General William Odom slams Bush

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by britishguy, Jul 6, 2007.

  1. #1
    Every step the Democrats in Congress have taken to force the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq has failed. Time and again, President Bush beats them into submission with charges of failing to “support the troops.”

    Why do the Democrats allow this to happen? Because they let the president define what “supporting the troops” means. His definition is brutally misleading. Consider what his policies are doing to the troops.

    etc etc summarizing with :-
    http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/06/2325/
    The final step should be to put that president on notice that if ignores this legislative action and tries to extort Congress into providing funds by keeping U.S. forces in peril, impeachment proceeding will proceed in the House of Representatives. Such presidential behavior surely would constitute the “high crime” of squandering the lives of soldiers and Marines for his own personal interest.

    I wonder in amazement why only around 70% of the total population disagree with Bush and his policies

    Am I missing something in intellect, do I need to be a failed scholar, draft dodger, turned mass murderer :eek:

    Before I can understand what is going on ?
     
    britishguy, Jul 6, 2007 IP
  2. AGS

    AGS Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,543
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    265
    #2
    Because the other 30% consist entirely of GTech and the rest of his deranged lunatic buddys here in this P&R forum buddy. :D
     
    AGS, Jul 6, 2007 IP
  3. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3
    Not really. Democrats don't seem to know our troops from Canadian troops. Twice, in the past year, Democrats have used pictures of Canadian soldiers on their websites in articles about "supporting our troops."

    Harry Reid wasn't supporting the troops when he stood up for the democrat party and declared victory for al qaida in Iraq. murtha wasn't supporting troops when he convicted US soldiers of crimes without a trial. kerry wasn't supporting troops when he eluded to how dumb they were. If democrats actually want the notoriety that comes with *really* "supporting the troops," they should considering trying it, for a change.

    Common Dreams? Eeewwww :p
     
    GTech, Jul 6, 2007 IP
  4. Caveman

    Caveman Peon

    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4
    The thing that Congress understands (and you apparently don't) is that they don't have the power (constitutionally speaking) to withdraw the troops. Only the President can do that.

    They do however have the power to de-fund the war. Why haven't they used that power? Could it be because it would amount to political suicide? Absolutely! All their grandiose, pull the troops out talk before the mid-terms was just bullsh!t of the worst kind.
     
    Caveman, Jul 7, 2007 IP
  5. bbn

    bbn Peon

    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #5
    And the president and the republicans supported Libby to get off the hook for treason. Again making the right choice. For themselves.

    The Republican party was perfectly willing to impeach President Clinton for perjury;now they are singing a different tune. And this time it is over a national security obstruction of justice case. In my opinion, that is much more serious than lying over consensual sex.
     
    bbn, Jul 8, 2007 IP