Who Really Supports the Troops?
Why Does Cowardly Bush Continues to Use Troops to Shield His Failed Policies?
The message sent by Bush in yesterdays Rose Garden press conference is that the Democratic Congress, voted in by the American people largely due to opposition to the Iraq occupation, should simply hand over whatever Mr. Bush wants simply because he demands it - maybe someone should remind him that the American people aren't down with kings.
It is indeed absurd for a US president to so arrogantly expect that the US Congress - a separate, and equal branch of government - should surrender its power to the executive branch - a very unpopular one at that. Furthermore, the logic Bush uses in expressing this position is equally absurd, as the White House has been framing the Democrat's Iraq supplemental spending bill as an undercutting of the troops, when in reality the Democratic lead congress has offered every penny, and more, of the money requested by Bush to prolong his disastrous and unpopular Iraq occupation. Therefore, when Bush vetoes the bill as he has promised, it is he who will be undercutting and postponing future funding for the Iraq occupation, not the Democrats who are simply expressing the peoples rightful demands through legislation - which is an entirely proper conduit in which to do so.
Most pathetic and damnable of all of Bush's accusations and insinuations, are the suggestions that the Democrats are somehow abandoning the troops on the ground in Iraq. This notion is false on many levels, and is a shameless attempt to use the troops to shield the Bush administrations failed policies. Bush and his Republican enablers would have us believe that due to the Democrats demands of accountability and dates for withdrawal, troops will literally have their rifles confiscated and rations ripped from their hands. This, of course, is pure, unadulterated nonsense. In fact, even if the emergency supplemental bill is held up after Bush's veto, funding will continue for operations in Iraq through other temporary sources within the Pentagon budget. Furthermore, even if it were true that troops themselves would suffer directly from this standoff, the blame would still fall on Bush for vetoing the funding bill passed by Congress, for no reason other than George W. Bush and his puppeteer Dick Cheney's belief that they should have absolute, unchecked power.
Unfortunately, however unfounded and false the Bush rhetoric may be, the attempt to reach out to the "support the troops" sentiments of the American people still holds weight and is precisely what muddies the waters in the debate over how best to exit the Iraq mess. However, the Bush and the Republicans are treading on thin ice when it comes to their accusations of troop abandonment. After all, it was Bush & co that lied about WMD and created the deadly scenario the troops find themselves in today; it is the Bush administration and their Republican Congress who are responsible for troops having been sent into battle with inadequate armor and training; it is Bush and the Republicans who have inadequately funded the Veterans Administration while thousands of disabled Iraq veterans continue to move into the system; it is White House policies that call for extended deployments in Iraq and too little time between tours; it is Bush who proudly calls himself Commander in Chief, but hasn't the decency to attend even one funeral for a fallen Iraq troop.
At this point, the only real way to support the troops is to exert the necessary pressure to bring them home, which means that the time for allowing the Bush White House to call the shots without opposition has long passed. The Democratic majority should not cease to exert their Constitutional authority in opposing the White House, and should use every means at their disposal - including completely cutting off funds - in order to do so. We have no more time or blood to sacrifice unto the self appointed throne of George W Bush.
Published by paul angelo
First Press Conference: President-Elect Barack Obama Meets the PressBarack Obama's first national press conference got off to a late start. Scheduled at 2:30 p.m. EST in Chicago, the conference actually began at 3 p.m. and lasted around 12 minut...
Bigfoot Press Conference: No DNA Samples of Georgia Bigfoot News of the Georgia Bigfoot find and the press conference to be held on August 15 burned up the internet for several days. With promises of DNA evidence and more pictures of th...- Opinions on the Press Conference with Alex RodriguezOne fan's opinion of what she learned during the Press Conference with Alex Rodriguez.
Balloon Boy Press Conference - Law Enforcement Played Along with Heene's...The Balloon Boy press conference- law enforcement played along with Heene's to gain their trust and it worked, Robert Thomas a friend of Richard Heene's reported that Heene scri...- Kurt Warner Press Conference on Friday Will Reveal Warner's NFL FutureIt looks like Kurt Warner has made up his mind about the 2010 NFL season, and he is hosting a press conference on Friday to tell whether his decision is to come back to Arizona or to retire from the NFL.
- The Iraq Occupation and John McCain
- Tiger Woods Press Conference - Somber, Apologetic, and Very Controlled Press Con...
- Porn Star Joslyn James and Gloria Allred Press Conference Video Here
- Golf Writers Association Boycotting Tiger Woods Press Conference
- White House Introduces Its Version of Monopoly: Iraq-opoly
- What Channel is the Tiger Woods Press Conference On?
- Tiger Woods Press Conference Friday - Apologies and Return to Golf News
14 Comments
Post a CommentMarquis--I can't believe you took the time to type such a moronic comment. I'll bet you didn't even read the article.
Yore a communiss!
Paul, some great points - and you use appropriate words to describe the rabbit hole that is the bush administration, absurd, arrogant, pathetic, damnable, unfounded - and those are not enough. Just when a person thinks he can't be more absurd, arrogant, pathetic, or damnable...that hope proves unfounded.
Point 9. I'll half agree with you here Greg--but it is hard to ignore how the White House seemingly takes the troops for granted, while virtually sacrificing nothing personally. In fact, one of the reasons Bush is so stubborn about not withdrawing, is that he is attempting to run out the clock and shift blame to the next president. That being said, who is playing politics.
Point 7. What you say may be true, but the Dems have just come to power and may have plans for better VA funding. But the fact remains that in previous years, which is what I was referring to(should have been more specific), the White House issued budget requests that fell short of necessary funding, and the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS appropriated that lack of funding. Point 8. C'mon Greg--I see what you are saying, but the fact remains that long deployments and sacrifices are having an impact on morale for many troops, and tell me what sacrifice Bush or Cheney or Rummy or Condi has had to make? Not to metion the fact that many Natl Gurad and Reservists have endured multiple deployments, which are untenable for part time troops when taking into caonsideration civilian jobs and other responsibilities.
Point 5. As I said in the article, the onus is on the president if he chooses to veto the bill, and he can't just make demands on the Congress through threats of veto. All I can say is that we will have to wait and see what happens, although it appears evident that the votes aren't there to overturn the veto. Might be some more legislation lined up, but too many Dems are afraid of being labeled anti-troop, thanks to Republican propoganda. Point 6. Sorry Greg, I can't let something that wrong go, and we certainly can address what led us to Iraq while at the same time dealing with current problems.
Point 3. Much of the "earmarks" are aimed at Katrina relief, a point I make in the article. But as for any other "pork", all I can say is that desperate times call for desperate measures and if certain folks had to be coaxed into voting for the bill, than so be it. In any case, there is nothing egregious in the bill. Point 4. There is no infringement on Bush's authority, only an attempt to put pressure on the White House to end this thing. It is amazing to me that they can be so wrong, so many times, about so many things in Iraq, and you still believe they should be allowed to do as they please. In any case, I am in favor of cutting funding.
Thanks for the feedback Greg. Point 1. I said that people voted in "largely" due to opposition to Iraq, not the only reason. But, you would have a hard time convincing me that Iraq is not the most important issue on peoples minds. Point 2. You are technically correct on this point, but the Congress is still full of many Republicans that have left a sour taste in peoples mouths. Besides, Bush's approval, which hovers around 30%, is nothing to be proud of, even if it is higher than Congresses numbers, and people do not blame Congress for Iraq nearly as much as they do teh Bush administration.
Finally, I had a little time to kill today so I took the opportunity to respond to some of your points. I can't guarantee that I'll be able to come back anytime soon to see your responses (although I can pretty much guess what they will be). All I ask is that you try to be fair. You know how to reach me if you want more commentary.
9. As for Bush attending funerals, that's simply not a realistic expectation. If he attended one he would have to attend them all. Add to that the fact that families of soldiers killed elsewhere (Afghanistan, Philippines, Africa, training exercises, Kuwait, etc.) would expect the same treatment. You would also set the same standard for every President that follows Bush to do the same. Simply not realistic.