Forums > Personal > George W. Bush just doesn't get it, does he?

forum rss feed
Author

mystic_rhythms user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 448 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 07, 10:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Big news involving the United States and the 'war' in Iraq. Congress has passed a bill that provides over $97.5 billion for the U.S. Army soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is a catch: The bill states that soldiers will steadily withdraw from Iraq within 120 days, with most combat operations ceasing by March 31, 2008.

President George W. Bush, however, has announced that he will veto any bill that puts a timetable on troop withdrawal from Iraq, claiming that "...we expect there to be no strings on our commanders. And that we expect the Congress to be wise about how they spend the people’s money.”
In other words, he wants a bill that funds the soldiers in Iraq with no strings, such as troop withdrawal, attached.

Going back to the subject: he just doesn't get it...Bush is NOT going to get far by vetoing any strategy that would get our soldiers out over time. We're not saying for everyone to leave now: we're saying that we'll settle for something that gives them the money and resources they need, but we would like something good in return.

Bush has also claimed that if he has no bill to sign by next month, he will be forced to cut back on current resources in Iraq, meaning a cut in equipment, weapons, and maintenance. In short, it will cause even more problems than what we have now.

I hate how politicians are always saying stuff like "if we leave Iraq, there will be dire consequences" or shit like that. They paint the picture that all hell will break loose if we leave. All hell is already breaking loose!

Listen to me on this: I am a soldier in the United States Army. Although I have yet to experience the 'war' in Iraq, that does not mean that I have not heard the stories, that I have not analyzed our situation. Yes, we do have somewhat of a reason to still be there (train Iraqi soldiers, nothing wrong with that) but the fact that they want us to be there for even longer than we should is just too much. I'll be honest, I think we have overstayed our welcome, and it's only a matter of time before things get out of hand not only over there, but here in the States.

If Bush continues to veto these bills, there will be a massive public outcry. Bush has already slipped in the polls (more than half the population does not trust his decision-making and his actions towards the 'war'), and he is quickly becoming a President elected by the people, AGAINST the people. Our country has been through enough wars to know what to do and what not to do, and it seems the powers-that-be do not understand where the citizens stand on all this.

George W. better strike a deal with Congress. If he doesn't, there will be a devastating backlash on our military, our government, and (most importantly), our people.

-=Brian=-

p.s. as you can see, whenever I address our situation in Iraq, I quote the word 'war', because it's not much of a 'war' anymore...it's a waste of time, money, and manpower.


We can only grow the way the wind blows

On a bare and weathered shore

We can only bow to the here and now

In our elemental war

- Rush, "The Way The Wind Blows"
magicalfreddiemercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
magicalfreddiemercury
Deity: 2693 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 07, 10:46 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

mystic_rhythms wrote:

I hate how politicians are always saying stuff like "if we leave Iraq, there will be dire consequences" or shit like that.


What they should have said was "if we ENTER Iraq, there will be dire consequences".

From the beginning Bush has said he'd veto any spending bill with troop-withdrawal strings attached. It's no surprise. Nothing this idiot does is a surprise.

Not that it will do us or our soldiers any good, but if/when he does veto this bill, the lack of supplies and funds needed over there will be HIS fault and his fault alone.

Unfortunately, I find no comfort in that.



"The others don't like my interviews. And frankly, I don't care much for theirs." ~ Freddie Mercury



AspiringPhilosophe user not visiting Queenzone.com
AspiringPhilosophe
Royalty: 1711 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 07, 14:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

This is all part of his plan, haven't you guys figured that out yet?
He knows the people hate him, and he knows that he's unpopular. But he also knows that there will not be massive protests publicly against him (for more than a day or so) and he also knows that the Democrats don't have the majority needed to hold impeachment hearings (the Republicans may be the minority, but they still need some of them to swing to the Democrats to impeach him. None of them are willing to do that).
So, of course he'll veto the bill. He's got nothing to loose. They can't impeach him because the Democrats don't have enough power, and they can't over-ride the veto because they don't have enough power either. So, he'll veto, and he's PRAYING that they won't come up with a budget he can sign. That way, he can cut the supplies needed by our military, and when things go to hell (as if they aren't already there) he can turn around and blame the Democrats, saying "They tied my hands....They wanted it this way....its THEIR fault."
The only way he can come out looking better than when he went it is to veto the bill and have nothing happen to replace it. If they do come up with something for him to sign that he does sign, then he touts it as a victory.
I can't believe people are surprised by this. It's common sense, and anyone with half a brain can see it.


Formerly MHG
magicalfreddiemercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
magicalfreddiemercury
Deity: 2693 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 07, 17:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:


I can't believe people are surprised by this. It's common sense, and anyone with half a brain can see it.


I worked for a guy who was constantly doing the most insane and obnoxious things. Not only did he get away with them, but he somehow advanced his position time after time. While it never
'surprised' me, I was always amazed at his brazen arrogance and how he always came out of things unscathed. I think it's that same disgust - not surprise - that many of us feel toward the attitude and actions of this unfortunate choice of president.


"The others don't like my interviews. And frankly, I don't care much for theirs." ~ Freddie Mercury



user name user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1449 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 07, 18:05 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

You worked for President Bush!?


Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
magicalfreddiemercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
magicalfreddiemercury
Deity: 2693 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 07, 18:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

You worked for President Bush!?


LMAO!


"The others don't like my interviews. And frankly, I don't care much for theirs." ~ Freddie Mercury



mystic_rhythms user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 448 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 07, 19:32 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

That was funny Music Man. Good to know some people have a sense of humor about this.

You know, maybe this is a sign. We've been rolling down the wrong road for quite some time, and I think the President needs to understand that you gotta know when to step up, and when to back down.

But nope. Bush believes that by backing down, we would fail our mission in Iraq. My rebuttal is this: what mission?

We first went in under the belief that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. A few investigations later, and we find NOTHING. Bush then claims that Saddam is plotting to commit heinous crimes against the Iraqi population. We caught him, and they killed him.

Doesn't that mean, mission accomplished?...
I guess not.

We knew when to get out of Vietnam, i mean it was a little too late, but hey. Better late then never. It doesn't help our country, and it doesn't help our image if we continue to procrastinate about a country that we should have no business with at this point. We've done what we need to do. What else is there?

-=Brian=-


We can only grow the way the wind blows

On a bare and weathered shore

We can only bow to the here and now

In our elemental war

- Rush, "The Way The Wind Blows"
user name user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1449 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 07, 19:53 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I say just wait till election '08 if you're hoping for any changes in foreign policy. You can't reasonably believe that GW is just going to suddenly adopt the Democrats' stance on the war. I honestly don't think another two years is going to matter THAT much.


Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
AspiringPhilosophe user not visiting Queenzone.com
AspiringPhilosophe
Royalty: 1711 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 07, 20:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Except to the soldiers who die between now and then, and their families, and the innocent Iraqis and their families.
Oh, and possibly Iran if he decided to adopt the same stance with them.


Formerly MHG
sparrow 21754 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1947 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 07, 23:09 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

mystic_rhythms wrote:

That was funny Music Man. Good to know some people have a sense of humor about this.

You know, maybe this is a sign. We've been rolling down the wrong road for quite some time, and I think the President needs to understand that you gotta know when to step up, and when to back down.

But nope. Bush believes that by backing down, we would fail our mission in Iraq. My rebuttal is this: what mission?

We first went in under the belief that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. A few investigations later, and we find NOTHING. Bush then claims that Saddam is plotting to commit heinous crimes against the Iraqi population. We caught him, and they killed him.

Doesn't that mean, mission accomplished?...
I guess not.

We knew when to get out of Vietnam, i mean it was a little too late, but hey. Better late then never. It doesn't help our country, and it doesn't help our image if we continue to procrastinate about a country that we should have no business with at this point. We've done what we need to do. What else is there?

-=Brian=-




what he shouldve been doing is worrying about his own country, protecting us here, instead of trying to change another country cuz daddy didnt finish his job. what they shouldve been fighting for is to FIND THE GODDAMN TERRORISTS THAT SO EASILY ELUDE US. thers so much technology out there and forensic work that could find them within a month, im sure! but were too distracted with a war that shouldnt be happening. find the terrorists that caused the mess of 9/11, and come home. but since there is already a fight goign on in the hallways, its hard to break them up when someone else caused it.



not sure if im making sense at all, but i guess im saying is, bush made his bed, he has to lie in it because theres really no tactful way around this. he shouldve attacked the people who were clearly against us, instead of an excuse to finish his dads job. its all just a circus now. whoever takes over after bush i hope does a much better job, and does a decent job cleaning up his mess.

i raelly dont know much about politics, or how they work, to be honest, but i am american, i observe his flaws, and i cant stand bush being a president. his first mistake was manipulating his way into an office.


its really a wonder that he hasnt been harmed.


why pay the visit when the visit is free?



"this shitty guitar wont play what i want! it only knows three chords!"
bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12700 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 07, 23:25 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

"Bush has also claimed that if he has no bill to sign by next month, he will be forced to cut back on current resources in Iraq"

That really is tantamount to murdering his own troops. I feel.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
user name user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1449 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 07, 23:43 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Well, one could easily argue that, to some degree, Congress is also playing politics with our soldiers' lives and are just as much to blame for the soldiers' deaths.

"Here, you can have the funds necessary to protect the troops, BUT you have to promote my agenda as well."


Creativity can always cover for a lack of knowledge.
bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12700 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Apr 07, 00:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

"Congress is also playing politics with our soldiers' lives and are just as much to blame for the soldiers' deaths."

Well... yeah!


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
The Mir@cle user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Mir@cle
Deity: 3543 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Apr 07, 05:16 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Well... first, this situation is indirectly caused by the American population itself... After four years Bush-regime, the whole world was already sick and tired of him. Though the Americans re-voted him. Now the whole word has to eat the consequences of that.

I don't know why Bush is so ignorant. His own population is turning against him, same is the rest of the world. Though he keeps going and going. The situation will stay unstable for many years, with or without the support of foreign troops. Though he should understand that the Americans are really unwanted there. Therefore he should hurry with training Iraqi people. Beside that, other countries can help.

About Iran... I think is 'smart' enough to avoid an even bigger mess. But maybe he should have attacked Iran in the first place, instead of Iraq. As I believe that Iran is a bigger thread to the world population that Iraq has ever been.


I got to try al little more,

because I'm an asshole but I'm learning.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfTLkUcQ7QY
magicalfreddiemercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
magicalfreddiemercury
Deity: 2693 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Apr 07, 07:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote:

Though the Americans re-voted him.


HALF of the Americans, not all, thankyouverymuch.


"The others don't like my interviews. And frankly, I don't care much for theirs." ~ Freddie Mercury



Mr.Jingles user not visiting Queenzone.com
Mr.Jingles
Deity: 10532 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Apr 07, 07:21 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I find it hilarious how Bush calls members of congress who have voted for an Iraq pull-out by 2008 "irresponsible".

The only thing "irresponsible" about Congress was buying Bush's bullshit fairy tale stories back in 2003.


[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brandon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... and now the "best you can offer is Mr. Jingles? HA! He's... just pathetic.[/QUOTE]
The Mir@cle user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Mir@cle
Deity: 3543 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Apr 07, 07:22 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote:

Though the Americans re-voted him.


HALF of the Americans, not all, thankyouverymuch.


I should have said "too much Americans". ;)


I got to try al little more,

because I'm an asshole but I'm learning.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfTLkUcQ7QY
magicalfreddiemercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
magicalfreddiemercury
Deity: 2693 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Apr 07, 08:21 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote:

Though the Americans re-voted him.


HALF of the Americans, not all, thankyouverymuch.


I should have said "too much Americans". ;)


Ah, yes. That would work. All is forgiven. :)


"The others don't like my interviews. And frankly, I don't care much for theirs." ~ Freddie Mercury



AspiringPhilosophe user not visiting Queenzone.com
AspiringPhilosophe
Royalty: 1711 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Apr 07, 11:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Indeed. Please no one think that ALL Americans voted for him. Just enough did to get him in. I know that when I cast by ballot, I'm damn sure I didn't select his name. (Of course, I didn't select Kerry's name, either)
Attacking Iran or Iraq...either would have been a mistake, as we've now proven, and I've described on various other threads here. But Iran may have bought us some more time before Iraq become a nuclear power. Iraq was starting from farther behind. Just look at Afghanistan, for crying out loud! One of my friend's fathers (a lifetime army officer) just got notice that he has been mobilized, and orders will be cut within the next month either to Iraq, Afghanistan, or Germany. Needless to say, she's hoping for Germany. But, the fact that we still HAVE to have troops in Afghanistan shows how we royally screwed that up. We should be well out of there by now.
As far as Congress and the President using the troops for political gain...duh! They are politicians, that's what they do. People in politics have never shied away from using the military and human lives for political gain. That has been going on since Ancient Mesopotamia, and probably back further than that. Put the political powers in control of the military, that's what you get. Now granted you have to have some reign on the military, or it would just go off on its own, and that could lead to chaos. It's a catch 22 either way.
As far as Bush getting a clue of what's going on with the American people....fat chance. He's surrounded himself by "Yes" men (and women). People who will tell him whatever he wants to hear, and can spin the truth of what the popularity polls indicate in a way that he can accept them. "It's not that 70 percent of Americans hate you, Mr. President. They are frustrated with the lack of progress on the war on Terror, so if you beef it up, that number will go down." When you surround yourself with these kinds of people...lets just say your perception of reality is a little off kilter.


Formerly MHG
Haystacks Calhoun II user not visiting Queenzone.com
Haystacks Calhoun II
Bohemian: 930 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Apr 07, 11:45 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Out of Afghanistan by now? Are you serious? That's part of the problem with today's microwave society. Afghanistan bankrupted Russia in the last 80's, partially with our help, but to think that we would be in and out of there is beyond silly.

In fact, what happened there is pretty well what people wanted to have happen in Iraq, get our boys out for the most part, and have an international force doing the work.

For those who still think leaving Vietnam the way we did was the way to go, I would strongly suggest that you check your history. The vaccuum that we left there allowed for the murder of nearly 2 million people by the Khmer Rouge.

Revisionist history at it's best.

Look. We still have forces in Japan and Germany, what, 50+ years after WWII?

For the record, I do not agree with many of Bush's decisions in Iraq, but to think that John Kerry would have done anything vastly different since 2004 is, again, beyond silly.

If we do pull out of Iraq, the situation in the Middle East is going to get 1000x worse. We need to be there. In the long term, looking 30-50 years down the road, it will be well worth the sacrifice.

Problem is, both emotionally and politically speaking, the American public just does not have the stomach to deal with what needs to be done, the time it will take, and the lives that will be lost. They want everything done now.

It just don't work that way, never has, never will. Like it or not, we had our chance in 2003 to get a foothold right smack dab in the center of the Middle East, and we took it. That I agree with, and would do it again in a heartbeat.

Decisions made since are questionable, but to cut and run would spell disaster on an epic proportion, not only for us, but the Middle East and the world in general.


The Golden Gate Bridge should have a long bungee cord for people who aren’t quite ready to commit suicide but want to get in a little practice.