Bush is playing with future of the military solely in order to make the next administration "support" his policies by asking for money. It's utterly irresponsible, cowardly, and -- sadly -- predictable.

Not only is he the worst president ever, he's doing all he can to make it really, really haaard for anyone to ever exceed him in failure.

When this prankster is done with his vile deeds in Washington, Mr boosh will take the job as court jester and boot licker for the Royalty in Saudi Arabia.

Pass a law requiring Bush to personally notify the troops about his sudden defunding plan. BTW note that the good news here seems to be that Bush is actually planning to leave office "on time" m/l. TGFSF.

I recall not to long ago an outcry that Bush was going to try and lock the Troops into Iraq past the end of his term.

Isn't this actually good news? If a Democrat gets into office - he or she can then not be bothered by what Bush put in place in way of funding and can just say "No" to continuing the funding.

Um - unless - this means that if a Democrat gets into office heshe won't be able to keep the Troops in Iraq based on something Bush did with the budget and they will have to REALLY make a decision and either ask for the money or not.

I think this is great - it will FORCE the issue with a Democratic President - they will HAVE to make a decision and not be able to weasel around the issue saying that Bush tied up the funds already...

The only bad thing is our troops are caught up in this cynical political move by the WH. THEY are the ones who have suffered far too long from this cheap trick of creating a "surge" to prolong the occupation of Iraq into the next administration.

Enough of the FakeDem sidetracking of the discussion.

This is about the Repooplicons "OWNING" this war. It's theirs in it's entirety. From the lies to start it to the Moneypit that it's become.

Now, though, Georgie Porgie thinks he can pawn this off on the next guy/gal. Well BULLSHIT. The administration thinks they can set up a catch-22 for the next admin. They will cry "foul" if the troops are brought home and say that they didn't give the "surge" enough time. They will say "told ya so" if the next admin continues the funding and occupation, even if to make sure that we get out safely and don't leave troops stuck in a war zone with no back-up.

I say, don't let 'em play this game. Tell the Georgie apologists you see through the ruse. Tell them that Georgies unfunded war will be a great opportunity to bring the troops home and then lay the blame of ANY outcome in Iraq right where it belongs--The current administration and Repooplicon Congress.

http://www.democrats.com/node/15492

"For 230 years, the party that brings impeachment wins, and the party that fails to do so when it's called for loses. Conyers was there when the Democrats moved to impeach Nixon and then won big. He was there when they refused to impeach Reagan and then lost. And most of the current committee was there when the Republicans impeached Clinton against the will of the public for a non-impeachable offense and still won both houses of Congress and the White House.
When the Democrats held back from impeachment during Iran Contra, they lost the next elections. When the Democrats led the effort to investigate and impeach Nixon, they won big in the next election, even though Ford was running as an incumbent. When the Republicans tried to impeach Truman, they got what they wanted out of the Supreme Court and then won the next elections. Articles of impeachment have been filed against 10 presidents, usually by Republicans, and usually with electoral success following. When the Republicans impeached Clinton, impeachment was actually unpopular with the public. Even so, the Republicans lost far fewer seats than is the norm for a majority party at that point in its tenure. Two years later, they lost seats in the Senate, which had acquitted, but maintained their strength in the House, with representatives who had led the impeachment charge winning big.
Parties that seek to impeach are not punished at the next election. In fact, they frequently improve their position -- as evidenced by the Democrats in 1974, Republicans in 1952, and all the way back to the Whigs of last century. In every election back to 1842 where House members of an opposition party to a sitting president have -- as a whole or a significant caucus within the party -- proposed impeachment of the president, that opposition party retained or improved its position in the House at the following election. In fact, history points in a different direction, suggesting that voters frequently reward parties for taking the Constitution and the rule of law seriously."

For the record:

There is no such thing as "blind hatred of George Bush". That is a myth. Any hatred that George Bush has cultivated among the electorate has probably been well considered, profoundly justified and long overdue.

Personally, I do not hate George Bush at all, although I do hate much of what he's done to my country and the world. But I understand and sympathize with people who do genuinely hate him and, rather than dismiss those people's comments and feelings as being irrational, perhaps it would be better for many of the Bush apologists and revisionists to try to understand why he is as hated as he is.

Who knows. You may learn to hate him yourselves.

Once you stop exercising your blind loyalty to him.

8

Why dont he ask for more. After all, Pelosi and Reid will jump at the chance to give him everything he wants again. Id hate to think that they may not get to brown nose Bush again before he leaves office. It will break their hearts.

ProWarDem (See profile | I'm a fan of ProWarDem)
giginthe sky, here are some WMD-related subjects you could read up on:

1. UN WMD Commission on Iraq
2. UN Weapons Inspectors
3. UN-imposed sanctions on Iraqi leadership
4. Current WMD munitions dicovered in Iraq
5. Baathist WMD programs, scientists and funding
6. 1991 Iraqi ballistic missile attacks on Tel Aviv.

------------------------

Thought we had this conversation yesterday and concluded that you are woefully uninformed or just plain stupid.

============================


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm

U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq
Posted 3/17/2003 5:40 AM

VIENNA, Austria (AP) " In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday.

===========================

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html

U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons
Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."

-snip-

Duelfer's report, delivered yesterday to two congressional committees, represents the government's most definitive accounting of Hussein's weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war. While previous reports have drawn similar conclusions, Duelfer's assessment went beyond them in depth, detail and level of certainty.

==============

would you like me to post all the other ones too??

Por ole VogonCoprolite has not the courage to answer a straightforward question with a straightforward answer. Instead he obfuscates and runs. Disappointing.

In case he is lurking I'll give him one more chance.

Have you Vogon profitted financially from any American involement in Iraq? Have any of your financial dealings been profitable because American forces invaded and have occupied Iraq?
Have you knowingly made money from American military involvement in Iraq?

Yes or no Vagueie.

G.W. Bush,....

Straight 'Gentleman's C' legacy student through Yale and Harvard,...

Given a 'leg up' to get into the Texas AF Reserve and pilot training, but loses flight status and (probably) goes AWOL.

Failed businessman several times over bailed out through sweatheart deals through is daddy's friends,...

Thoroughly mediocre --> completely innefective Governor of the State of Texas,....

And possibly the worst President this country has ever had,...

Of course he is going to leave a mess for some hapless Democrat (or Republican?) to clean up.

What else has he ever finished and left better off than he found it?

Is prowarDem really superbus?

My fear is that the wingnut Anti-War crowd continues to identify itself with the Democratic Party. This cost us the election in 2004, and Bush won handily.

There are reasons why the Dem leaders, elected by the Anti-War, are now Pro-War. It's because they have to be adults now.

It's over. We won. Saddam and Al-Qaida lost. Democracy won. If you continue to bash those accomplishments, you fools are gonna lose us the next election as well.

Wait, I made a mistake. Thought this was a comment thread about funding for the war after the election. But then I looked at the comments, and it looks basically like High School. Maybe some drawings of Hitler moustaches on Bush would make you guys happy.

Thanks for ensuring we lose to Romney folks.