I understand that we're talking about troops not dinner, and the stakes are higher, but damn, who the hell PUT them there? I'd say since HE did, he damned well should get the money any way he can, and if he's too stupid to, the Republicans in congress should damn well drop their little (r)'s, do whats right, and override this assholes vetoes.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Please explain
Why is the onus on the Democrats to support the troops by sending a "clean bill" to bush and not on bush to sign a bill to get money to the troops even if it means a non binding withdrawal date? Bush want the money, bush didn't plan for it in his 2007 budget. If HE needs the money for HIS war why does HE hold all the cards. No, I believe since this war was started by republicans, THEY should be the ones getting the money to the troops in whatever way they can. It's like if a friend wanted to borrow 50 bucks to take his girl out to dinner, and I say OK, but you have to lend me one of your CD's, it's his choice, but if he doesn't agree, he doesn't get the money. I'm sure as hell not going to negotiate the fact... It's not MY fault he didn't plan well enough to have the money himself, it's not MY responsibility to make sure he has money for dinner and getting lucky.
I understand that we're talking about troops not dinner, and the stakes are higher, but damn, who the hell PUT them there? I'd say since HE did, he damned well should get the money any way he can, and if he's too stupid to, the Republicans in congress should damn well drop their little (r)'s, do whats right, and override this assholes vetoes.
I understand that we're talking about troops not dinner, and the stakes are higher, but damn, who the hell PUT them there? I'd say since HE did, he damned well should get the money any way he can, and if he's too stupid to, the Republicans in congress should damn well drop their little (r)'s, do whats right, and override this assholes vetoes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I've given this same comment all day, even to a few conservative sites;
There is a Bible story where two women claim rights to a baby... they are taken to the King and he has to make the decision about whom the baby belongs.
The King said, what I will do is split the baby in half and give you both an equal share.
One woman said ok give me my half, the other women said, let her have him... I would much rather see him alive with her than to be dead with both of us.
The King said to that woman; woman take your child, you truly are the mother.
It seems that this story could apply to what went on with Bush and the Democrats.
The Democrats would rather drop their benchmarks, then to see the military without funds in Iraq, whereas Bush would rather veto the bill and see the military without funds regardless, so he could get his way.
There is no way this could have been blamed on the Democrats, when it was Bush who did not accept this bill and there by leaving the troops without funds.
The Democrats just like the Mother would rather see the funds given to the military where as Bush really did not care as long as he got his way.
We will see what happens in September... unless we are fighting Iran by then.
If we are fighting Iran by then...it will be because Democrats did not stand up to Bush now. The Democrats did not compromise in order to fund our troops; they caved in to a madman and gave him permission to carry on his murderous deceit.
How many more thousands of troops will now die. How many more years will this war of lies go on?
Post a Comment