Comments on: Kennedy: No Funds For More Troops

Democrat Proposes Bill To Deny Bush Money For Sending Additional Troops To Iraq

[randalds]

WWII, were still in Germany and Japan
Korea, were still in South Korea
Bosnia, were still in Bosnia
Kosovo, were still in Kosovo
Hati, were still in Hati

All these conflicts started under Liberal Leadership and had absolutely no plan on getting out.
Posted by hillaryin08 at 09:39 AM : Jan 10, 2007

With the possible exception of Haiti, which was much more a humanitarian mission rather then a war, all of the wars on your list were forced upon us. The only two not on your list, Vietnam and Iraq, were both unnecessary wars of choice. It's an apples and oranges thing.

[randalds]

So stevex47, you think that President Bush is stupid because he does not pronounce the word nuclear to your liking. Then what are your thoughts on President Kennedy who also had trouble with that word as well as with Cuba?

Posted by Neocon04 at 10:33 AM : Jan 10, 2007

there are actually dozens of reasons to think Bush is an idiot that go well beyond his constant screw ups of the English language. Like that everything he's ever touched he's failed at. He screwed up his national guard service, he drove business after business into the ground and he hasn't done one single thing right since taking power in Washington D.C. He's not just an idiot, he's a dangerous one.

[drinuk]

Fartknocker2
Agree fully about old man Kennedy, he was American ambassador in Britian at the start of WW2 and fully supported the NAZI's telling the US not to get involved, Churchill soon sorted him and got him booted out, thank God.

[jdweymouth]

Part 2/2
Now, I will agree that the war against Sadam%u2019s government is over, but now we're engaged in the war against the terrorists he supported within his own country. We have legitimate bases in Iraq and congress can't stop the president from rotating troops there. We%u2019re there under act of congress.

The senator's statements prove quite emphatically that liberals are anti-American. By comparing Iraq to Vietnam, he's showing the world that America, once again, is willing to concede defeat. Our cave-men friends will love this. The way out is buy sending, not 20,000 troops, but 100,000. You should read 'Devils Guard', a book about an ex-Wafen SS German soldier, who joined the French Foreign Legion and fought in the French colonial war in Vietnam before we went in....The way he fought it-That's how we'll get out of Iraq. Not by violating the constitution.

In my opinion, Ed%u2019s the one lacking several things: loyalty for one.

[jdweymouth]

Part 1/2
The constitution states that the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. If congress makes it so that the president has to ask permission to rotate troops in a DECLARED war, than it's a constitutional violation, and therefore, President Bush has every moral right to veto it.

I'm guessing it wouldn't make the 2/3 percentage of the post-veto vote anyway. The democrats are only barely in majority, because they fell behind the national average for the mid-second term elections.

Only the president, by the way, can negotiate, or authorize others, to negotiate peace. The congress can't say "Well, it's different now." That would be called ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIOAL. No we only use those words in regard to our enemy's "civil rights" We hadn%u2019t made peace with the murderers in Iraq anyway, the last time I looked.


The House of Representatives controls the pocketbook, by the way, not the Senate.

Introducing this bill proves that he is only interested in "wielding power", because, if he does this, it will greatly reduce our war-making capacities, making us vulnerable, because guess what: war is a fact of life, and is sometimes necessary! -continued-

[ramos937]

The bill will pass mostly along party lines and then be vetoed by President Bush.

Suggestion: Publish the House/Senate members who voted for/againist this. Voters should take note for 2008.

New Suggestion: Someone sponsor a bill in both the House and Senate stating that the present conflict bears no "resemblence" to the original war authorization in 2003. Then make the continued conflict subject to a new authorization.

The names of the House/Senate members who vote againist these measures should be published as well as those who voted for them.

[neocon04]

Oh and by the way, right wing nut-jobs. When you throw out a candidate for pres. next time, make sure that person knows how to pronounce nuclear, not nuke u lur. Okay, can we agree on that? Thanks,

Posted by stevex47 at 04:31 PM : Jan 09, 2007

So stevex47, you think that President Bush is stupid because he does not pronounce the word nuclear to your liking. Then what are your thoughts on President Kennedy who also had trouble with that word as well as with Cuba?

[antoniof123]

I think we should never have gone and now we should get out before we are chased out.

[hillaryin08]

WWII, were still in Germany and Japan
Korea, were still in South Korea
Bosnia, were still in Bosnia
Kosovo, were still in Kosovo
Hati, were still in Hati

All these conflicts started under Liberal Leadership and had absolutely no plan on getting out.

[krskes22]

I does not matter if you are Republican or Democrate, the problems in Iraq will not be taken care of by political means. If the US pulls out of Iraq, Iran will invade and take advantage of an inexperienced military force. This will force Saudi Arabia to extend into Iraq to prevent this from happening. The turmoil would cause disruption in oil and Middle East peace. Democrates would blame Bush, if the US remains and the death toll continues the Democrates will blame Bush. He is in a no-win situation. I have yet to hear from the democrates on their ideas on how to solve the Iraq conflict. Nobody has come forward with the exception of Kennedy to say it must be dealt with politically. I believe that was the same result as Vietnam. Both sides are at fault and both will need to figure out how to end this conflict.