Veto Update

George Bush vetoed the surrender bill with a pen given to him by the father of Marine Cpl. Dustin Derga, killed in Anbar May 8, 2005. Robert Derga wanted him to use the pen to veto that bill, and called to make sure he was going to do it.

Jules has the rest.

Comments

[Vetter]

surge on....Even i am at a loss for how the America-hating libs can spin this. Sweet God,how can you dance now?

[Cindi]

Heroes, both father and son. I am still amazed at the number of young men and women stepping up to fight this war. None wanting to be a hero, but all with a desire to do what they believe will make a difference. Just like Cpl. Dustin Derga did and his father in delivering to President Bush, the pen that will make a difference to all those still fighting for freedom. GOD BLESS AMERICA, OUR TROOPS and the mothers and fathers of those serving.

[Terry Gain]

Ditto Cindi. The courage and character of these heroes and their families is hard to fathom. There is nothing more noble than risking your life so others may live free. OTOH, it's hard to believe the number of sick Americans who are cheering for defeat,

[Zifnab]

May 1, 2007

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

Today, in your veto message regarding the bipartisan legislation just passed on Operation Iraqi Freedom, you asserted that you so decided because you listen to your commanders on the ground.

Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear -- most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril.

[...]

As someone who served this nation for decades, I have the utmost respect for the office you hold. However, as a man of conscience, I could not sit idly by as you told the American people today that your veto was based on the recommendations of military men. Your administration ignored the advice of our military's finest minds before, and I see no evidence that you are listening to them now.

I urge you to reconsider your position, and work with Congress to pass a bill that achieves the goals laid out above.

Respectfully,

Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired

[Kelvin]

(edited) You aren't qualified to speak to Derga's state of mind, particularly when the state of your mind is up your ass, K.

[Fred Beloit]

It is the easiest thing in the world to say I told you so if your coin comes up heads when you called heads. But Zifnab is failing to mention one little detail. If Bush would have sent 500,000 troops into Iraq, Zifnab would have opposed that as being too many and would have opposed the war anyway. Now Zifnab, isn't that true? The decision was based on the new strategy of small, hard-hitting force. It worked for a while. But the decision on the number was just another brave war decision that didn't work out well. This happens all the time in war, as anyone who has read some military history will aver. I still don't see nay reason for us to pull out now, and I see every reason to stay and win. I am sickened that a former Major General in the U.S. Army would write a letter like this. Just sickened.

[nowinger]

Of course you are sickened, its only a matter of time before the wingers start smearing this guy, calling him a traitor and a commie, wanting to throw him in prison along with the other LONG list of retired military who have spoken out. You are also sickened of course because it shows your whole premise of 'listening to the military' is full of shit. Bush has removed any military leader who didn't tell him exactly what he wanted to hear and is still hot on the trail of a war czar to further clamp down on the military telling any truth about Iraq.

[Fred Beloit]

Do I hear something? No, just the mumbling lips of an ape peeling shrimp or the rustling of a skirt. A skirt who knows no more about warfare than the ape knows about shrimp scampi.

[Kelvin]

Major General Paul Easton is a traitor. The Decider should execute him using his veto pen. George Bush is a hero, major generals are traitors.

[Phoenix]

Give us a few sources for your declarations that Bush removed any military leader who didn't tell him what he wanted to hear.

You imply that Bush lives in a fantasy world and will only allow "happy happy" news to cross his desk at the expense of the lives of human beings.

Do you have any idea of how ludicrous that implication is? It says everything about you and nothing about stuff you know nothing about. Give us some concrete examples of your claim.

[Fred Beloit]

Ah, yes, another military historian, tactician, and strategist. Take my wife...please. Bom baddbatbot rim shot.

[nowinger]

You imply that Bush lives in a fantasy world and will only allow "happy happy" news to cross his desk at the expense of the lives of human beings.

I didn't mean to "imply it" I meant to say it outright. That is exactly what I believe about Bush! What is the point of listing all the military people who have been shuffled out of Iraq or a list of all the quotes from retired military about the Iraq disaster? You will simply choose to believe they were removed from their posts for other reasons, that they are traitors or Democrats. I know from long experience that any facts wingers don't like they ignore and then attack.

[Zifnab]

"If Bush would have sent 500,000 troops into Iraq, Zifnab would have opposed that as being too many and would have opposed the war anyway. Now Zifnab, isn't that true?"

As we invaded on imaginary evidence and bullshit claims of WMDs and 9/11 connections, yeah, you caught me. I'd still be against this war.

That said, waging a smart war for imaginary reasons isn't nearly as bad as waging a dumb war for imaginary reasons. Bush talked America into a war that he then proceeded to FUBAR. Now he's digging in his feet on a failed strategy that does nothing to bring peace the region and does nothing to extract us from our mess. He's making the same mistakes he made four years ago when he fired Shinseki for giving an realistic estimate of a successful invasion.

For some crazy reason, many of the ex-Generals are publically opposed to this course of action.

This makes it infinitely easier to oppose the war on every end of the political spectrum.

[Fred Beloit]

You guys probably haven't heard this yet. Al Qaeda is leaving the battlefield. See: http://homepage.mac.com/cptchaz/blog/

[Fred Beloit]

Correction, put i in address before blog as iblog.

[Fred Beloit]

Zifnab, Bush talked Hillery Clinton and all the rest into a war with Iraq. They hate him for God's sake. Try some other form of obfuscation. please.

[Phoenix]

"You will simply choose to believe they were removed from their posts for other reasons, that they are traitors or Democrats."

I choose to believe after I've studied both sides of an issue. I do not choose based on a simplistic algorithm of LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE. Are you nuts? Yeah, you are nuts if you can state for the world to see that you believe Bush is capable of letting young men die to feed his ego. You've lost all credibility - not that you had much but you had hints of it.

The military does not run under the rules of PC. If you cannot do your job, someone replaces you. The military's take-no-prisoners philosophy extends to those in its own rank and file. The military is not the mamby-pambly world of civilian life where one gets to whine his way into power with the threat of a lawsuit because 'my boss was mean to me'.

But, lo, the military is indeed made up of humans, and humans who can't do their job and are forced to pay the consequences whine and bitch and blame just like any other scoundrel who didn't get his way. Hence: What these candy-ass generals are all about with their show-and-tell.

[Phoenix]

I know from long experience that any facts wingers don't like they ignore and then attack.

Posted by: nowinger | Wednesday, May 02, 2007 at 11:42 AM

And quit generalizing, you ass.

In fact, prove your statement. Prove it.

[Fred Beloit]

They just can't help going back to the same old BS in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Bush talked the majority of Dems in Congress into believing in Iraq WMD. Then he somehow secretly went to all the intelligence agencies in the Western democracies and convinced them of the same thing. How absurd, yet they keep dragging out this utter nonsense.

[Fred Beloit]

BTW Bush, BEFORE HE WAS PRESIDENT, convinced Bill Clinton of the same false charge. One can only laugh at this idiocy.

[Fred Beloit]

Bush lied, terrorists died. Good.

[imaginewhirledpeas]

"As we invaded on imaginary evidence and bullshit claims of WMDs and 9/11 connections" along with "wehategeorgebushnomatterwhat" are Ziffy's only reasons for being against this war. That's all he needs, no real world experience, no historical background, nothing but emotion. Please do not try to force him to give up facts or justification. Do however note Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired, who "served the naton for decades" never rose above two stars. What's that, a division commander? Bring us someone who knows how to run an army.

[Hard Right]

"I know from long experience that any facts wingers don't like they ignore and then attack."

Classic leftist projection. Conservatives dispute your facts. What you posted was your tactics, not ours.

What's funny is that the dems kicked many of the above named Generals to the curb recently. Why? Because they are against cutting and running! The left only likes the military or some of it's members when useful to advance their cause.

[Hard Right]

"As we invaded on imaginary evidence and bullshit claims of WMDs..."

Umm, then the Dems lied too. There are multiple quotes of Clinton and other high ranking Dems saying they believed Saddam had WMDs. This was before Bush was in office. So he went with info that was consistent with past info. He had Tenet telling him it was a "Slam Dunk". But Bush lied? As usual it's the retard left that's lying.

[imaginewhirledpeas]

HardRight: I don't think you realize how powerful Bush is. What's so hard to believe about a governor in Texas convincing the president that Saddam had nukes (I say nukes because that's what libs think WMD means) Anyway, this guy was able to convince people to fly air craft into buildings where operatives snuck in and planted thermite bombs strategically and without detection to melt steel. The man can STEER hurricanes and his farts are so powerful as to cause the whole globe to heat up to catastrophic levels. I SAW the dude walk across the reflecting pool on the mall, lengthwise, without washing the dust off his soles. He IS the most powerful human being since superman, second only to Cheney whose powers must be controlled by the CIA

[Phoenix]

Oh man............ Yay, military! I just watched a bit of news and it seems some rock star set up a show for the guys at Walter Reed. He invited Joan Baez to play. Four days before the show, she got nixed. The Army said 'no way'.

Hallelujah! You reap what you sow................

[Kelvin]

"some rock star"

You sound like such an old hag.

[imaginewhirledpeas]

Ah comon kelvin, Phoenix probably didn't mention Mellencamp by name cause there's no telling what he's calling himself this year,

[nowinger]

It's seems unnecessary to point out the big difference between Bush and Clinton on Iraq, but, Clinton never made a case for an invasion of Iraq in order to facilitate regime change. It's true that many people wrongly believed Hussein had WMD, but only the Bush Administration took this to the extreme of saying we had to go to war and occupy Iraq in order to protect ourselves from this 'threat'.

[imaginewhirledpeas]

winger: Face it, if Clinton had told the dims that there were no WMDs (anymore) then the dims would not have voted to support the "invasion" and there would not have been enough votes. Instead he agreed that there were and that Saddam was a MAJOR threat. So a combination of their leader and being poll bound, they jumped all over the bandwagon and now here we are.

[ET]

I am sure the newly elected democratic congress, which swept into office on a groundswell of support for a timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq, will simply override the President's veto.

Oh Oh....wait a minute..THEY DON'T HAVE THE VOTES.

Poseurs. Nowings accuses Bush of feeding his ego by endagering American lives. Where is the protest against a congress that doesn't have the balls to put their votes where their rhetoric is? "Bring them Home!" they cry at rallies and on TV interviews. Then they play politics with symbolic legislation that barely passes, is vetoed as promised, and then upheld by the Democratic congress.

You can't call this Bush's war anymore. You just bought it.

We will not withdraw from Iraq. We will stay and prevail. Liberal anti-war BS artists will be exposed for the traitors they are. Republicans will win the White house in '08. Nowings and Calvin will be served shit sandwiches for lunch for the next decade.

[imaginewhirledpeas]

222 vs 203? Who were the panzies who abstained?

[nowinger]

If they don't have the votes to override the veto they dont' have the votes, are you only supposed to pass legislation that is veto proof?

Congress already did put their votes where their rhetoric is and passed legislation calling for a timetable. The preisdent vetoed it.

It remains to be seen what kind of compromise can or will be worked out or whether the Democrats in Congress can fashion a bill that enough Republicans are comfortable with to be veto proof.

[ET]

Nowings...you know...I know...the dems in congress know...that a timetable was never a good idea. they passed legislation, knowing it would be vetoed (cause that liar Bush told them so) for only one reason...to satisfy their far left political supporters. the excercise cost time and money and hurt the moral of the troops. And ultimately accomplished nothing positive.

These are the hypocrites you elected. Now they will, for all practical purposes, support the president on the war. Why? Because his approach is the only one on the table that makes sense. The fact that they, and you, know that (and will now act on it, in the case of congress) but continue to spew anti-bush slogans renders all of you irrelevant.

Funny how "consensus" and "polls" are also irrelevant when it comes time for the votes. I can't wait to hear how much the American people want us out of "Pelosi's war".

[nowinger]

I see it a different way. Bush demanded money to wage the war, an undeclared, unauthorized war by the way, without any strings at all on anyone, no benchmarks, timetable no nothing. He seems to believe his stellar performance of the last four years means he still has a blank check.

Those days are over and Bush knows that. What he wants, a blank check from Congress with no oversight, is unacceptable. He has demonstrated that he is not capable of managing the war without oversight and input. Congress is going to give it to him.

He could also have signed the bill and just ignored the parts he disagrees with, he's certainly done that enough times before.

George Bush thinks he can turn the public against the Dems by his veto. Time will tell if Americans have finally woken up to his lies and manipulations or not.

[Zifnab]

"Face it, if Clinton had told the dims that there were no WMDs (anymore) then the dims would not have voted to support the "invasion" and there would not have been enough votes."

The UN said they didn't have weapons. Reporters and ground sources said they didn't have weapons. The CIA couldn't figure out if aluminium tubes constituted "weapons" or not. Joe Wilson confirmed that Iraq wasn't buying fuel for weapons. No weapons were used on invading troops as we marched on Bagdad.

And all the while Condi and Rumsfeld and Cheney were practically screaming that we couldn't allow the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

But none of that matters because we had to go into Iraq to kill brown people. Seriously, you guys couldn't be more racist if you tried. This was George's War to slaughter the Muslims, because he's been feeding too long at the trough of the Religious Right. And the latest Crusade has done about as well as the last twenty.

"Then they play politics with symbolic legislation that barely passes, is vetoed as promised, and then upheld by the Democratic congress." And quit being a fucking putz, ET. The Dems picked up 30 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate in a landslide victory. But because they don't have a 2/3rds Majority in both houses... yet... they're cowards how? Which Democrat spoke out loud and long against the war, then broke rank and voted for the funding? Either you're completely ignorant of the legislative process or you're deliberately abusing the facts.

I know you'd much rather our representatives spend its time on Flag Burning and Legalizing Homophobia legislation, but when over 60% of the country wants us out of this god-forsaken war, sometimes even a Presidential Veto threat isn't enough to make Congress roll over and hand the Republicans another blank check to squander.

[imaginewhirledpeas]

"I can't wait to hear how much the American people want us out of "Pelosi's war"."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That's the best thing I've read in a long time. Flashback to the dnc riots of1968

[imaginewhirledpeas]

Ziffy you're totally unredeemable. The CiC doesn't have to declare war or have approval (I guess the vote to support the thing doesnt count for approval when one only sees out of the left eye)The UN said there were no weapons? No, some UN inspectors said there were no weapons. That they were not allowed total access makes one question what the hell they actually "KNEW". GD!!! ok, so there were no f'ing WMDs (at least what you or I consider WMDs) Geeze, get over it! Next explain how one group of caucazoids killing another group of caucazoids is racist????? And dumbass......NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE BROWN.
Only 425 members of the house voted today genius. You look up how many didn't. As for your landslide....hardly a landslide especially considering the number of conservative dems voted into office. Look go do your homework and quit wasting daddy's money playing on the computer.

[Hard Right]

"The UN said they didn't have weapons. Reporters and ground sources said they didn't have weapons. The CIA couldn't figure out if aluminium tubes constituted "weapons" or not. Joe Wilson confirmed that Iraq wasn't buying fuel for weapons."

Ziftard, ziftard, ziftard...the U.N. is incompetent and was known to be even then. Not to mention they had been bought off. Many sources DID say they had WMDs-like major intelligence agencies of other countries. Joe Wilson DID confirm Saddam sought Uranium-then LIED publicly about what he found. He testified to the contrary of what you claimed before congress. Ooops.
Not to mention that WMDs were only one of many reasons we invaded Iraq. So Zif, stop lying and distorting the facts. Wait, what am I saying? You're a liberal. Those are requirements for being a liberal. If you faced reality you'd have a total nervous breakdown.

[nowinger]

I thought Saddam failing to abide by UN sanctions was a big reason we needed to invade. Come to find out the UN had been 'bought off'...You'd better get that new talking point to the WH, since Iraq failing to abide by UN imposed sanctions was and is one of the still standing flimsy excues for the war. Of course under international law and the United Nations preventative war itself is illegal. Go figure.

The Niger uranium deal has been totally debunked, why do you cons keep bringing up the same lies over and over again. There are reems of reports about the forged documents and the non uranium buying episode that never happened.

The primary reasons we invaded Iraq were because Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction in defiance of the UN resolutions, he was close to getting a nuclear bomb and Iraq was an IMMINENT THREAT.

All of these reasons were false.

There was no smoking gun that was going to be a mushroom cloud. The guy didn't have hardly any conventional weapons that were in working order let alone WMD or nukes.

Jesus Christ.

[charles]

the reality based community in full gallop

[Phoenix]

Yeah, Charles, except their chargers are running in reverse. Why do they constantly, relentlessly, endlessly, rhetorically bring up the past and refuse to face the present?

It is inconceivable to expect they have the ability to contemplate the myriad possibilities of a 'future'; but it would enhance discourse if they could leave the past behind and deal today what will affect tomorrow. They cannot do it. Their brains are hardwired to blame. That means,....... ta dah....... they can never explore possibilities. The 'possibilities' [future] are to them the next remark they're going to make to shut down conversation by bringing up useless facts about the past.

A nod is as good as a wink to blind horse.