Mission...? Accomplished...?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Bullypulpit, May 1, 2007.

  1. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    In the four years since Bush stood on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared, "Mission accomplished...", one can only wonder at just what the mission was.

    If the mission was to remove the threat of Saddam Hussein's WMD's, that mission was accomplished before the first bomb was dropped. Turned out that there weren't any WMD's to begin with. So why did Bush invade Iraq?

    If the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein, our troops did a great job, and Saddam has since been captured, tried in a drum-head court and messily executed. So why are our troops still there?

    If the mission was to establish a democratically elected government, well gosh, that's been accomplished, Bush said so in the summer of '06. So why are our troops still there?

    The mission is no longer defined in any terms other than some ill defined "progress". Never enough to justify bring our troops home, and just enough to justify keeping them on the ground in Iraq. This half-baked Orwellian gig continues to drag on.

    In vetoing the emergency supplemental because he refused to accept a time line for withdrawing US troops from Iraq, Bush has basically stated that our troops will never leave Iraq as long as he is president. He and Toto are about the only ones who think a military victory is still possible in Iraq. And with the dogged intransigence of the dry-drunk he is, he refuses to let reality intrude upon his fantasy. As a result, our troops will continue to die in order to salve his ego. They will continue to be maimed and crippled in order to buffer him from reality. How many more must be killed and crippled just to salve this man we call "Mr. President", this sniveling little mediocrity's shrunken, twisted and deformed ego?
     
  2. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770

    If I was Bush, I wouldn't let Democrats dictate my actions by tying riders onto funding bills. That's BS.

    Maybe he should re-invent the line-item veto? The one that worked so well for Clinton and THEN was declared unconstitutional after he was done with it?

    Face it bully, no one is going to buy your theory so long as the Dem's agenda in regard to the funding bill is so transparent.
     
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    The line item veto is something the Republican congress should have addressed, to make it constitutional, but they didn't. Shame on them.
     
  4. GeeWhiz
    Offline

    GeeWhiz Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    166
    Thanks Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +24
    And meanwhile Mr No Timeline aka Bush back in 1999 was Mr Flip

    http://thinkprogress.org/bush-in-1999/

    The above is a Bush quote when he was a runner up to the 2000 election. Now Mr Flip has become Mr. Flop.

    Hey Floppy why don't you practice what you preach.
     
  5. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    I was actually only half-serious. I'd rather Bush do without to keep the next Dem from getting it.

    What I'd REALLY like to see is a law enacted that makes all proposed legislation stand alone. Let's put these riders and "pork" bills under the daylight where EVERYONE can see them instead of hiding them in more important issues.
     
  6. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    You don't know that he doesn't have a timeline. The fact he has not disclosed one, or has not made Dems privvy to one is just good common sense to me.
     
  7. GeeWhiz
    Offline

    GeeWhiz Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    166
    Thanks Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +24
    Oh is that it he's got a secret he won't tell and I'll bet you one of his secrets is that Injun Joe is ticklish.

    And did you notice this line from Mr Flop look at the bold:

    So when is Mr Flop going to do some explaining it's really important at least according to him it was?
     
  8. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    I don't know that he does nor doesn't. Point is YOU are the one saying he doesn't when you don't know either.

    From a purely tactical standpoint, announcing the day you intend to leave the field to your opponent is just about as stupid as anyone can get, and I think the Dems are stupid for trying to do it.
     
  9. GeeWhiz
    Offline

    GeeWhiz Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    166
    Thanks Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +24
    It's been all over the news that Bush will not accept a timeline all you have to do is Google and you come up with a lot of links stating that he is against a timeline.

    Gunny I don't think your post trying bale Bush out of his flip flop will work it's a fact he said this in 1999

    And it's a fact that he is not living up to the words he spoke back in 1999.
     
  10. Alucard
    Offline

    Alucard VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    663
    Thanks Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +62
    I cant believe this has not been addresses on this site by now, But the "Mission Accopmplished" banner hanging on the ship was refering to that paticular ships mission for the initial attack... NOT THE WAR!.
    The Liberal press and youself (unknowingly I'm sure) have since taken it out of context to the point where it is now hurting our troops and inspiring the insurgents... Who's side are they (Our Press) on?

    No WMD's?????

    I happen to be personnal friends with a Russian Doctor living in the states that insists he was on a submarine that docked in Syria and was loaded with WMD's removed from Iraq just before the invaision. Some of the crew were infected from mishandling ... That is how he was made aware of the cargo... He has nothing to gain by lying...

    Food for thought anyway.
     

Share This Page