the move, criticizing Bush and the military operation big time for doing it. The American people, however, rallied around the troops and greatly supported the move. WEEKS after that war started Democrats in the house voted to AMMEND Congress' historical record (cook the books) to show that they had supported it from the start. (CNN reported it at the time) The Libs didn't want the next election coming up and have on the record that they had been against this highly popular move to liberate Kuwait. That's both funny and PATHETIC as hell....
Liberals always want to be on the 'winning' side. If it turns out what they supported ends badly they will insist they were never 'for' it but instead 'went reluctantly along'. If it's something they opposed from the start but ends well, they will claim they were for it from the start. When this is pointed out they will deny the hell out of it. They shouldn't....it's not a totally 'liberal' thing. It's a 'career politician' thing....and their ranks are full of them, too - just as the GOP is. So, 'embrace the suck', boys and girls. No one has the right to attempt to take the 'moral high ground' in this or many other cases.
Read the authorization.Go back and read the comments by the Democrats before casting their votes. THEY - some of the same big Liberal politicians we have today, a former President, and key Democrats - MADE THE CASE for going to war, CALLED FOR going to war, and insisted Hussein had to be overthrown. It wasn't just a vote to go to war if necessary - some of the Democrats made the case from the floor of Congress on why we HAD to. So don't try to minimalize the Democratic party's role in the decision to go to war. Don't make excuses and try to make it sound like going to war was not what they signed up for. They did!Once the Congress threw the decision into Bush's lap they then would support Bush's decision whatever it might have been, but it was still Bush's decision.
Not many people will remember this, but after Hussein invaded and took over Kuwait, Bush sent troops in to liberate Kuwait, to drive Hussein back into Iraq. The Democrats opposed the move, criticizing Bush and the military operation big time for doing it. The American people, however, rallied around the troops and greatly supported the move. WEEKS after that war started Democrats in the house voted to AMMEND Congress' historical record (cook the books) to show that they had supported it from the start. (CNN reported it at the time) The Libs didn't want the next election coming up and have on the record that they had been against this highly popular move to liberate Kuwait. That's both funny and PATHETIC as hell....
Liberals always want to be on the 'winning' side. If it turns out what they supported ends badly they will insist they were never 'for' it but instead 'went reluctantly along'. If it's something they opposed from the start but ends well, they will claim they were for it from the start. When this is pointed out they will deny the hell out of it. They shouldn't....it's not a totally 'liberal' thing. It's a 'career politician' thing....and their ranks are full of them, too - just as the GOP is. So, 'embrace the suck', boys and girls. No one has the right to attempt to take the 'moral high ground' in this or many other cases.
Actually there were no lies. That is a fabrication of the Left.Go back and read the comments by the Democrats before casting their votes. THEY - some of the same big Liberal politicians we have today, a former President, and key Democrats - MADE THE CASE for going to war, CALLED FOR going to war, and insisted Hussein had to be overthrown. It wasn't just a vote to go to war if necessary - some of the Democrats made the case from the floor of Congress on why we HAD to. So don't try to minimalize the Democratic party's role in the decision to go to war. Don't make excuses and try to make it sound like going to war was not what they signed up for. They did!Once the Congress threw the decision into Bush's lap they then would support Bush's decision whatever it might have been, but it was still Bush's decision.
Not many people will remember this, but after Hussein invaded and took over Kuwait, Bush sent troops in to liberate Kuwait, to drive Hussein back into Iraq. The Democrats opposed the move, criticizing Bush and the military operation big time for doing it. The American people, however, rallied around the troops and greatly supported the move. WEEKS after that war started Democrats in the house voted to AMMEND Congress' historical record (cook the books) to show that they had supported it from the start. (CNN reported it at the time) The Libs didn't want the next election coming up and have on the record that they had been against this highly popular move to liberate Kuwait. That's both funny and PATHETIC as hell....
Liberals always want to be on the 'winning' side. If it turns out what they supported ends badly they will insist they were never 'for' it but instead 'went reluctantly along'. If it's something they opposed from the start but ends well, they will claim they were for it from the start. When this is pointed out they will deny the hell out of it. They shouldn't....it's not a totally 'liberal' thing. It's a 'career politician' thing....and their ranks are full of them, too - just as the GOP is. So, 'embrace the suck', boys and girls. No one has the right to attempt to take the 'moral high ground' in this or many other cases.
Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, et al lied. No amount of this and that will ever repair the damage done by the G.W. Bush Administration until the last money is spent providing the last care to the last surviving veteran of this war of choice.
Sucks to be a liberal. He's Al Gore, looking thin, savaging Bush for not doing enough on Saddam.Read the authorization.Go back and read the comments by the Democrats before casting their votes. THEY - some of the same big Liberal politicians we have today, a former President, and key Democrats - MADE THE CASE for going to war, CALLED FOR going to war, and insisted Hussein had to be overthrown. It wasn't just a vote to go to war if necessary - some of the Democrats made the case from the floor of Congress on why we HAD to. So don't try to minimalize the Democratic party's role in the decision to go to war. Don't make excuses and try to make it sound like going to war was not what they signed up for. They did!Once the Congress threw the decision into Bush's lap they then would support Bush's decision whatever it might have been, but it was still Bush's decision.
Not many people will remember this, but after Hussein invaded and took over Kuwait, Bush sent troops in to liberate Kuwait, to drive Hussein back into Iraq. The Democrats opposed the move, criticizing Bush and the military operation big time for doing it. The American people, however, rallied around the troops and greatly supported the move. WEEKS after that war started Democrats in the house voted to AMMEND Congress' historical record (cook the books) to show that they had supported it from the start. (CNN reported it at the time) The Libs didn't want the next election coming up and have on the record that they had been against this highly popular move to liberate Kuwait. That's both funny and PATHETIC as hell....
Liberals always want to be on the 'winning' side. If it turns out what they supported ends badly they will insist they were never 'for' it but instead 'went reluctantly along'. If it's something they opposed from the start but ends well, they will claim they were for it from the start. When this is pointed out they will deny the hell out of it. They shouldn't....it's not a totally 'liberal' thing. It's a 'career politician' thing....and their ranks are full of them, too - just as the GOP is. So, 'embrace the suck', boys and girls. No one has the right to attempt to take the 'moral high ground' in this or many other cases.
but they are all military correct? They all follow the same military rules right?what was dishonest? peer is peer, unless you have a different way to say that. Then it is you being confused.
So, assuming you were an enlisted man, how many times did you go to the officer's club and drink with the O-6? Conversely, if you were an officer, how many times did you drink in the EM Club?
Peers are equals, I served and knew the difference between the E-level and the O-level on day one, I was not an equal in the mess, in the rack and when I visited officer's country.
Wry Catcher is just blowing smoke to confuse the issue. Then again he may just be stupid. Nothing in the UCMJ says anything about a jury of their peers. The makeup of a military Court Martial is very specific in the code. One requirement is that all members must be of a higher rank than the accused.
You might want to read the posts above. It was not me who stated he would be judged by a jury of his peers. It was Easyt65.
If you say so, but why did you go on the rant to point out that enlisted and Officers are not peers?
but they are all military correct? They all follow the same military rules right?So, assuming you were an enlisted man, how many times did you go to the officer's club and drink with the O-6? Conversely, if you were an officer, how many times did you drink in the EM Club?
Peers are equals, I served and knew the difference between the E-level and the O-level on day one, I was not an equal in the mess, in the rack and when I visited officer's country.
Wry Catcher is just blowing smoke to confuse the issue. Then again he may just be stupid. Nothing in the UCMJ says anything about a jury of their peers. The makeup of a military Court Martial is very specific in the code. One requirement is that all members must be of a higher rank than the accused.
You might want to read the posts above. It was not me who stated he would be judged by a jury of his peers. It was Easyt65.
If you say so, but why did you go on the rant to point out that enlisted and Officers are not peers?
Rant? Hardly, see:
Army updates reg defining inappropriate relationships | Article | The United States Army
but they are all military correct? They all follow the same military rules right?
Wry Catcher is just blowing smoke to confuse the issue. Then again he may just be stupid. Nothing in the UCMJ says anything about a jury of their peers. The makeup of a military Court Martial is very specific in the code. One requirement is that all members must be of a higher rank than the accused.
You might want to read the posts above. It was not me who stated he would be judged by a jury of his peers. It was Easyt65.
If you say so, but why did you go on the rant to point out that enlisted and Officers are not peers?
Rant? Hardly, see:
Army updates reg defining inappropriate relationships | Article | The United States Army
The link has absolutely nothing to do with a Court Martial. Merely another deflection from the deserter Bergdahl.
No doubt that Bergdahl was not the Obama's administrations best moment BUTCOURT-MARTIAL FOR BERGDAHL
Army charges desertion, endangering unit by going AWOL in Afghanistan
LINK: Charges against Bergdahl referred to trial by court-martial | Fox News
Decorated / Celebrated Obama Hero Charged With Desertion, Endangering Unit, AWOL....
Get the 'political spin' and 'excuse-making' machines turned on and runnin', boys!
Yes, well, you don't describe them as "having served with honor and distinction" after they nut out and desert. It sort of negates the positive service.Bergdahl may well have served with honor and distinction prior to his desertion. A number of people have served with honor and distinction, only to go off the deep end a bit later. War does not have nice effects on the psyches of human beings.
I'm sorry. That gets more retarded every time I read it.Bergdahl may well have served with honor and distinction prior to his desertion. A number of people have served with honor and distinction, only to go off the deep end a bit later. War does not have nice effects on the psyches of human beings.
No doubt that Bergdahl was not the Obama's administrations best moment BUTCOURT-MARTIAL FOR BERGDAHL
Army charges desertion, endangering unit by going AWOL in Afghanistan
LINK: Charges against Bergdahl referred to trial by court-martial | Fox News
Decorated / Celebrated Obama Hero Charged With Desertion, Endangering Unit, AWOL....
Get the 'political spin' and 'excuse-making' machines turned on and runnin', boys!
Do you leave any US military member in the enemy's hands; no absolutely not.
Second what we gave up to get Bergdahl home was getting rid of a problem. We sent 5 detainees from Guantanamo who were in limbo. They were bad guys but we did not have enough information to prosecute.
Why Obama marched Bergdahl's parents; father in particular, left me scratching my head.
