drieuxster (drieuxster) wrote,

More Defeatists....

I so love watching the SFGate folks got totally wingNuttery.... It was just too cute that their 2 cents section had some serious winners for the "how should congress respond to bush's plan?"
They should keep their mouths shut. Until the mantle of commander-in-chief is transferred to them by a Constitutional amendment, their job is to support the troops with funds and whatever else is necessary.
( Dan Dobleman, Daly City)
Now there is a failure to comprehend.... it were as if the president were allowed some majikal and mystical powers as a 'war president' that previously had not existed.... you know, like back when the impeachment of Clinton was the Hot Buzz about supporting the President to Support The Troops!!!! Then there is the deeply insightful
First, they should wait and hear what the president has to say, as should the rest of us. And then they should follow up with their own message detailing a better plan, if they have one.
(Paula Mochel, San Francisco)
Talk about Telling it like it IS!!!! The president blows prime time TV, to not share what is going on, so that more americans are no closer to knowing IF the president has been near a plan.....

But the one that I really liked for PURE COMEDY
Congress holds the money bags for war, peace and everything in between. It first needs to put the cost of administration's Iraq escalation into the overall federal budget and not treat it as Bush's personal earmark. Then I'd urge it to purge the surge.
(Norm Levin, San Rafael)

You mean the american tax payers are not merely the cash cow to help the war president get over his fear of Barbarella????

Would this be a bad time to remind americans that we got to 1966 in vietnam with some 5,008 'combat deaths' and an additional 1,045 non-hostile deaths for a total of 6,053. We had done the '61 to '65 period, you know, with the Run Around of what exactly the Golf Of Tonkien resolution meant, with only 1,864.... So how long till americans work out what DID they think they thought they said they meant about which position do they want to hold on their lessons learned from ThatVietnamThingiePooh.... ( h/t to Casualties - US vs NVA/VC for the body count number ). Are we suppose to be getting all warm and happy that so far the fiasco in Iraq is not as bad as....

Why do they keep trying that poseur posture???

Would this be even a badder time to re-ask the same old dog eared question about what exactly was it about Ronald Reagan getting divorced, remember that this mystical event occurs right before the American Congress opts out of Declaring War On North Korea, which would invade South Korea, and instead supports the mythos that we were merely the "police action of Korea", Sponsored by the Blue Helmetted One Worlders at the U.N. = since I am still at a loss to understand this 'constitutional pundits' who keep trying to use the fact that we have not declared war since Ronald Reagan to justify the new and improved policy posture about being more at war when it is politically expedienter to be so...

Gosh, what if america were to actually decide to be a Constitutional Republic???

Or IS that what the whole 'at war neff' is all about???
Tags: war

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.