Kvatch Kvestions - Who supports the troops?
So I ask you: Who really supports the troops?
The party that sponsors the bill that will bring the troops home?
Or the party that accuses their opponents of 'turning their backs on the troops'?
The Senate leader that understands that the cause is lost?
Or the Senator that wants more troops to die for that lost cause?
The presidential candidate that calls the war a mistake?
Or the President that will keep the troops there indefinitely?
No matter what bill comes out of Congress, Bush will attach a signing statement that says he's not required to implement the timetable. In other words, Bush will mandate that more American soldiers die for a cause that was probably lost on the day he declared victory.
We know which party abandoned the troops, and Democrats need to be accusing the GOP of it in every speech!
Lew - I'll skip work! Where and when, buddy?
It's all a bunch of crap. He doesn't give a fuck about the troops. Dead soldiers are only collateral damage in their grand plans.
The Dems are starting to show some backbone, but not nearly enough.
He and his little henchman Gonzo killed a LOT of people in Texas. Now they're discovering that Texas has the HIGHEST rate of provable false convictions in the nation.
George W. Bush would be Cho Seung-Hui if he hadn't been born with his head in a silver chamberpot.
"The GOP supports more dead troops!"
Lizzy... Agreed more backbone is needed here. Though I have to say that Reid is really starting find his voice.
Sewmouse... When you kill more people than most third world nations, you're gonna have a problem with false convictions. But to be fair you can't be a Democrat in Texas and say that you're going to kill less murderers.
Mary... Thanks! This message is getting lost in the media--needs more attention.
WS... That's an excellent idea, really give everyone a taste of what this is costing!
Kathy... Thanks, but I'm still at a loss as to how to get this kind of message out. The Democrats seem to be helpless in attempting to control the way this is shaping up. Why can't they just call a spade a spade?
I'm not surprised that the "mission" is changing yet again. I think the deaths of every person who has died in the Iraq fiasco can be laid at the doorstep of the White House.
I think some smartass Democrat ought to put forth some legislation that requires the president of the U.S. to attend the funeral of every fallen soldier. Even if something like that passed, Bush would veto it or add a signing statement, because his job is a "lot of hard work". Besides, even if he had been made to attend over 3200 funerals of American troops over the past four years, it probably still wouldn't sink into his thick head just how destructive he is to our country and to the world. Because he is unable to feel empathy, it wouldn't make any difference.
Oregon's governor, Ted Kulongoski, served dutifully in the military and attends the funeral of every fallen Oregon soldier. I don't believe it is for the sake of politics, either. I believe he feels it is his heartfelt duty as a leader. Why aren't we angry enough to demand that kind of leadership from The Holy Lord Fucktardius and his simian attendants?