posted on March 21, 2007 11:56:41 AM new
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
I wanted to point out to 'WACO' the actual RESULTS of the 'first 100 hours' he was just SO proudly bragging about when the dem party took power of BOTH houses.
'Waco' was just SO sure they'd accomplish SO much.
This proves that hasn't happened. tsk tsk tsk
==========================================
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
Democrats 0 for 6 in Congress; agenda sidetracked by Iraq war
By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published March 21, 2007
None of the elements of the newly minted Democrats' congressional agenda have made it to President Bush's desk, and the prospects of signature bills such as federal funding for stem-cell research or homeland-security improvements becoming law any time soon are doubtful.
Much of the Democratic agenda -- dubbed "Six for '06" -- sailed out of the House with bipartisan support, but all of it has stalled in the Senate as leaders scramble to deal with the Iraq war.
"I don't think they've gotten anything done," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio said of the Democrats. "How many bills have they sent to the president? None? Somewhere around there."
A minimum-wage increase, which seems the most likely of the Democratic plans to get Mr. Bush's signature, has not yet been sent to the president because House and Senate leaders are still bickering over its specifics.
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland last week grumbled over what he called a "slowdown" in the senate, while acknowledging his counterpart in that chamber has an uphill battle to pass legislation in a closely divided body.
"I would like to have passed them all by now," he said. "I'm frustrated by it, yes."
Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada responded later that day: "Steny is my friend, and he hasn't spent much time in the Senate. They [the House] have expedited procedures on everything."
Mr. Reid noted Democratic successes in his chamber, adding, "I think we've done really, really well."
Yesterday, the Senate leader said his chamber will consider a bill to federally fund stem-cell research the second week of April, which is "as soon as we can," given all the other items on the agenda.
"We're moving down the road on what we've set out to do," he said.
However, Mr. Bush has promised to veto the stem-cell bill, identical to one passed by both chambers last year under the Republican Congress.
A bill that has passed both chambers -- implementing the remaining recommendations of the September 11 commission -- also has drawn the president's ire. The measure that overwhelmingly passed the House triggered a veto threat from Mr. Bush when the Senate attached a provision allowing airport screeners to collectively bargain. Republicans say they will back the president, making it impossible for either chamber to override a veto.
Mr. Hoyer seemed especially irritated that his signature issue, increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour, has been bogged down as the House and Senate negotiate a possible tax break for small businesses to offset the cost of raising the wage.
"I cannot understand why anybody would want to trap hardworking people in the richest country on the face of the earth working 40 hours a week in a framework of 1997 wages," he said.
Senate Republicans have attached the tax package to their chamber's version of the bill. The House passed a $1.3 billion tax cut for small businesses as a compromise, but the two chambers must still come up with a final conference report before the bill can be sent to Mr. Bush.
The sluggish Senate is nothing new on Capitol Hill, but the speed of the House's initial actions -- leaders there passed their 100 hours agenda in less than 50 hours -- highlights the stalled agenda.
What's more, Iraq has dominated
everything lawmakers are trying to do.
Senators spent weeks negotiating resolutions on Mr. Bush's troop surge to Iraq, and House actions slowed to a crawl as Democrats offer smaller bills while huddling to come up with an Iraq plan.
Now House leaders are building support among Democrats for the strategy, in the form of a troop-withdrawal timetable attached to a $124 billion war supplemental spending bill.
Any spirit of compromise the Democrats and Mr. Bush felt in January has further eroded as the president sends down veto threats and as the new majority party challenges his administration's every move.
Mr. Hoyer noted the difficulty Mr. Reid faces in a body where 60 is the magic number to pass any legislation and he controls only 51 members, but he made sure to add that "on almost every one" of the elements of the Democratic agenda passed the House with 60 percent of the vote or more. "We averaged 62 Republicans," he said.
The remaining "Six for '06" bills cut the interest rate on student loans, make changes to the Medicare prescription-drug plan and roll back the subsidies for big oil companies.
"I think the student-loan bill has overwhelming votes I'm sure in the Senate as it did here," Mr. Hoyer said. "We'd like to see it move."
Democrats are also quick to quell any discontent at the lack of action, and point to what they label the "Do Nothing Congress" run by Republicans in recent years.
Both Democratic leaders assailed their Republican predecessors for failing to pass the appropriations bills last year, and applauded themselves for passing a continuing resolution to fund the government in both chambers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 21, 2007 12:12 PM ]
posted on March 21, 2007 12:42:05 PM new
You sure that's right??? What about all that stuff peepa said they passed?? LOL.
Twits like peepa are hysterically funny in that they think there is a difference between "Democrats" and "Republicans". They're all just "politicians" and if there's nobody to wash your back, you don't offer to wash theirs.
posted on March 21, 2007 02:59:44 PM new
Time will tell. Its just a matter of a short time until Bushy is retired living in the disgrace of HIS failed war and Presidency.
The 110th Congress will keep plugging away for the betterment of the majority.
The congress will expose the obstructionist republican lawmakers that are up for election in 2008. I have said before "BRING THEM ON" the Vitos that is.
What a flip flop the desperate new-cons "Family Value" bunch is doing running baby killers for President. SHAME SHAME SHAME!!!
posted on March 21, 2007 05:06:53 PM new
ROFLOL - don't worry 'waco' this President will NEVER "vito" anything.
He might however, VETO some of the garbage the liberals try to get passed.
And since you couldn't list even ONE bill that the newly elected house and senate have managed to get passed since January.....guess your expectations weren't really sincere after all.
All that was just YOUR own hot air you were blowing.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 21, 2007 07:28:41 PM new
Funny article. Unfortunately, the reality is that the White House and Republican leadership, particularly in the Senate are more concerned about protecting their buddies than they are about this country. The facts are quite simple to follow. The Democrats have made an impact. They have brought forth several pieces of legislation. As we have seen time and time again, good legislation ends up getting cut apart with riders, amendments, changes, etc. It's the typical political bait and switch routine. Remember the neocon battle cry, "I voted for it before I voted against it?" What most neocons like Linduh always manage to forget to mention is that legislation continues to evolve until it is passed. We've seen it time and time again.
Linduh's blathering about what the Democrats haven't accomplished in 3 months is quite amusing however if you compare it to what the Republicans weren't able to accomplish with their money pumping fascist corporate war mongering agenda, both houses under their control, a Republican president in office, and a moderately conservative judicial branch. The fact remains, that significant change doesn't happen overnight.
posted on March 21, 2007 07:33:32 PM new
Liar_K,
Only has things like misspelled words to pick up on. She sure as hell can't defend the bunch of failures she voted for.
Talk about self inflected wounds just look at the new-con republican party.
A better question for you Liar_k is what will BUSHY (the lame duck) accomplish before he is living in the disgrace of a failed war and Presidency? Or what will the republican lawmakers accomplish before they lose more political power in 2008?
The 110th Congress will SLOW COOK Bushy and what is left of Bushy's Gang of republican crooks and liars.
I WILL ENJOY EVERY MINUTE OF WATCHING THE BUSHY SLEAZE BAGS SQUIRM.
posted on March 21, 2007 09:33:33 PM new
Good legislation????
Really? LOL
You must mean all that pork spending the dems are trying to get by including them in the spending bill for our troops. lol
Oh yea, they're going to change the way things have been done alright. LOL They'll outspend the republicans faster than our Linda Blairs head can spin around a couple of times and raise our taxes to boot. LOL
I'm glad to see they're not having much success in the Senate. And after two years of watching the dems do NOTHING....the voters won't support their party. They'll finally see they're all TALK and NO action.
I'm a patient person....and I'll wait for the REALLY angry left to get pissed off that the dems aren't doing much of anything they said they'd do IF elected. lol
But hey.....maybe one of you liberals have read/heard where the dem party has decided to STOP FUNDING THE WARS. lol I haven't....and that was the biggest reason so many gained the seats they did.
But the voters appear to have to learn the hard way.....by the dems proving to them what cowards and failures they really are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 21, 2007 09:37 PM ]
posted on March 22, 2007 12:40:45 AM new
Bush administration scandals
From SourceWatch
Bush administration scandals, as of January 18, 2005, according to Salon's Peter Dzikes, came to a grand total of 34 for the "first four years of George Bush's presidency." [1]
On January 13, 2005, Katrina vanden Heuvel posted her list in The Nation of "the Bush Administration's Ten Most Outrageous Scandals thus far uncovered by government investigators." :
Halliburton's Corruption
Iraq's Decline
Abu Ghraib Prison Torture
CIA Pre-9/11 Intelligence Failures
HHS Deceptive Ad Campaign
HHS Scully Scandal
Government-wide Accounting Problems
Sex Education Misinformation
CAPPS II Failures
Real Costs of the Iraq War
It was less than one year ago, on April 20, 2004, Thomas R. Asher, writing for Tom Paine, headlined with "Losing Control" -- "Echoes of Watergate fill the air: a president is charged with misdeeds. He is besieged by plans gone awry, betrayed by underlings blowing whistles, harassed by a once-compliant press and barraged by querulous demands for data, documents and testimony."
Asher added: "George W. Bush, who reveres power, is losing his own as events in Washington and Iraq, and their public portrayal, slip from his grasp. His predicaments are rooted less in Lord Acton's adage that 'power corrupts' than its corollary that power seduces its holders into overestimating their strength and ignoring its limits. Bush has an inflated sense of several variants of power: bending others to one's will, be they subjects, messengers, adversaries or enemies; silencing dissent; protecting secrets; and building and preserving credibility. The latter is especially important in an election year." [2]
Additionally, Asher writes, "Bush faces a wider range of potential scandals, which include: [3]
Iraq: the rationale for, cost of, and occupation plans following America's conquest (DOS, DOD, CIA, FBI);
Suppressed Medicare costs (HHS) and bioterrorism studies (DOD);
Insufficient terrorism preparedness and prevention, domestic and international, before and after 9/11 (CIA, FBI, DOD, etc.);
Mounting fiscal deficits and tax relief only for the wealthy (Treasury, OMB); and
Skewed or suppressed scientific research and policies (NIH, HHS, FDA, EPA).
"The president and his administration, in Watergate mode," he says, "already find themselves focusing more on damage control than new initiatives, both in Washington and Baghdad. They spend time with lawyers and spinmeisters, rather than policy advisors, and are bogged down in old problems, which prevents them from focusing on the cascade of new ones. Their power to 'embed' or bully the skeptical media is diminishing. And Mr. Bush's re-election campaign is increasingly shrill, scattered, partisan and reactive--not the image of serene confidence and control he hoped to project." [4]
Amazingly, he points out, "Mr. Bush's multiple misrepresentations and misjudgments put him in position to break a key Watergate speed record. From the Watergate burglary on June 17, 1971 to Nixon's resignation on Aug. 8, 1974, it took some 38 months. In between, Nixon managed to keep the tawdry facts and circumstances under sufficient control to win re-election in 1972. In contrast, from the first 'new product' announcement of the Iraq invasion in early September, 2002, to election day November 2, 2004, is a mere 26 months, which would beat Nixon's record by 33 percent." [5]
Compared to the Vietnam War fallout, he writes, Bush may establish another "world record":
"Iraq also may eclipse the presidential war blowback record set by Vietnam. Of course, no civilized exit strategy for American hegemony and troops currently exists and the likelihood of an international takeover is diminished because of (a) little support among our NATO allies, (b) a timorous United Nations, further weakened by the Bush administration's lack of respect and support, and (c) Bush's continued refusal to relinquish effective control. It took six years, from 1962 to 1968, for Vietnam to undo a president, Lyndon B. Johnson; five years if you count only his time as president. In contrast, the Iraq war began in March, 2003, fewer than 19 months before Election Day 2004." [6]
A month earlier, in fact, on March 19, 2004, the administration's scandals were reaching the point that The Carpetbagger Report--"Scandal after scandal after scandal"--claimed to be having flashbacks to scandal fatigue ("a conservative buzz phrase from the late 90s". [7]
At the time of that posting, the daily weblog cited no less than twelve "substantive scandals involving the GOP in the last three years":
Dick Cheney's secretive Energy Task Force was investigated by the GAO and the case is currently pending at the Supreme Court.
The Homeland and Lilly Protection Act
The Plame Game is under investigation by the Justice Department.
Bush's Medicare scam and the circumstances that led the administration to lie to Congress about the cost of the legislation is under investigation by the HHS inspector general's office.
The massive intelligence failure that led Bush to lie to the world about the Iraqi threat is under investigation by a congressionally-authorized independent commission (which Bush fought the creation of).
Bribes offered on the House floor to Rep. Nick Smith (R-Mich.) in exchange for his vote on Bush's Medicare plan are under investigation by the House Ethics Committee and the Justice Department.
Attorney General John Ashcroft was under investigation by the Federal Election Commission for violating campaign finance laws in 2000, and the FEC concluded that Ashcroft accepted $110,000 in illegal contributions.
An investigation into House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's criminal fundraising schemes in Texas -- which allegedly used corporate funds to help state GOP lawmakers -- is already before a Texas grand jury.
Republican staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee were investigated for stealing thousands of confidential memos from Dem computers, a matter that has now been referred to the Justice Department for a possible criminal probe.
Republican Connecticut Gov. John Rowland is under a criminal investigation (and an impeachment investigation) after he lied about prominent state contractors and several government aides paying for refurbishments to his lake-front cottage.
Former Rep. Bill Janklow (R-S.D.) was under investigation for vehicular manslaughter, a crime for which he was later convicted.
The Pentagon launched a formal investigation into well-armed evangelist and three-star General William G. Boykin, Bush's pick for deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, and his record of extreme religious rhetoric.
The circumstances that led to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 are under investigation by a congressionally-authorized independent commission (which, again, Bush fought the creation of and then later resisted cooperating with); and subsequently the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
And honorable mentions should go, of course, to investigations into Halliburton (Dick Cheney's former company) and Enron (George Bush's biggest corporate supporter).
Contents
[hide]
1 "The Most Dangerous Man in the World"
2 "-gates" during the George W. Bush administration
3 Related SourceWatch Resources
4 External Links
[edit]"The Most Dangerous Man in the World"
In the March 19, 2004, edition of Capitol Hill Blue, Doug Thompson wrote about "The Most Dangerous Man in the World". On the anniversary of the launch of shock and awe in Iraq, Thompson says that the "invasion was necessary, we were told by our leaders, because Saddam Hussein was 'the most dangerous man in the world,' had weapons of mass destruction and had helped Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda kill more than 3,000 civilians in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001.
"President George W. Bush told the nation and the world he had proof of all this and Congress approved the rush to war, even though doing so meant scaling back our search for bin Laden in Afghanistan.
"That was then. This is now," he wrote. "Now we know that Hussein's so-called weapons of mass destruction did not exist because his scientists lacked both the resources and the expertise to actually build them. Now we know that our 'proof' of a hard link between Hussein and bin Laden came from faulty intelligence and any real link has yet to be proven."
"We know now that Saddam Hussein did not pose any real imminent threat to the U.S. Hussein was, at best, a sham leader who controlled his country through illusion, deceit and bluster. Ironically, he was brought down by a military sent into battle by another sham leader who controls his country through illusion, deceit and bluster.
"On the news talk shows this morning and in speeches throughout the day, the Bush administration tries to justify the war with Iraq by calling Saddam Hussein 'the most dangerous man in the world.'
"But the most dangerous man in the world is not sitting in a jail cell somewhere in Iraq.
"He is not hiding out in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan.
"Not really. The most dangerous man in the world may well be working out of an oval-shaped office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC."
[edit]"-gates" during the George W. Bush administration
Abu-Gate is the term occasionally found identifying the allegations of acts of brutality, abuse, and torture at Abu Ghraib Enemy Prisoner of War camp in Iraq.
Compassiongate is the term utilized by the Compassiongate web site in an attempt to explain the Compassionate Conservatism, i.e. the Compassionate Conservatism of the Bush administration: "the dearth (but not lack) of a conscience."
CondiGate is the term used to describe Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s (1) testimony given April 8, 2004, before the 9/11 Commission, and (2) "reported directive to her staff to keep mum" on John R. Bolton’s nomination as ambassador to the United Nations in April 2005. [8][9]
Foleygate is the term used in reference to the sex scandal revealed in late September 2006 involving former Republican Rep. Mark Foley's "simply naughty" e-mails sent to male teen pages. Until his September 29, 2006, immediate resignation, Foley served as co-chair of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus.
Gannongate is the term being applied to fake news reporter James Guckert, alias "Jeff Gannon", who worked for fake news agency Talon News, with "daily passes" somehow obtained from the Secret Service and FBI which allowed Guckert/Gannon access to White House press briefings and to parse questions to President Bush.
Hookergate is the term given to the Congressional Bribery and a DC Sex Scandal.
Intimigate is the term coined by David Sirota of the Center for American Progress to describe "the well established pattern ... that the Bush Administration has summarily fired, intimidated and defamed anyone who has had the courage to tell the truth about Iraq."
Memogate is the term used to describe allegations of Republican operatives hacking into the computer systems of Democratic members of Congress.
Rathergate: Sumner M. Redstone, George W. Bush & CBS.
Rovegate and Treasongate both refer to Karl Rove's outing of Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative.
Scoregate is the term used regarding the "controversy over Medicare scoring ... Richard Foster, Medicare's top actuary ... recently made headlines by suggesting that the White House may have been involved in keeping his estimates of the new Medicare law under wraps." It is also known as Medigate. [10] [11]
SnoopGate, so-named December 19, 2005, by Jonathan Alter, regarding George W. Bush's domestic spying.
UNscam is the name given to the scandal surrounding the United Nations' Oil-for-Food Program.
[edit]Related SourceWatch Resources
Abu Ghraib / Enemy Prisoner of War Camps in Iraq
Ahmed Chalabi: Fall from Grace
anthrax
August 6, 2001, President's Daily Briefing Memo
Bill Frist: Inside Trader
Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack (2004 book)
Bush administration and the Enron connection
Bush administration: Project for the New American Century (PNAC members in key positions in the administration)
Bush administration fetish for government secrecy
Bush administration flip flops
Bush administration leaks
Bush administration propaganda and disinformation
Bush administration: personal data leaks and invasion of privacy
Bush administration: return to space
Bush administration smear campaigns
Bush doctrine
Bush lies and deceptions
Bush/Republican Initiatives
Bush's 16 words
Bush's judicial nominees
capture of Saddam Hussein
capture of Saddam Hussein backlash
Tom DeLay's Celebrations for Children Inc.
Computer Assisted Passenger PreScreening System II and CAPPS II abuses
Congressional Bribery and a DC Sex Scandal
cooked intelligence
data mining
Department of Homeland Security
electoral fraud
enemy combatant
evil, evil ones, evil doers
flash media
follow the money
"forward strategy of freedom"
George W. Bush's domestic spying
George W. Bush's military service
George W. Bush's military service/External Links 1999-2003
George W. Bush's phone records spying
George W. Bush: The War President is Missing in Action
Georgeland
Guantanamo Bay
global insurgency for change
globalization
Halliburton Company
Health Care
illegal immigration
internet surveillance
Intimigate
Iran-Contra II
Iraq as an imminent threat
I've been to war.
Jack Abramoff
Jeb Bush: Alleged Affair with Cynthia Henderson
Iraq Coalition Casualty Statistics
Iraqi National Congress
Jessica Lynch
Karl Rove: Outing Valerie Plame
Kellogg Brown and Root
Loose Cannon Pentagon
Mad Cow USA
Medicare Prescription Drug Bill Vote Scandal, 2003
Memogate
Michael Scanlon
military-industrial complex
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: Testimony (9-11 Commission)
Neil Mallon Bush
Niger-Iraq nuclear connection forgery
nuclear weapons
oil industry
Operation Enduring Freedom
Operation Iraqi Freedom
Operation Iraqi Freedom: Beginnings of a Quagmire
Operation Iraqi Freedom: Year Three: Quagmire
Osama bin Laden
Patriot Act abuses
Patriot Act II
Paul O'Neill
Pax Americana
Pax Americana, Africa
political spying
preemptive war
privatization
Private Military Corporations
Proactive Preemptive Operations Group
psyops
Ralph Reed
rebranding the Bush administration
regime change
religion and empire
Richard A. Clarke
Richard N. Perle: Trireme Partners LP; resignation from the Defense Policy Board
road map to peace
Scoregate, a.k.a. Medigate
Selective Service System
September 11, 2001: Evacuation of Saudi Nationals
Roberts nomination scandal / John G. Roberts, Jr. Bush's Supreme Court nominee
soft money
stop-loss order
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Republican Connection
The one-party state
The leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, July 21, 2002: "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action"
The secret Downing Street memo, July 23, 2002
Thomas D. DeLay indicted September 28, 2005
Total Information Awareness
treating dissent as treason
United States as a rogue nation
U.S. budget deficit
U.S. economy
U.S. National Debt
U.S. prescription drug system
U.S. tax cuts
U.S. unemployment
U.S. Veterans' Data Files Stolen
using fear as a political tool
Valerie Plame and Valerie Plame/External Links
Veterans benefits
Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal
war on terror manual for victory
war on terrorism
weapons of mass destruction
weapons of mass destruction investigation
web scrubbing
posted on March 22, 2007 10:26:56 AM new
you forgot to add he didn't brush his teeth one evening. LOL
what a bunch of total HOGWASH.
You sure prove you haven't a clue what REAL corruption is.....but it didn't bother you under clinton.....NOW....all these accusations.....lol.....
how funny.
I guess it boils down to the liberals just not having the ability to recognize a GREAT leader when they see him.....a STRONG leader who has been working to fight terrorists that so many liberals would like to give a VICTORY to.
tsk tsk tsk
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 22, 2007 11:58:56 AM new
Bush certainly isn't a strong leader or a great one. He was a spoiled little coward and a stubborn little bully that always wanted his own way when he was a child. So he never grew up to become a strong man who learned the 'give and take' of dealing with others so of course he became a failure as a leader.
He's the worst president ever and the most embarrassing one because he looks so weak to others worldwide and even leaders from little countries now mock him openly.
Unfortunately he's not playing kids' games anymore and is bankrupting the country and killing more young men and women, still trying to get his own way while he pretends to fight terrorism all the while creating more.
posted on March 22, 2007 09:13:40 PM new
Well....your OWN gov. supports the US efforts against terrorism in Afghanistan.
They're part of the NATO troops fighting there.
OBVIOUSLY your opinion hasn't persuaded the canadian gov. to stop supporting the US in that war. Nor has it made them worry about bankrupting THEIR nation. lol
And don't worry about our economy.....it's doing JUST fine.
AND remember the liberals and dems HERE in America are just about ready to APPROVE another HUGE spending bill for the two wars.
That's SEEN by most all as SUPPORTING the US war effort in IRAQ and Afghanistan. lol lol
And IF they didn't, they'd surely be voting AGAINST funding the wars. LOL LOL
Their nothing but a bunch of jokers.
They're in power now.....lol....and still can't find their backbones.
So...the war goes on. ....BECAUSE the dems WILL vote to fund all the President has asked for.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 22, 2007 10:33:16 PM new
Canada did not go into Iraq, Linda_K. Iraq had nothing to do with Afghanistan. I realize that you like to link the two together but they are two separate wars and the one in Iraq has been Bush's war from the beginning. He almost abandoned the one in Afghanistan, remember?
It's silly to believe that the war costs won't continue to escalate to a point that will affect the quality of life in America. In case you haven't heard, America is now the largest debtor nation on the planet and the debt keeps adding up. Who is going to pay?
The government can't even take care of the soldiers who return from the previous wars and they can't afford to run the medical facilities they are in now, let alone take on added burdens. The military equipment is costing a small fortune also and much of it has to be replaced.
It's equally silly to blame the Democrats for the mess in Iraq and expect them to solve it within a couple of months so when you keep taunting everyone you look like a complete fool that has no idea how complex the war has become. You do it because you no longer want your guy Bush to be blamed for it but you aren't fooling anyone.
posted on March 23, 2007 02:40:56 AM new
More liberal hogwash....from a Canadian who hasn't a clue.
Sure we can take care of our own....what utter NONSENSE you post. You only discredit your other posts when you lie like that. tsk tsk tsk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter~`
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 23, 2007 03:34 AM ]
posted on March 23, 2007 07:17:24 AM new
linduh, "Sure we can take care of our own....what utter NONSENSE you post.""
Utter nonsense? NO, You just refuse to admit there are problems with health care for our vets and that there IS a nasty problem at Walter Reed.......or are you saying that was all made up????
posted on March 23, 2007 10:28:59 AM new
Linda_k you silly old woman, facts and reality are too much for you so you sneak back in the middle of the night to shout liar. It's all you've got left except for your c&p propaganda.
posted on March 23, 2007 01:45:56 PM new
LOL....sneak back in the middle of the night????
Aren't you a total riot.
This board is open 24/7 - no one 'sneaks' in.
Stop your childish behavior....makes you look like a fool.
==========
And so as we can see....no liberal has been able to post ONE accomplishment the dems have made in their first THREE months in power.
No bills on the Presidents desk to be signed....and they're still FUNDING THE WARS.
Didn't think it was going to be this EASY with the dems in power in both houses....but it's turning out so far they're pretty impotent to accomplish anything.
==========
edited to add:
BUSH: HOUSE HAS 'ABDICATED ITS RESPONSIBILITY' BY PASSING AN IRAQ PULLOUT BILL THAT HAS 'NO CHANCE OF BECOMING LAW[/b]'
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 23, 2007 02:31 PM ]
posted on March 23, 2007 02:44:14 PM new
LIAR_K,
Sounds like a broken record. The poor old fool really has nothing left.
I challenge the old wind bag constantly to disprove the facts I post about the BUSH WAR.
All the broken record liar_k says over and over again (like a broken record) is the Dems are still funding the war.
The poor delusional thing doesn't realize the noose is getting tighter around old Bushy's throat!!!
Its going to take years to fix what BUSHY and his GANG destroyed here in America and abroad. The Democrat Congress are going slow being held up by the left over obstructionist republican lawmakers.
Most of those BUSH boys will be gone in 2008.
Its just a matter of a short time until BUSHY is retired living in the disgrace of a failed Presidency and War.
posted on March 23, 2007 03:56:01 PM new
It took the Bush administration 6 years to screw up the country and you want the Democrats to fix everything in 3 months? In fact, I don't know if we can ever fully recover from the disastrous "Bush years." Your posts are becoming more childish and less logical as you become more desperate.
posted on March 23, 2007 04:01:26 PM new
WASHINGTON (March 23) - The House voted Friday for the first time to clamp a cutoff deadline on the Iraq war, agreeing by a thin margin to pull combat troops out by next year and pushing the new Democratic-led Congress ever closer to a showdown with President Bush .
The 218-212 vote, mostly along party lines, was a hard-fought victory for Democrats, who faced divisions within their own ranks on the rancorous issue. Passage marked their most brazen challenge yet to Bush on a war that has killed more than 3,200 troops and lost favor with the American public.
He dismissed their action as "political theater" and said he would veto the bill if it reached his desk. The Senate is about to take up its own version.
The $124 billion House legislation would pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year but would require that combat troops come home from Iraq before September 2008 - or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.
"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. "The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not."
Just over an hour following the vote, Bush angrily accused Democrats of playing politics and renewed his promise to veto the spending legislation if it included their withdrawal timetable, despite administration claims that the money is needed next month by troops.
LIKE I SAID LIAR_K THE NOOSE IS GETTING TIGHTER. BRING ON THE BUSH VETO'S FOR A VERY GOOD 2008 FOR THE DEMOCRATS.
posted on March 23, 2007 04:18:08 PM new
I have no expectations for what the dems will accomplish. I'm just pointing out that after WACO was so excited and posted time and time again about ALL the dems were going to accomplish during their first 100 HOURS LOL LOL....that three months later they STILL haven't accomplished a thing.
LOL
I'm not desperate.....my CIC is in charge...and the dems can waste all the taxpayer money they want getting NOTHING accomplished.
It'll help us in '08 when those who BELIEVED, falsely, that the dems would do things better come to recognize they DIDN'T. lol
So far....they've done NOTHING. And the bill 'waco' mentions the President has announced he WILL VETOm - should it pass in BOTH houses [don't FORGET 'WACO' - BOTH.
So much for that waste of time and energy. SCORE CARD = O dems 6 attempts
"Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress."
LOL LOL LOL
Guess they forgot the other BIG part.....spending. They voters wanted LESS spending. LOL
And what EXACTLY is that $24 BILLION dollar attachment to the funding for our troops for?
More PORK spending. tsk tsk tsk
So....in reality they're only listening to PART of what the voters wanted.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 23, 2007 04:23 PM ]
posted on March 23, 2007 05:13:10 PM new
First 100 Hours Over
Posted by Christy McConville on January 18, 2007 at 01:00 PM
Even haters can't help but admit that Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats are getting things done. The NY Times calls the first 100 hours "a qualified success."
A quick read of the article reveals the "qualified" related to just one thing, the pay-as-you-go rules. But on the whole, the article is pretty much exuberantly hopeful.
More important in terms of substantive future legislation, the ability of the Democrats to win over significant numbers of Republicans on most votes signals the slim but enticing possibility of Democratic mastery over a demoralized Republican Party -- one that has thrived on polarized partisan warfare in recent years.
If the new bipartisanship takes root, the prospects for health care legislation and immigration reform sharply improve.
The following bills have passed the House, and will now go to the Senate and the White House on the path to becoming law:
Ethics reform,
An increase in the federal minimum wage for the first time in 10 years,
Enactment of the 9-11 commission's recommendations,
Expanded stem-cell research,
Government negotiation of prices with prescription drug companies,
Student loan interest rates cut in half,
The elimination of billions in subsidies for big oil companies."""""
Of course, with an obstructionist president, many things may get vetoed.
posted on March 23, 2007 06:16:11 PM new
Personally I don't see our President needing to veto many bills.
Our minority leader is pretty much getting the changes we want in the Senate before they'll give enough support to the dem bills.
Just like with the min. wage bill....Bush said he'd not sign it UNLESS it also carried the clause that would help small business owners out.
They got the dems to change the wording - so now it just might pass in the Senate.
When the dems won't compromise....THEN they will be vetoed.
So nice having veto power....but not always needed when we have a strong minority leader in the Senate.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 23, 2007 06:47:58 PM new
desperate liar_k has little left in defense of Bushy and his Gang. No way can she rationally defend Bushy any longer.
Just a couple years ago liar_k was dancing in the streets with joy over BUSHY now look.
Everyday now liar_k and her kind are less significant.
The Democrat controlled 110th Congress is tightening the noose on BUSHY little by little.
The Democrats are unlike the new-con republicans who blundered into mess after mess on top of the BUSH IRAQ WAR. The Democrats are making sure that what they do is right.
Oh....so THAT'S why the dems are ready to vote for the funding needed to CONTINUE the WARS.
ROFLMHO.....they're doing the right thing, huh.
lol lol lol
Sure not what they SAID they'd do IF elected though.
Same thing with stopping all the SPENDING....they're off to a GRAND start....$24 BILLION dollars in their first three months in power.
ROFLMHO
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 23, 2007 07:32:10 PM new
Yup, the Democrats want to spend money on AMERICANS in AMERICA and THAT will be appreciated by AMERICANS.
Too bad linduh is so anti-America!
The bill the Democrats want to pass also gives MUCH NEEDED money to the troops who are already there and they have a timeline for the Iraqis to DO something.
They don't want more and more and more of our taxes going into a never ending war.
No TRUE American wants the war to go on forever.
As with the attorneys being fired and a whole lot of other things linduh is just so backwards and uninformed it's laughable.
posted on March 23, 2007 07:38:42 PM new
LOL....that old 'timeline' again.
That would be the one that the President will VETO IF it even gets through the Senate. lol lol lol
Who knows....we might be out of Iraq for the most part by the end of 2008. But as long as this President is in office....he'll NOT sign a bill with a 'timeline' on it.
We're staying until Jan. 09 at LEAST....and maybe much longer.
So....it's not really about all that deficit building the wacko liberals have been whining about...it's WHAT it's being spent on. lol lol
Now I see. NOT.
A deficit is a deficit. Massive spending is massive spending.
CAn't have it both ways.
And so far the dems are doing the exact opposite of everything they said they'd CHANGE if they were elected.
Bright voters will notice this.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
. [7]