George Bush Hates The Troops (And Those With Multiple Medical Conditions)

If only the Democrats were as good at spin as the Republicans, and had a lap dog press to spread their views. If the situation was reversed, George Bush’s veto of the funding bill today would be called evidence that George Bush hates the troops. Using the BIzzaro World logic of the GOP, he must hate the troops if he is vetoing a bill which provides them with funding. We could also say he hates the troops for his refusal to bring them home.

We see more signs of Bizzaro World logic when Bush says, “This is a prescription for chaos and confusion.”  The real prescription for chaos and confusion was going to war based upon lies without a plan.

We must also consider the trend behind Bush’s vetos. Besides today’s veto which shows he hates the troops, George Bush’s first veto of funding for stem cell research shows he hates those with Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, and other diseases which might be cured with stem cell research.

Be Sociable, Share!

20 Comments

  1. 1
    The Populist says:

    One word.

    Impeach.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    Great idea, but how do we get a conviction in the Senate?

  3. 3
    battlebob says:

    Here is what Bush said about timetables and conflicts…

    Link

    Bush, in Austin, criticized President Clinton’s administration for not doing enough to enunciate a goal for the Kosovo military action and indicated the bombing campaign might not be a tough enough response. “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is,” Bush said.

    ————————————————————

    Do we have flip-flopping here?

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    Battlebob,

    The way in which Republicans (not just Bush) have used foreign policy as a partisan battlefield, regardless of how much they hurt impair the interests of the United States, is amazing. Did you also see these recent clips I had of John McCain?

  5. 5
    Jimmy the Dhimmi says:

    Major Owen West, a U.S. Marine who has seved 2 tours in Iraq, hates himself.

    If there were only some way we could impeach our troops, particularly those like Major West who share the same opinion as Bush, McCain, Maliki and the Iraqi military. Then, aong with Bush, we could convict them for war crimes. That would really show them how much we support them.

  6. 6
    Ron Chusid says:

    Jimmy,

    As I resonded to you elsewhere, this post is a play on the usual conservative talking point that liberals hate the troops. Any Democratic position which opposes the current policy in Iraq, especially a no vote on a funding issue, is twisted to mean that Democrats hate the troops. If a Democrat who votes against a funding issue is routinely said to hate the troops, then by the Republican logic, a Preisident who vetos a funding measure passed by Congress must really hate the toops.

    There are people who take positions both for and against the war, but it is the Republicans who typically turn disagreement into a lack of patriotism and lack of support for the troops.

    West might support the surge, but this is a minority view, with most who have analyzied the situation agreeing that the present policy is a failure. The majority of voters also agreed with this in November, and the actions by the Democrats to force a change in policy reflects the desires of most Americans.

  7. 7
    battlebob says:

    McCain has kind of become irrelevent. This is too bad and really bothers me because I used to support him and campaigned for him.
    He has no idea of who he is anymore except he wants to be POTUS and will say and do anything to get it.
    He sounds nutter then the Terrible Dennis.

    Bush is the one not supporting the troops. He is the one who sent them into combat without the necessary equipment; who sends them back without adequate rest, training and equipment.
    He is the one who ignored their medical needs when they came back.
    Democrats should send the same bill back and let him veto it again.
    Bush is the villan and must be held accountable for his actions.
    Fund the troops with timelines which he used to demand until he signs the bill.

    If Dems cave in now, they condem more Iraqis and our solders to needless death. If they give in now, Dems do not deserve to stay in power in 2008.

  8. 8
    Jimmy the Dhimmi says:

    “If Dems cave in now, they condem more Iraqis and our solders to needless death. If they give in now, Dems do not deserve to stay in power in 2008″.

    Wasn’t it Ghandi, or perhaps Martin Luther King who said, “Death is always needless if there is an option to surrender and submit to the will of terrorists” Hmmm…Maybe I got my sources mixed up.

    Anyway, Don’t expect the Dems to force the withdrawal of troops from Iraq by cutting off the funds (which they can do at any time). That would mean they have to take responsibility for their own actions. Focus groups and political action committees showed that Kerry’s voting for the war, then against the funds was unpopular amongst certain valuable demographics of voters.

    They need to find a way to skirt responsibility for ending the war over to Bush. That way they can say, “Bush won’t fund the troops, see he vetoed our spending bill!” If their strategy is successful, then they could Blame bush for the humanitarian and geopolitical disaster that is sure to happen once the green-zone is emptied of heavy armor and special forces.

    Wasn’t it Pelosi who said, “I would rather win a campaign than take responsibility for losing a war“? Again, maybe I got my sources mixed up.

  9. 9
    battlebob says:

    Bush and his minions are the ones responsible for this war and Dems need to make sure he is the one who retains responsibility for it.
    End it and bring the troops home…

    The reality is the US cannot affect any disaster from happening anywhere. We are a catalyst for violence. This type of war is not fought by killing people but by talking with them. Every one who knows anything about 4GW says this war is long lost and we should get out.
    It is only those who have other alternatives:
    – lack of knowledge on tactical, strategic and moral aspects of war
    – want the oil
    – want to see Iraq drag on for the next POTUS
    who want this thing to continue.

    We cannot now and ever can bring Democracy by the point of a gun.

    Read the books and articles at http://www.d-n-i.net/

  10. 10
    battlebob says:

    Neat story on Sojourners…

    One evening, an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, “My son, the battle is between two ‘wolves’ inside us all. One is Evil. It is anger, fear, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego. The other one is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith.”

    The grandson thought about this for few minutes and then he looked up at his grandfather and asked: “Which wolf wins?” The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed. The one you feed.”

  11. 11
    battlebob says:

    This is from another blog…

    If we start leaving Iraq tomorrow — it would take ‘months’ to get everything situated and remove our troops from the hot zones. Turn over our billion dollar camps, all 14 of them, to the Iraqi’s. That money is there for relocating our troops. If we leave:

    The U.S. set up government will immedately fall. Maliki and the fake government don’t want us to leave. They’d be dust. Maliki has his own private government behind the scenes, which means to take over the country for Shi’ites.

    Sadr – has no particular grudge against the Sunni’s. Badr doesn’t either. These two forces would take over as military and police. At probable worst, they might ‘escort’ questionable Sunni’s to a Sunni area. But in Baghdad, one third of the people are inter-married. They’ll work it out.

    Saudi Arabia would immediately send mass money, weapons and probably ‘men’, although they would be volunteers – like they volunteered to help Bin Laden fight Russia in Afghanistan. They would protect the Sunni. The Saudi’s are Sunni and have promised to do this.

    Iran would most probably tell the Shi’ites to – cease and desist, send money, weapons and construction people to repair the infrastructure. Iran doesn’t need the chaos.

    Within weeks the BORDERS would be drawn by all Iraqi’s involved.

  12. 12
    Jimmy the Dhimmi says:

    Did you tell that story to Ayman Zawahiri?

    This type of war is not fought by killing people but by talking with them

    I defer again to Mark Steyn:

    But, when, as they often do, they cite Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi, I point out that we’re not always as fortunate to find ourselves up against such relatively benign enemies as British imperial administrators or even American racist rednecks. King and Gandhi’s strategies would not have been effective against fellows who gun down classrooms of Russian schoolchildren, or self-detonate at Muslim weddings in Amman, or behead you live on camera and then release it as a snuff video, or assassinate politicians and as they’re dying fall to the ground and drink their blood off the marble. Come to that, King and Gandhi’s strategies would not have been effective against the prominent British Muslim who in a recent debate at Trinity College, Dublin announced that the Prophet Mohammed’s message to infidels was “I am here to slaughter you all.” Good luck with the binding non-violent conflict resolution there.

  13. 13
    Ron Chusid says:

    Jimmy,

    “Anyway, Don’t expect the Dems to force the withdrawal of troops from Iraq by cutting off the funds (which they can do at any time). That would mean they have to take responsibility for their own actions.”

    That sure is a backwards way of looking at. It is the Republicans who are trying so hard for trying to avoid blame for their own actions.

    It was the Republicans who go us into an unnecessary war based upon lies, and who went into the war without a reasonable plan for victory. Very few people think the current plans can succeed, and the surge is seen as a stalling tactic.

    Bush put us in a situation where there is no good outcome. Sooner or later, we must leave and there will be serious problems. Staying is not a solution as the current plans just leave us sitting in the middle of a civil war without a reasonable chance for success.

    The Republican strategy seems to be to stall until Democrats take over, and then blame the Democrats for what goes wrong after we leave.

    I cannot blame the Democrats for being aware of this and tryign to avoid this. Republicans have falsely portrayed the Democrats as being weak on defense since their opposition to the Vietnam War. In the case of Vietnam, both parties share responsibility. The Iraq war is purely the fault of the Republicans, and they should receive the blame. It is perfectly understandble that, realizing the Republican plans to attempt to shift the blame, that they conduct their actions in Congress around both forcing an end to the war and avoiding blame for the inevitable problems after we leave, as those problems are the responsibility of those who got us there.

  14. 14
    Ron Chusid says:

    Jimmy,

    Your quotes mischaracterize the views of opponents of the war. We are not pacifists. It has been liberals who pushed for action against bin Laden during the Clinton years, while Republicans opposed this. It was Democrats who urged Bush to take action against bin Laden during his first months in office prior to 9/11, but the Bush administration repeaedly ignored such advice.

    After 9/11, Democrats supported military action against al Qaeda. It was Bush who left Afghanistan before the job was done in order to go into Iraq at a time when it was not necessary. It was the Bush administration which screwed up when we had bin Laden surrounded at Tora Bora and, rather than sending in US troops to finish the job, allowed bin Laden to escape.

    Opposition to the Iraq war has nothing to do with Ghandi or failure to stand up to our enemies. Oppositon to the war is based upon the fact that the manner in which this war was conducted has only acted to strengthen al Qaeda and Iran, while weakening the United States.

  15. 15
    Jimmy the Dhimmi says:

    …After 9/11, Democrats supported military action against al Qaeda…

    Thats a shame. They should have talked with them, as battlebob suggested.

    …It was the Bush administration which screwed up when we had bin Laden surrounded at Tora Bora…

    Don’t worry. Bin Laden is a sick old man who will probably die soon (if he is not dead already). At that time, terrorism and Islamic Jihad ideology will naturally disappear, just like it would have 3 years ago if Bin Laden was killed.

    …It is perfectly understandble that, realizing the Republican plans to attempt to shift the blame, that they conduct their actions in Congress around both forcing an end to the war and avoiding blame for the inevitable problems after we leave…”

    Is it perfectly understandable to continue to let soldiers die in an immoral war, simply because you want to avoid the political fallout to your career? It looks like there won’t be any timetables after all.

    Your friend battlebob said: “If Dems cave in now, they condem more Iraqis and our solders to needless death.

    Allowing Bush to continue the war would be “caving in,” right? The only option left after the veto would be to cut off funding. But its OK to you for more soldiers to die “needless death[s]” as long as the Democrats don’t look bad by doing so?

  16. 16
    Ron Chusid says:

    Jimmy,

    You’re clearly far too gone in the right wing partisan mind set to look at the issue in a realistic or honest manner.

    What point do you think it serves in arguing by distorting the views of others? So you claim that we support something totally different from what we advocate, and then refute that. What have you proven?

  17. 17
    Jimmy the Dhimmi says:

    I seem to have proven that you know exactly how the “right wing” thinks and operates, to the point where it is totally unnecessary for conservatives themselves to clarify their own positions, since you are there to do it for them.

    I’ve also proven that you can’t seem to answer the following question:

    “Allowing Bush to continue the war would be “caving in,” right? The only option left after the veto would be to cut off funding. But is it OK to you for more soldiers to die “needless death[s]” as long as the Democrats don’t look bad by doing so?”

  18. 18
    Ron Chusid says:

    Jimmy,

    You have proven nothing about what I know. You are free to clarify your position as you wish. Rather than attempting to clarify anything, you base your comments upon misrepresenting the views of liberals, and repeatedly claim we believe things totally different from what we believe.

    Your question is based upon multiple incorrect premises:

    1) This is not a question of caving in. For the Democrats it is a matter of doing what is best for the country, as well as for Iraq.

    2) It is not true that the only option left would be to cut off funding. Each side made their play. Now we’re hopefully at the point where a compromise will be reached. That’s how democracy works–a concept you appear to have little understanding of.

    3) This is not about whether the Democrats look bad. It is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who have been playing politics with national security from the start.

    4) You have a lot of nerve claiming that we accept needless deaths when it is the Republicans who sent them over, and we are the ones working to birng them home.

  19. 19
    Deborah Banks-Walker says:

    I would like to agree with Jimmy for a moment may be sis coments ar based on misrepresenting the views of liberals I do know we have lost a lot of children in this war. In 2002 Bush talk about the Amber alert and losing children and know family should go throgh that,well on October 26,2007 My Nephew was in a truck in Irag that was hit by insurgents on November 14th we lost him, my question is why a son, brother. husband, father, grandson, cusin, friend with a life that hadn’t even started yet who wont see his 25th birthday WHY.

  20. 20
    Ron Chusid says:

    Deborah,

    If you are concerned about the unnecessary lives lost, then you are not agreeing with a conservative supporter of the war like Jimmy.

1 Trackbacks

Leave a comment