Also, all reports SO FAR are that the surge is working. Let’s give it a chance to work.

Stabbing them in the back refers to attempts to hurt them thru funding cuts for political gain, and pursuing a course of certain defeat for same. The same Dems who voted for this war now want to humiliate the military and the country in an effort to gain votes. The absolute last thing they want is a peaceful solution in Iraq. There has to date not been a single leading Dem who has stood up for this.

The people got Bush’s attention in the last election, after which he fired Rummy and initiated the surge. There is no need for the Dems to politicize this further except in their greed to win back the WH in 2008 (which might not be a bad thing, just a bad way to do it). This should sicken any American that they are conspicuously trying to cause defeat. Think about what would happen over there if we did pull out. Look at what happened in Cambodia after we pulled out of Vietnam. And Jimmy Carter didn’t give a shit as 3 million were slaughtered by Pol Pot.

In response to your saying W isn’t rational, I see you point but I put it this way: He’s too rigid-thinking and religious. Religious people never impress me. Our war effort needs a lot of serious fine-tuning. Maybe he’s starting to do that, we’ll see.

As for those bloggers, they are just morons. Speaking of which, did I chase off atlmal?
Even when it’s something I don’t approve of, I always respect the power of the veto! It’s very cool (and sound practice) to put Congress in check and say “if this is really right then get the votes to prove it.”

According to the “checks and balances” you were talking about a day or two ago, he is well within his Constitutional right to veto anything he sees fit.

Agreed. But one man should not run the country. He should listen to what congress is saying, rather than continue his willful ignorance.

That way we can truly find out if the bill they pass actually represents us, the people you speak of, or if it is just a false echo of an election where one side won through exploitation, defamation, and borderline treason.

Whoa. I don’t even know where you got this. I can’t even begin to address claims this wildly off the wall.

But what is way out of line is being stabbed in the back by funding cuts and political maneuvering that helps the enemy. Look at al qaeda’s own words–they want to win by political decisions forcing us to leave. Do you think the left is helping them accomplish their goals?

By saying that the proposed change in funding is a “stab in the back” is kind of off kilter. According to what you are suggesting, then we have been stabbing them in the front the entire time we have been at war. As for what Al Qaeda wants, I don’t even think that is an issue. That is a strategy of deflecting attention away from the real issue, that we are occupying a country, and waging a war in which we do not have a clear idea of who should even win it. If we truly wanted Al Qaeda, we would go after them, rather than policing the streets of Baghdad.

Bush has made a TON of stupid mistakes and has been stubborn about rectifying them, but that does not excuse the left trying to politicize this. I think instead they ought to make sure this surge and Iraqi army training plan goes well.

The only way to get the president’s attention is to politicize this. As for this surge, if it is anything like the 4 or 5 other surges that we have done in the past, it will cause more sectarian violence and more death; something we should be trying to avoid. In essence, the president needs to see that this surge will not only be unsuccessful because of the same efforts in the past being unsuccessful, but because he isn’t listening to what the army commanders are saying either. Either they need way more troops than we have, or they want a pull out. Another surge isn’t going to solve anything.

It was Murtha’s stated intention to drain the military in just such a way to prevent them from being able to do their job.

Well, then apparently he has been doing this all along. They are currently without what they need by a long shot, and what we are talking about is proposed funding for the future. If things are bad now, ignoring that by stating that this funding will “make” them bad in the future, that is being willfully ignorant, which is what I am saying Bush needs to stop doing.

Instead a real man caves in to the other side?? I see him for the FIRST time really standing up for his beliefs. Even if you disagree with his policies you should at least respect this, no?

Are you talking about Osama? Um, Bush doesn’t spend much time thinking about him, remember? LOL But seriously, I don’t see him as much of a man either. The point I am trying to make, is that a real man, a man of integrity, should also possess the ability to be rational. Bush doesn’t not exhibit this quality, and it is frightening to me. He isn’t standing up for his beliefs as much as he is pouting about a decision that conflicts with what he wants. The point, is that this isn’t about what HE wants, it is about what is BEST for our country and our troops. That is something that he should be able to see by now.

What are they saying? I honestly haven’t heard anything about him or his wife other than Coulter’s faggot comment.

They are doing their usual, saying things like he gave his wife cancer for the sympathy vote, or that he is using this information to garner votes. That is just despicable in my opinion. Other bloggers are blogging it too. I personally think anyone that says anything disparaging to someone who has terminal cancer is heartless and awful. That’s just my take on it.

Finally, Bugboy, the whole point of this post was not only point out the way in which Bush makes sure to get what he wants by threatening veto, but it is an urgent cry for him to listen to what the country wants, rather than just what he wants. Changes have got to be made, and if he continues this, “I’ll veto it” shit, then nothing is going to change, and more people are going to die. That cannot be allowed to continue, especially when the American public has made it clear that we are not with him on his decisions. If the president is making decisions that are not good for the country, and are not representative of the people of the USA, then he needs to listen to us, and make changes accordingly. What’s good for the country cannot, and should not, be decided by one man and his advisers.

According to the “checks and balances” you were talking about a day or two ago, he is well within his Constitutional right to veto anything he sees fit. In order to override this veto they will have to have a super-majority of votes. That way we can truly find out if the bill they pass actually represents us, the people you speak of, or if it is just a false echo of an election where one side won through exploitation, defamation, and borderline treason.

The POTUS does have the right to make a lot of decisions, but not “all” of them as you correctly say (nice). Executive orders and temporary appointments are two such examples. A lot of neo-rights got pissed in the 90s b/c they felt Clinton’s EO’s were subverting Congress, so what goes around comes around and each side has to deal with it.

“Congress and the Senate were also elected BY US, and they represent us”

As a (nice) side note here, originally the House was to represent the people and the Senate represent the States (hence “federalism”…A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units). Senators were originally elected by the state assemblies, but that was unfortunately changed.

“So, Mr. Bush, can you please explain to me how their lives haven’t faced significant disruptions up until now? How is this any different?”

Being deployed is a known “disruption”, as you say, but it is part of the job of the all (ALL) volunteer army. But what is way out of line is being stabbed in the back by funding cuts and political maneuvering that helps the enemy. Look at al qaeda’s own words–they want to win by political decisions forcing us to leave. Do you think the left is helping them accomplish their goals?

Bush has made a TON of stupid mistakes and has been stubborn about rectifying them, but that does not excuse the left trying to politicize this. I think instead they ought to make sure this surge and Iraqi army training plan goes well. That is the pivotal issue that can result in a win-win for both sides of the aisle. Otherwise we need to leave as you say (nice).

“Additionally, Bush said that he was worried that this spending bill would deflect funds away from providing the troops with the supplies that they need.”

It was Murtha’s stated intention to drain the military in just such a way to prevent them from being able to do their job.

“A real man doesn’t pout when he doesn’t get his way,”

Instead a real man caves in to the other side?? I see him for the FIRST time really standing up for his beliefs. Even if you disagree with his policies you should at least respect this, no?

“Also, for anyone of the Republicans and conservatives that are saying the most awful and slanderous things about Edwards and his wife”

What are they saying? I honestly haven’t heard anything about him or his wife other than Coulter’s faggot comment.

But you are right, medical issues should be off topic for politics, such as left-wing fodder about Reagan’s alzheimers or Bob Dole’s impotence or Dick Cheney’s heart problems (and hateful words saying he should die, etc).

Right-tard Xtians can be very mean-spirited people. Left-tards too.