Posted on 01/07/2007 7:51:21 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Although I honestly don't believe that will be Bush's legacy, the Dems and the MSM will certainly try to hang that millstone around his neck. What history actually records about Bush is anyone's guess.
If you're implying bombing a government building is standing up the socialist left, you're not only insane, you're a terrorist sympathizer.
Hmmmm .... wants to deny funds to Bush for Iraq .... votes to allow federal funding for abortions .... hmmmm .....
Sure they will. That's what we thought back in '68 and "days of rage" and all that Shiite. Didn't happen, won't happen. (To any great extent, there were a few hardhats that bashed a few hippies, back in the day)
The Saudis fund Al Qaeda, and by some reports the former Baathists in Iraq. I don't think they'll be of much help this time around.
And I was one of them, and curious as it might seem, I was wearing a hard hat, 1968.The SDS freaks were outraged.
And if the Dems call out their Wingnut "Bring the Troops Home" crowd, THIS time they will be challenged in the streets. Even if its done by Freepathon.
Not true. Some Saudis fund Al Qaeda.
And some Saudis fund the Baath party in Syria, to compete with the Iranian based Muslim Brotherhood, now outlawed in Syria.
The Saudi government does not want a Shia dominated country right next door. The House of Saud is afraid of losing control of the gateways to Mecca, and of being deposed.
The government of Iraq is the House of Saud. And they will fund US troops to have them stay in Iraq.So will Kuwait and the UAE. And if the Saudis pay, as a matter of an international security agreement with the Bush administration, there is not a thing the Dems could do about it. All three of these nations have the money to do so, and owe their economic largesse to the United States of America
Reagan set that example, and I am sure President Bush will follow that example rather than leave Iraq to the Iranians. Why do you think VP Cheny made that emergency trip to Riyadh about a month ago?
It would not be legal for the House of Saud to transfer money, or goods, to the US military. You can't designate your taxes to only go to Defense, and the Saudis can't designate "gifts" to the US to only go for troops in Iraq. All US expenditures must be authorized by Congress, not just appropriated by them. It's not even the same situation as with the Contras, who were a third party, whom the Saudis (or whoever) were funding, with a little coordination by Ollie North.
The Saudis could hire a pot full of Mercenaries to do the work, but they can't rent the US Department of Defense, unless Congress authorizes it.
That's not likely to happen since it's not about the money, Dems love to spend money, it's about seeing the US defeated and the Republicans kept out of power, at least Congressional power, for a generation or more.
What a mouthpiece for the Marxists!
You mean a Marxist Mouthpiece? She is one of them you know.
Bull shite! The senatorial RINOs from the Gang of 14 made it impossible to have the conservative agenda legislated into action. The RNC and the President acquiesced in the RINO ploy where they were convinced that moderation would win the election for them. THE OPPOSITE HAPPENED. Millions of Conservative Republicans were abandoned by their party.
Conservative Republicans don't like broken promises : Remember G.H. Bush's : " Read My Lips, No New Taxes!" and then the Dems convinced him it was kinder and gentler to Raise taxes. The conservatives, smarting from that broken promise stayed home, and we got Bill Clinton.
The Republicans lost in Nov 2006 because they did not fulill their mandate, and more than that, THEY WORKED AGAINST IT. ( Myth: Oh no, the conservatives will still vote for us!) Hell, the Dems played the Republicans for suckers AGAIN, just like they did GH Bush.
And we will stay home again in 2008, if there is no conservative Republican on the presidential ticket, or we will write in the name of a conservative candidate.
Don't you dare hang this on conservative people who stayed home. Blame it on those of the elected of the Republican party who abandoned conservatives and broke their promises to them: The Republicans who were in the Gang of 14, the RINOs, plowing their own road for the presidency, or so they thought.
No RINO will see the inside of the oval office as president in 2008, instead, a Dem. will. There is no difference between a Dem and a RINO. Either will say what they must to simply attain power instead of defending the nation against demographic warfare from Mexico, and maintaining a long term, consistantly lethal and successful military effort in Iraq.We need a president who has principles, like Reagan did.Not a RINO who is trying to appear to be a pseudo liberal socialist whacko, who in disregard of the conservative hinterland, has traduced the conservative base of the party, and allows this country to become more socialist/pluralistic than it already is.
If that is the drift of the Reoublican Party in 2008, the growing ranks of Conservative Republicans will stay home in droves, or will have attempted a 3rd party candidate.
Every time Pelosi opens her mouth, she creates another 10,000 conservative Republicans. Keep up the good work Nancy-O!
The goods, services and supplies required can be bought and provided to the US military abroad, by presidential arrangement with allies as the commander in chief, who is working under a congresional declaration of war.The dems can't vote for a war and then change their minds according to whatever moonbat kneejerk whacko new ideas they come up with from one month to the next. Not a cent will go through the pentagon. Credit for those goods and services will be paid for by third party allies to those corporations already servicing the US military in Iraq under already established executive contracts. The allies do not even need to be identified.
It would not be legal for the House of Saud to transfer money, or goods, to the US military.>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But it would be legal for them to transfer funds to corporations like Halliburton,Vinnel Corp, Bechtal Corp., Aramco, to name but a few, and upon whom the US military relies. Goods and services provided to the US military would not offend the law. It happens all the time on joint force tasking when many national defense forces work together. Nato is an example.
And I believe such an arrangement is in the works, and there will be nothing the Dems can do about it, unless they try to impeach the president or go to the Supreme Court on it. They would have no luck in either case. The Dems cannot dictate national defense policy, they can cut funding, but the President is not prevented from arranging for the continued military effort with support from committed allies, and that support does not have to monetary.
The goods, services and supplies required can be bought and provided to the US military abroad, by presidential arrangement with allies as the commander in chief, who is working under a congresional declaration of war.The dems can't vote for a war and then change their minds according to whatever moonbat kneejerk whacko new ideas they come up with from one month to the next. Not a cent will go through the pentagon. Credit for those goods and services will be paid for by third party allies to those corporations already servicing the US military in Iraq under already established executive contracts. The allies do not even need to be identified.
Typically stupid dems. The money is not for Bush, it's for the troops. I dare Pelosi to try to leave out troops without the equipment they need and even the traitorous MSM won't be able to give her cover.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.