I would. Thank you Mr. Bush, for vetoing the funding for the troops yesterday. I thought for a moment that the Democrats might have to take some reponsibility for this travesty of a war. I appreciate you putting the responsiility solely back on your shoulders and for ignoring the will of the American people. I hope you get every penny you want and have no strings attached, as then there is no way you can come back and blame the Democrats for the deaths of our American soldiers. I would also like to thank you for further proving to Americans that you and the Republican party don't care what they think and handing us the election in '08 on a silver platter. By the time the elections come around, you will find little support for staying the course. Thank you Mr. Bush. You are a Democrat's best friend.
2007-05-02 05:41:05 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
i would also like to thank mr. bush. for being a condescending, lying and selfish person. for only looking out for him and his, and his fat cat friends. the people gave a clear message in our last election: we want this occupancy to end. there is no need to be there. there never was. how does the chief react? by wanting to send more troops! what an a.s.s.
2007-05-02 06:10:28 · answer #1 · answered by izaboe 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is a great question, and Rare2findd gave an awesome answer! But, I do wish that we could just get the troops home, and put an end to this nightmare, finally! Not like to happen, but one can always wish and hope. I don't think that there is much chance of Bush looking good, no matter what happens, but I could be wrong about that, because it sometimes amazes me how quickly some people forget things like a stolen election and a fix on, and countless other things! *sm*
2007-05-02 18:43:34 · answer #2 · answered by LadyZania 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush and the neocons will never be able to blame the ills of their administration on the Demos or anyone else. And as for the questioner, thank you for what someone has labeled a "rant"-- It is right on target.
Everyday we learn something more devious about Bush and his little boy blues. Those who believe he is God, ignore such pettiness and continue to heap praises on this little piece of snot who continues to fling his deception on a gullible public.
So he vetoed a bill. What else is new? Bush will make the concessions, not the demos. Today, 4,000 additional US troops descended on Baghdad. Now I know what Bush meant when he said yesterday, that we "have to feed the troops"
omg
as though we would be spending hundreds of billions of dollars "feeding" the troops.
Bush.
You can fool some of the people some of the time.......
but NEVER all of the people
2007-05-02 06:47:39 · answer #3 · answered by rare2findd 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The brighter bulbs of the Democtatic party realize the disasterous consequences of abandoning Iraq at this time. They are safe in demanding the troops come home ... knowing full well this will not happen ... but they can say they voted for it to appease the dimmer bulbs who really think it is a good idea.
I never much cared for Hillary ... but I realize, in spite of what she might say, that she will not surrender in Iraq if she becomes President.
2007-05-02 05:52:47 · answer #4 · answered by gcbtrading 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rant....now, how about a bill without 21 Billion in spinach and shrimp to buy votes, and no arbitrary dates with no military or strategic value that serves any side but to pander to polls for an election sound bites..To think that the political rants of Palosi and Harry Reid does not embolden those to continue a slow bleed to pander to the Democrats agenda is blinded by their own bias....Thank Harry you are an insurgents best friend..
2007-05-02 05:50:25 · answer #5 · answered by garyb1616 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
well I knew he was going to veto the bill im pretty much just waiting untill 08 so we can have Hilery Clinton as leader of the free world, universal health care taxes on oil companys (finally) to make way for e-85 ethonal bill would be back in the white house and the quality of life should improve vastly
2007-05-02 05:47:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
When playing poker,I am wondering if Democrats would like to roll the dice and deal the cards for their opponents too.
That's just hogging and it's not the way you play the game.
2007-05-02 05:54:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great Question.... Great detail.... There isn't much I can and or want to add.
Seems like all the original and freethinkers are on this side of the fence. The Lemmings are of course stymied.....
2007-05-02 06:20:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Okay this isn't really a question, but on the off chance that you think it is I am glad he vetoed the stupid plan to tell the terrorists when our final flights depart. After all, they can't really start doing their best work until after we're gone.
2007-05-02 05:46:29 · answer #9 · answered by ersof59 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i don't think of of the two as a monster. yet certainly one of them is sensible and the different one surprisingly dumb. All Presidents could have negatives, yet in undemanding terms one President ever declared a conflict on a rustic that did not attack us, through fact of a "seek for weapons of mass destruction" that did not exist.
2016-10-14 08:51:59 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋