President George Bush wins!
President Bush yesterday signed the 162-Billion Supplemental Troop-funding bill, funding our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan to well past the date when President Bush retires to Texas.
There are no strings attached to this funding; no “artificial troop withdrawal deadlines”, no limitations to President Bush’s conduct of the wars.
“Good morning. A few moments ago I signed legislation that funds our troops who are in harm’s way. Our nation has no greater responsibility than supporting our men and women in uniform — especially since we’re at war. This is a responsibility all of us in Washington share — not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans. And I want to thank leaders of the House and Senate for getting this bill to my office….
“I appreciate that Republicans and Democrats in Congress agreed to provide these vital funds without tying the hands of our commanders, and without an artificial timetable of withdrawal from Iraq. Our troops have driven the terrorists and extremists from many strongholds in Iraq; today violence is at the lowest level since March of 2004. As a result of this progress, some of our troops are coming home as result of our policy called “return on success.” We welcome them home.”
“…without an artificial timetable…” Nice, thinly-disguised triumphal slap. Reid’s and Pelosi’s faces should have reddened and their heads nosed downward, because of their shame.
The five additional “Troop Surge” brigades President Bush authorized in January 2007 all return home next month. The left, so strident in opposition to The Surge, is mostly muted. At least, the smarter ones are (all three of them). The success of the Surge finally shuts their whining yaps.
Again, our President…
“The bill also includes agreed-upon funding for other critical national priorities. This bill includes $465 million for the Merida Initiative — a partnership with Mexico and nations in Central America to crack down on violent drug trafficking gangs. The bill includes nearly $2.7 billion to help ensure that any state facing a disaster like the recent flooding and tornadoes in the Midwest has access to needed resources. This bill includes a measured expansion of unemployment insurance benefits with a reasonable work requirement. And this bill holds overall discretionary spending within the sensible limits that I requested.”
The G.I. education allowance is now transferable to family members. Great news, that.
Money to shut down drug-gangs in Mexico and Central America. More bad news for liberals and hippies.
Yes, most Americans support the troops. Only the farthest left, deep in their peace-loving hippy hearts, resent the fact that we have a successful Armed Services.
Yesterday, those sorts lost. The Democratic nutroots, the Howard Dean wing of the farthest-left Democratic party in history, lost. And the inept 2006 Democratic Congress, elected for the express purpose of countering President Bush’s strategies, lost.
When President Bush signed this troop-funding bill yesterday, that act pretty much ensures that he will be tied to the victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. If something happens after the next President assumes office in January, if BHO gets in there and does a premature withdrawal to appease his leftist nutroot base, and things go south, then that will be the Democrat’s fault. Democrats are good at losing wars.
The 2006 Congress, that group of Democrats who were elected to stop the war and reverse course, who opposed the Surge and spewed their BDS venom and helped the MSM turn a nation of TV-preoccupied ‘Lost’ and ‘Survivor’ sitcom boobs against President Bush and the war are proven to be the most ineffective and lame nitwits ever elected. May they forever be tied to their wrong, incorrect opposition.
And the whiny moonbattish leftists (and some turncoat Republicans — you know who you are) have to accept this virtual bitch-slap they so rightly deserve.
The policy of the Surge was successful. You were wrong.
BDS-infested moonbats lost yesterday.
Puts a smile on my stone face.
President Bush, winner, in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Democratic Congress, loser, most ineffective Congress ever elected. Evah.
crossed from home
Even of the policy of the surge, i.e., putting the Sunni insurgents on our payroll was “sucessful”, the policy of the invasion wasn’t. That’s not BDS, that’s the opinion of virtually every expert that is not on President Bush’s payroll as well.
There is the wrong, incorrect position President Bush’s supporters will be tied too.
Yesterday, those sorts lost. The Democratic nutroots
Those Democrats put that bill on the table for Bush with the GI bill. Bush proceeded to lie and praise himself for the GI Bill and thank, among others, McCain for his support of the GI Bill - problem is, McCain and Bush fought the GI Bill tooth an nail. Bush Lied AGAIN.
Thank you Bush for once again proving that you are a liar.
Says the guy who proclaims “Bush has won two wars” … as troop deaths begin to rise in Iraq again, troop deaths in Afghanistan are at an all time high, and 30,000 troops are preparing for deployment to Iraq.
So, ah… if we won, why do we need to deploy 30,000 troops to Iraq? Are you dumb, in denial, an authoritarian fascist, or just suffer from a basic lack of info? Which is it? Probably all of the above.
From Troop-Hating William’s link, 2nd paragraph.
You know, William, reading is fundamental.
ROR, the ‘policy of the invasion’ was agreed to by a majority of both parties in Congress. No matter how much they squirm and wiggle, they agreed to that. Get over it.
William is a nutroot with a lost cause. Well, more just a nut, rooted in incurable BDS. Careful, William, that hatred goes right to your heart; next thing you know you’ll be supporting killing babies that just missed the abortion doctor’s sharp knives (babies are slippery that way you know).
He lost, President Bush won.
And, remember, Afghanistan was the Dem’s ‘good war’. There’s help for that bad memory…but you gotta lay off the pot.
Come again?
We won, so we need to replace the troops so they can, what, be part of a cultural exchange program?
The Iraq invasion was an escapade in stupidity of colossal proportions. “When the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down”. Yeah right.
In the meantime, our resources are finite.
From a policy standpoint, the only question is,”how are we going to pay for this mistake?”
But pay we must. I am mot sure exactly what the least undesirable course of action is, but I know it must involve getting rid of the current idiots and putting some smart people in charge. The entire State Dep’t, Justice Dep’t, and Defense Dep’t must be replaced, along with the rest of the executive branch. Tennessee and Alabama may be behind the curve, but fortunately it looks like most of the country is waking up. Also, some real humility is going to be required in order to acquire the international cooperation that will be necessary and restore America’s standing. More cowboy swagger will only exacerbate the disaster. Of course, that’s not a problem for everyone.
It is pretty remarkable that, after the election of 2006, and his historically low approval numbers, that this lame duck President has won so many legislative victories. Apparently the Democrats realize that there really isn’t a lot of anti-war sentiment out there.
The problem is the Democrats & Republicans in office are there because they are smart. They’ve reduced the entire debate to Democrat/Republican, vote for X or vote for Y. I haven’t been genuinely excited about anyone running for any public office since Reagan. Why? Because it’s all about power.
Who’s going to make the governing rules if it makes sure the idiots (read: John Q Public) can toss the people making the rules out of office? Or have a part shift? We’re currently powerless to stop either party from doing whatever the hell they want. And they make sure they keep those who elect them voting for whoever they elect.
Look at places like Detroit. Detroit is in serious trouble. But they’ve elected Democratic mayors since 1962 and the town has literally collapsed. But they’ll never elect a Republican because the party has convinced people there the best option for them is the Democratic party.
Republicans aren’t much better. McCain has a history of doing dumb things (and attacking his military record is probably the dumbest thing the Democrats could do). They mold their opinions to be as palatable to the public while ignoring the concerns of the public. It’s similar to what’s happening in Louisiana with the pay raises. Would they recall the entire state assembly? Probably not– maybe one or two guys. And we have people who voted for it now begging Jindal for a veto.
We need term limits to help curb the number of lifetime politicians in the legislative and executive branch, and we need a public that pays attention to the government and objects when things are horribly broken.
Serr8d:
“The Surge” can only be declared a success if one ignores its stated objective: to reduce violence and therefore enable political progress in Iraq. The non-bold part is the means, and the bolded part is the ends. The ends have not been achieved, put simply. And, of course, the impact of the additional US troops is grossly exaggerated. As HBK already pointed out, most of that success came instead from the other stuff we’ve been doing, which hasn’t been nearly as well publicized.
Even setting aside stated objectives, while a temporary reduction in violence is certainly to be applauded, it’s only really a “success” if it survives beyond our withdrawal. Otherwise, it was a band-aid that didn’t make much long-term difference.
Glen:
It is pretty remarkable that, after the election of 2006, and his historically low approval numbers, that this lame duck President has won so many legislative victories.
A few things at play here. First, the Democrats don’t have a majority in the Senate, especially not when you consider that nominally-Democratic independent Lieberman is a reliable Bush supporter on the Iraq issue. Second, there remain a lot of conservative red-state Democrats, especially in the House, who don’t fall in line with the popularized conception of “Democrat.” Third, and most importantly, Pelosi and especially Reid are political cowards. They want an end to the war, but they’re not willing to stick their necks out to get it. They know that if they block funding, or attach timetable provisions, Bush will veto the bill, and the GOP will beat them over the head with the “don’t support the troops” bludgeon, as always. Until some Democrat finally sprouts a pair and has a Joseph Welch moment, it will continue thus.
Apparently the Democrats realize that there really isn’t a lot of anti-war sentiment out there.
Again, it’s less about that and more about political expediency in an election year. Funding the troops without condition is a safer bet than giving a GOP opponent an opportunity to use the “abandoned the troops” bully stick. It’s cowardly, to be sure, but it is what it is. Even with their dramatic recent gains (and the increasingly likelihood that they’ll gain even more in November), the Democrats remain afraid of the Big Bad GOP.
Captain Brainstorm:
Look at places like Detroit. Detroit is in serious trouble. But they’ve elected Democratic mayors since 1962 and the town has literally collapsed. But they’ll never elect a Republican because the party has convinced people there the best option for them is the Democratic party.
That’s a huge problem. Because the Democrats have a monopoly on that office, you inevitably wind up with corruption, ineffective governance, broken promises, etc. The problem is, the people of Detroit don’t have much choice, because they don’t want what the Republicans want. So they’re left with a choice: Vote for a guy who says what you want to hear, but can’t be trusted to follow up? Or vote for a guy who can be trusted to do exactly what he says which is exactly what you don’t want. We have something very similar here in Memphis, by the way.
I’m sure there are plenty of examples of the converse, probably in more rural areas, where there’s an entrenched and corrupt Republican establishment, and the voter base won’t vote for the Democratic opposition because they don’t like Democratic policies. They don’t like the corruption of “their” guy, but they like the policies of the other guy even less.
It’s a sad side effect of a two-party system, and the only way you could ever really fix it would be to reform our electoral system so that plurality victories are no longer possible. Abolishing the national parties would help, too, although that will never happen.
A study in denial:
Glen -
there really isn’t a lot of anti-war sentiment out there.
Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. June 19-23, 2008.
“All in all, do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, or not?”
27% Worth It
67% Not Worth It
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. June 12-15, 2008
“All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?”
34% Worth It
63% Not Worth It
HBK said it…
Tennessee and Alabama may be behind the curve
Way behind — McCain is up by 15% in both TN & AL… (thats why its called Dumbfuckistan)