And Another Thing…

Something else I haven’t seen in the news…
The House and Senate Leadership are going nuts over the President’s veto and the troop pull out. Yet…

Democratic leaders plan to send the bill to the White House early next week — coinciding with the fourth anniversary of Mr. Bush’s May 1, 2003, speech aboard an aircraft carrier when he declared the end of major combat operations before a banner that said “Mission Accomplished.”

…they wait to make the delivery as political as possible.

If they truly cared about pulling the troops out as quickly as possible, they would have delivered the bill immediately. It’s not like they had to Mapquest the address for the White House – Hillary used to live there.


  1. Common Sense says:

    um duh their trying to make it political. The whole point is to exert enough political presure to make Congresional Republicans bend.

    Since when is it a bad thing to use “politics” to atepmt to further your objective, isn’t that the whole point?

  2. Demonbeck says:

    So Common Sense is saying that the politics of pulling the troops out of Iraq is more important to the Democratic Party than actually pulling the troops out of Iraq.

    Is that how all Democrats feel?

  3. rugby_fan says:

    Oh come now Demonbeck, this is twice in a row I do not think you actually believe what you are writing.

    The reason Democrats are playing politics with this is so that they can achieve the goal of pulling the troops out of Iraq. This is a means to an end.

  4. Jmac says:

    Need I point out that this ‘political’ statement was done to coincide with another ‘political’ statement … that whole having-a-president-land-on-an-aircraft-carrier thing.

    Politics go on in political circles. Both sides participate. Shocking!

  5. Demonbeck says:

    Yes, Jmac, but only one side is found guilty by the folks who report it.

    And, Rugby_Fan, I am merely attempting to call it like I see it. When Bush landed on the aircraft, he was vilified by the press for weeks. Yet, the Dems are playing politics in the same fashion and we get nary a peep about it.

  6. rugby_fan says:

    There is a big difference between the two.

    For one, Hussein had not been captured when Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln which right away questions “Mission Accomplished”.

    Second, this is not costing large sums of money and is not 1/10th as dramatic as the landing.

    If you want, you can label this as MSM bias all day.

  7. Demonbeck says:

    No, because the messages are different.

    Bush lands on an aircraft to laud the great job that our military is doing.

    The House and Senate Dems pass a bill to pull the troops out of harm’s way (because they claim they don’t want another soldier to get hurt) yet they HOLD the bill for a glorified photo op.

    They aren’t gaining any support for their cause by holding their bill, the bill had already passed both Houses of Congress. They held the bill because they cared more about the politics than they do about the troops.

  8. Demonbeck says:

    How many American soldiers died during the 4-5 day period the Democratic leadership held this bill?

  9. griftdrift says:

    Politics suck.

    Changing foreign policy more radically than any administration since Teddy R resulting in a dramatic lessening of American diplomatic world power, crippling American world wide military effectiveness and god knows how many people dead sucks worse.

  10. Doug Deal says:

    Anyone who complains about Bush saying “Mission Accomplished” is blinded by their hatred of him and are ignorant of history.

    People forget how long we were in Japan and Germany after they capitulated. The tactics available back then were also a bit more effective as every action by the allies was not instant criticized by the hate America crowd.

  11. griftdrift says:

    Bush and his political team chose to make that moment seminal.

    They rolled the dice and came up craps.

    Something they have done with quite shocking frequency in the past four years.

    That ain’t hate, that’s reality.

  12. griftdrift says:

    For the most part. Right up until the point of the Axis of Evil speech. That’s the point where I turned to a friend and said “you realize this is a dramatic shift in foreign policy?” Then came the needless war in Iraq. Then came the abomination that is the Patriot Act. Then came the wiretapping and on and on and one.

  13. Demonbeck says:


    I’ll leave that argument for another day.

    The fact of the matter is that while the Republicans may be supporting a war that was the result of faulty intelligence or untruths or whatever – at least they have the resolve to see it through to a point where Iraq can sustain itself – free from radical religious tyranny.

    The Democrats, on the other hand, clearly don’t believe the hype they are pushing. To them, the troops are nothing but pawns to be sacrificed for political gain.

  14. rugby_fan says:

    Correct, Bush was lauding the work of our troops. But do honestly believe that was the message as opposed to say; the war is done? (In addition to being overly flamboyant and unnecessary).

    Timing is the reason they are holding on this bill. I don’t believe that they are holding it because they care more about the politicking of this bill than the troops lives.

    Allegedly holding it is in fact giving the Democrats some leverage. From what I have read, there is compromise being worked out between Democrats and Republicans and holding the bill until a symbolic date will make a compromise more likely. If this happens or not I don’t know, but that is some of the thinking behind holding the bill.

  15. rugby_fan says:

    Well Demonbeck, I am glad to know that you have the ability to know the inner workings of 51 diverse members of society and can tell that they are all amoral beings.

    Care to lend your services to a project I need help with?

  16. Demonbeck says:

    I don’t have special powers, but I can spot the message they are sending to people who think like me.

    I’ll be happy to help you with a project.

  17. rugby_fan says:

    And I would not give Senate Democrats the compliment of sending subliminal messages that can only be picked up by the opposition. I doubt they put that much effort into this.

  18. griftdrift says:


    You asked, I answered.

    This administration put 200,00 American solidiers in harms way for the grand but naive political experiment of establishing a beachhead of Jeffersonian Democracy in the Middle East, and you still have the balls to lecture Democrats on using the troops as political pawns?

  19. bowersville says:

    ” I can remember when Democrats believed it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.” Zell Miller

    The Democrats control Congress. If their goal is to exert as much political pressure as possible and pull the troops from Iraq, they can vote to cut off the funding now.

    Why prolong the conflict in Iraq and waste another life if the cause is not worthy of another life lost?

  20. Jmac says:

    Anyone who complains about Bush saying “Mission Accomplished” is blinded by their hatred of him and are ignorant of history.

    People forget how long we were in Japan and Germany after they capitulated. The tactics available back then were also a bit more effective as every action by the allies was not instant criticized by the hate America crowd.

    Fair enough, but Truman didn’t land on an aircraft carrier and say everything is sunshine and roses either. There was a ceremony to commerate the ending of the war, however there was also active work and recognition of the larger plan of combatting communism and rebuilding nations.

    As rugby pointed out, Bush landed on an aircraft carrier and pretty much said ‘Job’s done! You can go home! And shop!’ All while the war was still going on, just shifting into a completely different phase (and with new dangerous enemies about to emerge).

  21. Jmac says:

    As an aside … this is a ridiculous argument to be having.

    Are we seriously having a discussion over if Democrats are ‘worse’ because they supposedly ‘played politics’ by waiting a couple of days to submit a bill to the president for his signature? Compared with an administration which has actually conducted the war that so many folks find so unpopular and unnecessary now?

    Reverse the parties, and I’d say the same thing. This whole line of argument exists only to the shift the debate, so kudos for that Demonbeck. Rather than actually discuss the what and why of the actual bill the president vetoed in a rational manner, we’re discussing when it was submitted to him.

    Forgive me, but that’s absurd.

  22. Demonbeck says:

    “Reverse the parties, and I’d say the same thing.”

    Yes, but what you say wouldn’t end up as front page news. Switch the parties and we would have had 4 days of “What is taking so long?” above the fold on the AJC.

  23. griftdrift says:

    The same AJC that bought everything hook line and sinker prior to the war. Conveniently three months before the FCC voted on a critical regulations affecting, here comes the shock, Cox?


  24. John Douglas says:

    Surrender is all the Democrats in DC care about and the radical leftists leading both Houses of Congress are determined to see it happen.

  25. Doug Deal says:


    Don’t confuse my refutation of the Dem’s claims as support for the bungler in chief.

    Bush has no business being President, and hopefully has scared people away from thinking that political dynasties are a good idea. However, people are picking and choosing what they support by first checking to see if there is a little D or R beside the position, then choosing a side.

    If the voters would first listen to the proposal, form an opinion, then checked to see what party proposed it, we might actually have a functional government for once.

    As I have stated many times, we get the government we deserve.

  26. Jmac says:

    Doug, thanks for the clarification, and I agree that voters all too often sadly vote for the ‘D’ or the ‘R’ next to the name. While I’m a Democrat (and I do tend to vote Democrat overwhelmingly seeing how I share a common ideological vision with that party), I’m not ashamed to vote Republican at times. I cast a ballot for Kathy Cox this last go-round and voted for Brian Kemp on two occasions. I didn’t vote for Bill Cowsert, but he’s been very responsive to any questions I’ve had and is working to earn my respect.

    Folks need to get past the letter and evaluate the candidate, and it’s a shame so many folks by into ridiculous and false talking points parroted by both sides.

    Case in point … anyone who trumps out the phrases ‘surrender’ and ‘radical leftists’ in discussions like this since they not only have a tenuous grasp on reality, but also feature a profound inability to effectively discuss the issues at hand.

  27. dingleberry says:

    You can always count on John Douglas to spout off the party line! Thanks, Senator.

    But can’t you see that POWER is the only thing DC Republicans care about? They want to use our troops as political pawns in a failed war. Do you agree with sacrificing our young men and women for nothing?

  28. bowersville says:

    Osama bin Laden “America does not have the stomach to stay in the fight…we found that out from our brothers in Somalia”

    The Democrats apparently agree with bin Laden.

  29. Demonbeck says:

    “sacrificing our young men and women for nothing”

    And therein lies the problem with how the Democrats view the war.

    For a party that claims to represent the downtrodden, Democrats surely don’t show it.

  30. bowersville says:

    The rest of bin Laden’s statement, “in Somalia…the United States pulled out, trailing disappointment, DEFEAT, and failure behind it. It (the United States) achieved nothing.”

    In other words, the soldiers lives lost in Somalia were for nothing because we accepted defeat and pulled out.

    The same can be said about Iraq. If the Democrats have their way and the US withdraws, defeat is certain. All lives lost in this conflict will have been for nothing, the same as in Somalia.

  31. dingleberry says:


    Then please, tell me what we ARE sacrificing our young men and women for? Iraq is more of a shit hole now then it was when we entered. More innocent civilians are dying now than they were under Sadaam. Why should our sons and daughters have to die for this shit? Iraq isn’t even a threat to the U.S.


    You’re such an idiot. Yes, Democrats agree with Bin Laden. You are so enlightened. All hail the wise Bowersville, he’s really got a grip on things. Wake the hell up! Why should I give two shits about ANYTHING some cave-dwelling Arab says or thinks about me? And please, don’t give me that crap about, “well, I know about 3,000 reasons you should care.” That crap has gone stale. 9/11 and Iraq are NOT related. Plain and simple.

  32. dingleberry says:

    Oh…and just so you’ll both know, I’m not a Democrat. I actually believe in this country and the people of this country. But my party, the GOP, is pawning off our young men and women for nothing…it’s that simple.

  33. bowersville says:

    Ding, I’m not saying the mission as it is now or recently was is the right one, and I certainly am not questioning your patriotism…what I’m saying is we are there, so what now? I for one believe the “mission accomplished” statement was the correct one. Saddam was removed and there was no longer a threat of weapons of mass destruction to the U.S.(if there ever was one). The mission stated before the war ended then. The problem before the war, was all politicians, D & R were for the war. Now they are divided for self political gain…in my opinion.

    But what do we do, I don’t know, all I know is not a single national politician has stepped to the fore front with any viable solution.

    As stupid as the “humanitarian mission” of the soldiers in Somalia was, it is as stupid as I find the war rhetoric of today, be it pro or con.

    Either give the soldiers what they need to totally defeat the enemy, or don’t give them the mission. Unfortunately, no one is listening.

  34. Jace Walden says:

    Well said, Bowersville. I can’t believe I missed this thread.

    Neither party can make a decision here. Either shit, or get off the pot. Unfortunately, both parties have politicized this war to no end. That’s part of the reason I left the Republican Party. All talk, but also ALL bullshit. The democratic party….also all talk and ALL bullshit. I personally don’t agree with the LP position on the Iraq war, but at least the party is interested in offering solutions rather than empty partisan rhetoric. Empty partisan rhetoric is killing our troops.

  35. Jace Walden says:

    Wow…the censor Nazis of PeachPundit have really been out in force lately…this is like the 2nd or 3rd time today that a comment with the “S” word didn’t make it. Oh well…let’s just say, I agreed with you in my censored comment, bowersville. I also went on to say that Republicans are complete dumb*sses because they offer nothing but empty partisan rhetoric, and Democrats are dumb*asses because THEY offer nothing but empty partisan rhetoric. Empty partisan rhetoric is killing our troops. That’s part of the reason I left the GOP and joined the LP. I don’t agree with the LPs position on the war, but at least the LP is interested in offering solutions rather than bullsh*it talking points they downloaded from Sean Hannity or

Comments are closed.