Another episode of "Thank You President Bush!"

[Bullypulpit]

IN a speech before the American Enterprise Institute on Thursday, Chimpy McPresident stated:

<blockquote>For NATO to succeed, allies must make sure that we fill the security gaps. In other words, when there is a need, when our commanders on the ground say to our respective countries, we need additional help, our NATO countries must provide it in order to be successful in this mission.</blockquote>

We've all known, for some time now, that Chimpy and his Administration is irony deficient, or they would have recognized the irony in chiding NATO over its role in Afghanistan. And more than a few NATO members fail to share the Bush administration's messianic view of the "war on terror".

Then too, here are a few starkly simple facts. The Bush administration failed to capture Osama bin Laden when he was bottled up in Torah Borah, they failed to excise the twin cancers of the Taliban and Al Qaeda when they were scattered and on the run in Afghanistan. Instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan, the Bush administration decided to go haring off into Iraq under the flimsiest of pretexts. Is it any wonder then that NATO members view his calls for a greater commitment of NATO forces to Afghanistan with a jaundiced eye? It was, after all, Chimpy and Co. who left the job unfinished in Afghanistan, where war-lords and drug-lords now rule the country side and the Taliban and Al Qaeda are now returning to enforce their particular ecumenism of the sword.

Having already strained the goodwill of many of our allies, Chimpy merely adds insult to injury with his admonishments to our NATO allies, and strains the very meaning of the treaty. If allowed to continue on his present course, America will soon find herself isolated and alone. And that is no longer an option...for any nation.

Thank you, President Bush.

 

[Annie]

IN a speech before the American Enterprise Institute on Thursday, Chimpy McPresident stated:

<blockquote>For NATO to succeed, allies must make sure that we fill the security gaps. In other words, when there is a need, when our commanders on the ground say to our respective countries, we need additional help, our NATO countries must provide it in order to be successful in this mission.</blockquote>

We've all known, for some time now, that Chimpy and his Administration is irony deficient, or they would have recognized the irony in chiding NATO over its role in Afghanistan. And more than a few NATO members fail to share the Bush administration's messianic view of the "war on terror".

Then too, here are a few starkly simple facts. The Bush administration failed to capture Osama bin Laden when he was bottled up in Torah Borah, they failed to excise the twin cancers of the Taliban and Al Qaeda when they were scattered and on the run in Afghanistan. Instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan, the Bush administration decided to go haring off into Iraq under the flimsiest of pretexts. Is it any wonder then that NATO members view his calls for a greater commitment of NATO forces to Afghanistan with a jaundiced eye? It was, after all, Chimpy and Co. who left the job unfinished in Afghanistan, where war-lords and drug-lords now rule the country side and the Taliban and Al Qaeda are now returning to enforce their particular ecumenism of the sword.

Having already strained the goodwill of many of our allies, Chimpy merely adds insult to injury with his admonishments to our NATO allies, and strains the very meaning of the treaty. If allowed to continue on his present course, America will soon find herself isolated and alone. And that is no longer an option...for any nation.

Thank you, President Bush.

Ok, time to pull our troops out of Afghanistan, let France handle it.

 

[roadhouse158]

I love how when people try to bash the Military, they say the Bush Administration. The Bush Adm...Failed to capture Osama....Um....I didn't know that Bush, Cheney, Powell, or Rice was over there tracking him. Of course you know this. You just don't want to sound too much like an asshole. I would love for some of you to go to the CEO of the company you work for and complain about a customer or something. They will look at you like your an idiot; as you would be. Blaming the Administration for everything that certain people do is beyond idiotic. A lot of these positions are held by people that would be there regardless of who was President. Remember that "The Administration" is only in charge. They are not actually involved in day to day opertations. Damn Clinton for the USS Cole, the first WTC bombings. If one man was that much in the know...We would probably all be in jail. Idiots!

 

[Annie]

I love how when people try to bash the Military, they say the Bush Administration. The Bush Adm...Failed to capture Osama....Um....I didn't know that Bush, Cheney, Powell, or Rice was over there tracking him. Of course you know this. You just don't want to sound too much like an asshole. I would love for some of you to go to the CEO of the company you work for and complain about a customer or something. They will look at you like your an idiot; as you would be. Blaming the Administration for everything that certain people do is beyond idiotic. A lot of these positions are held by people that would be there regardless of who was President. Remember that "The Administration" is only in charge. They are not actually involved in day to day opertations. Damn Clinton for the USS Cole, the first WTC bombings. If one man was that much in the know...We would probably all be in jail. Idiots!

The administration must live with the choices they did make, such as the level of troops, when they sent them, what they sent with them, what they had to send later, etc. Mistakes, big ones were made. However, the reasons for the war were good, still are. What happens from now on, well looks like Congress is going to be a serious party to.

 

[roadhouse158]

I agree...I know mistakes were made. I don't in any way intend to imply that every decision has been good. It will never be that way. I just get sick of all the dumb immature crap people throw around. When people do that you just know they are obsessed with hating someone. It's truly a disease. Accountibility is something that is really lacking in the Government. Not everything is the Executives fault. I think this is what wears on me the most. Not the real issues like too few troops being sent to war. That was obvious. BUt then you have all this other pointless crap that comes out. Just very frustrating.

 

[Annie]

I agree...I know mistakes were made. I don't in any way intend to imply that every decision has been good. It will never be that way. I just get sick of all the dumb immature crap people throw around. When people do that you just know they are obsessed with hating someone. It's truly a disease. Accountibility is something that is really lacking in the Government. Not everything is the Executives fault. I think this is what wears on me the most. Not the real issues like too few troops being sent to war. That was obvious. BUt then you have all this other pointless crap that comes out. Just very frustrating.

Very frustrating. Mixing the mistakes with the cause is just wrong. But there has never been a war without politics. Those that say, 'If the politicians would just stay out of it,' have never paid attention...

 

[Bullypulpit]

I love how when people try to bash the Military, they say the Bush Administration. The Bush Adm...Failed to capture Osama....Um....I didn't know that Bush, Cheney, Powell, or Rice was over there tracking him. Of course you know this. You just don't want to sound too much like an asshole. I would love for some of you to go to the CEO of the company you work for and complain about a customer or something. They will look at you like your an idiot; as you would be. Blaming the Administration for everything that certain people do is beyond idiotic. A lot of these positions are held by people that would be there regardless of who was President. Remember that "The Administration" is only in charge. They are not actually involved in day to day opertations. Damn Clinton for the USS Cole, the first WTC bombings. If one man was that much in the know...We would probably all be in jail. Idiots!

Being a veteran, bashing the military is the last thing on my mind. Having friends and family serving in Iraq give me a very real interest in what happens to our troops on the ground. So just stow the "troop basher" bullshit.

Every step that has led us to our current straights has been the direct result of Chimpy and Co's misguided, messianic, manichean policies with regard to keeping terrorism in check and America's place in the Middle-East.

And stop trying to drag Goat-boy into it. Clinton is ancient history, Chimpy and Co have been running the military into the ground for the last four years, and Rummy's feeble-minded efforts at micro-managing the events in Afghanistan and Iraq finally got his senile ass fired. Not that his replacement is looking any better.

 

[trobinett]

Being a veteran, bashing the military is the last thing on my mind. Having friends and family serving in Iraq give me a very real interest in what happens to our troops on the ground.

The thing that "stirs the pot" for me is the whining, constant, and never ending.

To listen to some, you would think That the current administration started out with failure as its objective.

Choices people, President Bush was elected by a free people, us. The WOT is a necessary action, and there will be death, and destruction, as there is in ANY war.

Support for our duly elected officials is NOT asking too much, and besides, the constant bitching, and "in fighting" just puts our operations at greater risk, and therefor our troops. ANY veteran knows that.

Every step that has led us to our current straights has been the direct result of Chimpy and Co's misguided, messianic, manichean policies with regard to keeping terrorism in check and America's place in the Middle-East.

Bully, you do realize, that we are WINNING the WOT right? So, I would suggest, that YOUR statement is the misguided one, and that the policies of the current administration have been working.

Leading a nation in war is a "work in progress", its a constant, and changing environment. Commanders come, and go, thats a GOOD thing Bully, it shows, that the COMMANDER AND CHIEF is paying attention, and is willing to make changes, changes that protect our interests, and keeps the terrorist on the run. Think about it, intellectually, NOT emotionally.

And stop trying to drag Goat-boy into it. Clinton is ancient history, Chimpy and Co have been running the military into the ground for the last four years, and Rummy's feeble-minded efforts at micro-managing the events in Afghanistan and Iraq finally got his senile ass fired. Not that his replacement is looking any better.

Excuse me! The legacy of Clinton is quite important, for it was HIS administration that left the military in such dire straights.

I disagree with your assessment of President Bush, and his Cabinet "running the military into the ground". I feel that just the opposite has occurred under his tenure.

As to Sec. of Defence Romney's efforts on the WOT, I think he did a good job, considering the "micro-managing" going on in the congress during the war, and that is still going on. Additionally, I find the behavior of the media in this country to be next to treacherous, and their efforts on behalf of our enemies should be a national priority.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The thing that "stirs the pot" for me is the whining, constant, and never ending.

What pisses me off is the right wings branding of anyone having the temerity to question, not just the Bush administration's policies, but its basic competence as "anti-American", "troop-hating", "unpatriotic" surrender-monkeys. That is utter bullshit and you know it. It's nothing more than a cheap agit-prop tactic to smear opposition and quell dissent. The truly sad thing is that, despite the claims of patriotism and love of country you and your fellow travelers mouth, you fall for it.

To listen to some, you would think That the current administration started out with failure as its objective.

No, just a state of conflict by which the Administration can use to justify its ongoing efforts at undermining the Constitution.

Choices people, President Bush was elected by a free people, us. The WOT is a necessary action, and there will be death, and destruction, as there is in ANY war.

True enough, but the war in Iraq was a war of choice, failing to meet even the minimum standards for a just war. As such, the deaths of our troops and civilians resulting from the invasion and occupation of Iraq were unnecessary. The word criminal also springs to mind.

Support for our duly elected officials is NOT asking too much, and besides, the constant bitching, and "in fighting" just puts our operations at greater risk, and therefor our troops. ANY veteran knows that.

Questioning the leadership of our duly elected officials is the responsibility of every American when the policies they pursue needlessly put the lives of our troops at risk. Our blood and treasure should never be spent in vain.

Bully, you do realize, that we are WINNING the WOT right? So, I would suggest, that YOUR statement is the misguided one, and that the policies of the current administration have been working.

Would you care to provide supporting evidence to back up that statement? Or are you simply regurgitating the talking points of the right wing noise machine?

Leading a nation in war is a "work in progress", its a constant, and changing environment. Commanders come, and go, thats a GOOD thing Bully, it shows, that the COMMANDER AND CHIEF is paying attention, and is willing to make changes, changes that protect our interests, and keeps the terrorist on the run. Think about it, intellectually, NOT emotionally.

Unfortunately, Chimpy ain't so much doing anything to protect our interests. He's not making any changes that make a difference on the ground. His current "surge" has been tried three times before, notable for their lack of success. TO continue to follow the same course of action over and over again with the expectation of a different outcome is insanity. And "leading" implies a clearly stated objective and the means to achieve that objective. The only thing Chimpy has presented us with is "stay the course". Sadly, the course which the captain of this ship of state is following is about to run the ship aground.

Excuse me! The legacy of Clinton is quite important, for it was HIS administration that left the military in such dire straights.

I disagree with your assessment of President Bush, and his Cabinet "running the military into the ground". I feel that just the opposite has occurred under his tenure.

Given that the readiness of our troops is at an very nearly an all-time low, as noted in an August 2006 report to Congress by William J. Perry, Chairman of National Security Advisory Group...

<blockquote> * Two thirds of the Army's operating force, active and reserve, is now reporting in as unready.
* There is not a single non-deployed Army Brigade Combat Team in the United States that is ready to deploy.</blockquote>

I don't think you can pin that on Goat-boy. That's all Chimpy's doing. But you just keep on wearing those rose-colored glasses and drinking that right wing kool-aid. Don't let reality get in the way of your delusions.

 

[red states rule]

What pisses me off is the right wings branding of anyone having the temerity to question, not just the Bush administration's policies, but its basic competence as "anti-American", "troop-hating", "unpatriotic" surrender-monkeys. That is utter bullshit and you know it. It's nothing more than a cheap agit-prop tactic to smear opposition and quell dissent. The truly sad thing is that, despite the claims of patriotism and love of country you and your fellow travelers mouth, you fall for it.



No, just a state of conflict by which the Administration can use to justify undermining the Constitution.



True enough, but the war in Iraq was a war of choice, failing to meet even the minimum standards for a just war. As such, the deaths of our troops and civilians resulting from the invasion and occupation of Iraq were unnecessary. The word criminal also springs to mind.



Questioning the leadership of our duly elected officials is the responsibility of every American when the policies they pursue needlessly put the lives of our troops at risk. Our blood and treasure should never be spent in vain.



Would you care to provide supporting evidence to back up that statement? Or are you simply regurgitating the talking points of the right wing noise machine?



Unfortunately, Chimpy ain't so much doing anything to protect our interests. He's not making any changes that make a difference on the ground. His current "surge" has been tried three times before, notable for their lack of success. TO continue to follow the same course of action over and over again with the expectation of a different outcome is insanity.



Given that the readiness of our troops is at an very nearly an all-time low, as noted in an August 2006 report to Congress by William J. Perry, Chairman of National Security Advisory Group...

<blockquote> * Two thirds of the Army's operating force, active and reserve, is now reporting in as unready.
* There is not a single non-deployed Army Brigade Combat Team in the United States that is ready to deploy.</blockquote>

I don't think you can pin that on Goat-boy. That's all Chimpy's doing. But you just keep on wearing those rose-colored glasses and drinking that right wing kool-aid.

Lest see....

John "I served in Viet Nam" calls our troops uneducated and says they are terrorists

Ted Kennedy says the are operating torture chambers

Dick Durbin compares them to Nazi's and Pol Pot

Peace niks at a Pro Terrorist rally spits at a crippled Iraq war vet

A NBC News employee William Arkin (a self admitted lib) called the troops MERCENARIES

The left is constantly showing how they feel about the US military. When called on it, libs act insulted and whine how they are the victims

 

[red states rule]

Some of the troops did respond to John "I served in Viet Nam" Kerrys insulting comment about them not being educated

 

[red states rule]

Being a veteran, bashing the military is the last thing on my mind. Having friends and family serving in Iraq give me a very real interest in what happens to our troops on the ground. So just stow the "troop basher" bullshit.

Every step that has led us to our current straights has been the direct result of Chimpy and Co's misguided, messianic, manichean policies with regard to keeping terrorism in check and America's place in the Middle-East.

And stop trying to drag Goat-boy into it. Clinton is ancient history, Chimpy and Co have been running the military into the ground for the last four years, and Rummy's feeble-minded efforts at micro-managing the events in Afghanistan and Iraq finally got his senile ass fired. Not that his replacement is looking any better.

The party of defeat

By Robert J. Caldwell
February 18, 2007

Democrats have struggled for a generation to escape the crippling public perception that they are soft on national security. Majority Democrats in the House of Representatives have now revived their party's electoral curse.

The House vote Friday for a Democratic leadership resolution opposing President Bush's plan to reinforce U.S. troops in Iraq was lopsidedly partisan. Nearly all Democrats voted for it. All but a relative handful of Republicans voted against it.

Yes, it is a nonbinding resolution, meaning it has no force in law. Bush is free to ignore it, as he already has said he will. And, yes, it contained political cover language expressing support for American troops in Iraq. Thus, as virtually all Democrats proclaimed during the House's four days of debate on the resolution, Democrats can claim that they “support the troops.”

But House Democrats are now on record as formally opposing the troops' mission – a potentially decisive effort to stop the violence in Baghdad and defeat the Sunni insurgency in Anbar province.

It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of the entire American campaign in Iraq rides on this mission, and on the parallel effort to prompt political reconciliation among Iraqi factions. Unless U.S. and Iraqi forces can at least greatly diminish the terrorist carnage convulsing Iraq's capital city, the paramount U.S. objective of creating a stable, democratic Iraq won't be achieved. The complementary struggle in Anbar province is equally decisive. Defeating the Sunni insurgents and their allies, the terrorists of al-Qaeda in Iraq, is vital to the hopes of stabilizing Iraq sufficiently to permit American forces to begin withdrawing.

The Democrats' passage of a nonbinding resolution opposing the troop reinforcements that Bush and his Iraq commander, Army Gen. David Petraeus, say are essential to American success is damaging enough. If Democrats now use their power over appropriations to defeat the troop surge before it can be fully implemented, the political risk to Democrats will be greatly compounded.

Starkly put, Democrats risk making “Bush's war” their war, and then losing it.

If you think Democrats wouldn't be that foolish or reckless, think again.

Rep. John Murtha, the blustery Pennsylvania pol and anti-war ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is already pledging to use his power as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's appropriations subcommittee on defense to stop the surge by restricting the deployment and funding of U.S. forces.

Here's what Murtha said in an interview Thursday with the MoveCongress.org Web site, which represents a coalition of anti-war groups:

“They (the troops) won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work. There's no question in my mind ... we're going to stop this surge.”

Does Pelosi, smarter and smoother than Murtha, agree?

“I fully support that,” Pelosi said of Murtha's remarks.

What's building, then, is not only a political crisis for the Democratic Party but a constitutional clash over the president's, any president's, express powers as commander in chief of America's armed forces.

The Constitution wisely vests the power to command the armed forces in the president, not Congress. That's especially true in time of war. If Bush decides that sending another 21,500 troops to Iraq is necessary, that's his call under the Constitution. Congress' constitutional authority lies in deciding how much to appropriate for the military. Deputizing 435 House members and 100 senators as armchair generals to micromanage the movement of troops and the military conduct of a war isn't in the Constitution for a reason. It couldn't possibly work and would be folly to attempt.

But that, apparently, is what Pelosi, Murtha and the House Democratic leadership intend. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, scrambling Friday to push a comparable resolution in the Senate, seems to be similarly misguided.

Have the Democrats learned nothing from history?

In 1973, a heavily Democratic Congress voted to prohibit U.S. air support for Cambodia's pro-American army, then desperately fending off the communist Khmer Rouge insurgents. In early 1975, Congress cut off all U.S. military aid for Cambodia.

Predictably, Cambodian government forces were soon defeated by the Khmer Rouge, then backed by Communist China and North Vietnam.

What followed was one of the great horrors of the 20th century – the genocidal slaughter by the Khmer Rouge of 2 million Cambodians, roughly 40 percent of Cambodia's population.

In 1974-75, an even more heavily Democratic Congress drastically cut U.S. military and economic assistance to our ally South Vietnam, even as the Soviet Union was illegally flooding North Vietnam with heavy weapons. The subsequent North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam overran our ally, took Saigon, and promptly imposed a Stalinist dictatorship that resulted in the deaths and imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese.

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group, constantly, but selectively, invoked by Democrats last week as a blueprint for a phased U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, also lent support to a “temporary surge” in U.S. forces if deemed necessary. In addition, the ISG report warned ominously of the dire consequences – Iraq as a failed, terrorist state, a destabilized Middle East, and spreading regional conflict – of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq that many Democrats favor.

If Pelosi, Murtha and Reid succeed in crippling the U.S. military effort in Iraq, and thereby contribute to defeat and disaster, Democrats would spend another generation rightly deemed weak and feckless on national security.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caldwell is editor of the Insight section and can be reached via e-mail at [email protected]
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070218/news_lz1e18caldwel.html