Why would ( Archived) (4)

Mar 29, 2007 11:44 PM CST Why would
lvslife
lvslifelvslifemoore, USA223 Threads 2,565 Posts
a man (the president) stand up against the majority of the people and veto something that is being voted on against his policies in Iraq? When so many (and now the Senate) have voted for a time line and the funding to get out of Iraq by 2008? Why is he so staunch against what most of the people want? It has passed all the necessary levels, only to be told that he didn't care, and would veto every one that came to his desk. How can he do that in good conscience?
Kat
------ This thread is Archived ------
Mar 29, 2007 11:56 PM CST Why would
yourdaddylol
yourdaddylolyourdaddylolsomewhere, Missouri USA5 Threads 71 Posts
you just answered your question darlin...he has to have a conscience first in order to not veto that bill..plain and simple...he is the r3everse end of the damn donkey with a vertical smile!!!
------ This thread is Archived ------
Mar 30, 2007 12:04 AM CST Why would
lvslife
lvslifelvslifemoore, USA223 Threads 2,565 Posts
rolling on the floor laughing rolling on the floor laughing That picture!! Oh my gawd...
Good answer sweetie.
Kat
------ This thread is Archived ------
Mar 30, 2007 1:34 AM CST Why would
highfidelity
highfidelityhighfidelityEurope, Lower Saxony Germany37 Threads 2,287 Posts
On Friday, March 23, the Democrats in the House of Representatives pushed through the "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act" by a vote of 218-212. The bill gives the Bush administration some $100 billion to continue the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, while calling for U.S. combat troops to leave Iraq by September 1, 2008.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi hailed this as a vote "to bring an end to the war in Iraq." But it is no such thing. This bill (and a similar Democratic Party bill under consideration in the Senate) is not a step towards ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq or the larger "war on terror" it is part of. This bill doesn't represent a condemnation of-or accountability for-the U.S.'s unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq. Rather the bill's stated goal is to "help fight the war on terror." And the bill certainly doesn't call for U.S. forces to leave the Middle East/Central Asian region.

Instead of ending the war, this bill is an effort to pressure the Bush regime to adjust its strategy in Iraq and the region to better preserve U.S. imperialist hegemony and stamp out anti-U.S. resistance, Islamic fundamentalism in particular. It's also designed to rein in and paralyze the millions who are increasingly angry and disillusioned with the war and the Bush regime, and channel these feelings into support for a different (Democratic Party) strategy and tactics in waging that war. So while talking of ending the war , the Democrats offer a plan to continue the war in Iraq, expand the war in Afghanistan, and give Bush a green light to attack Iran!
frustrated very mad
------ This thread is Archived ------
Post Comment - Post a comment on this Forum Thread

This Thread is Archived

This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.

« Go back to All Threads
Message #318

Stats for this Thread

802 Views
3 Comments
by lvslife (223 Threads)
Created: Mar 2007
Last Viewed: Apr 21
Last Commented: Mar 2007

Share this Thread

We use cookies to ensure that you have the best experience possible on our website. Read Our Privacy Policy Here