posted May 01, 2007 08:19 PM            

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush vetoed legislation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq Tuesday night in a historic showdown with Congress over whether the unpopular and costly war should end or escalate.
In only the second veto of his presidency, Bush rejected legislation pushed by Democratic leaders that would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

"This is a prescription for chaos and confusion and we must not impose it on our troops," Bush said in a nationally broadcast statement from the White House. He said the bill would "mandate a rigid and artificial deadline" for troop pullouts, and "it makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing."

Democrats accused Bush of ignoring American's desire to stop the war, which has claimed the lives of more than 3,350 members of the military.

"The president wants a blank check," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., moments after Bush's appearance. "The Congress is not going to give it to him." She said Congress would work with him to find common ground but added that there was "great distance" between them on Iraq.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Bush has an obligation to explain his plan for responsibly ending the war.

"If the president thinks by vetoing this bill, he'll stop us from working to change the direction of the war in Iraq, he is mistaken," Reid said.

Lacking the votes to override the president, Democratic leaders quietly considered what might be included or kept out of their next version of the $124 billion spending bill. Bush will meet with congressional leaders—Democrats and Republicans alike—on Wednesday to discuss a new bill.

Bush said Democrats had made a political statement by passing anti-war legislation. "They've sent their message, and now it's time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds," the president said.

He said the need to act is urgent because without a war-funding bill, the armed forces will have to consider cutting back on buying or repairing equipment.

"Our troops and their families deserve better, and their elected leaders can do better," Bush said.

"Whatever our differences, surely we can agree that our troops are worthy of this funding and that we have a responsibility to get it to them without further delay," the president said.

________________________________

Yay!!!!!

posted May 01, 2007 08:29 PM              

You want him to stay longer and die?

posted May 01, 2007 08:35 PM            

I don't think you have been here long enough to make a call such as that which you have made.

What Military wife, girlfriend, mother, father, child doesn't want their loved one home? What kind of a stupid question is that?

We all make sacrifices. My husband KNOWS exactly what he is doing and what the mission is. I support him, I support our troops and I support war.

I'd suggest you take some time to go through these threads and gain a perspective on 1) who I am and what I stand for and 2) who my husband is and what he stands for "Bear the Leo".

What an insipid question.

posted May 01, 2007 08:39 PM            

OMG.. what a stupid and immature thing to say. My husband joined the US Army 13 years ago. He has been to conflict before and is a paratrooper. Trust me, the man knows how to handle himself and take care of his joes.

You need to get a grip and a better understanding of the world you live in. Maybe then you will learn to speak clearly and not act like a little boob.

My husband WILL come home. If he does not survive this war, then he sacrificed his life doing what he believed in. Thank GOD for people like him, they provide the avenue for people like you to say stupid things without worrying about being censored.

posted May 01, 2007 08:40 PM              

Then why do you want him to stay?!

posted May 01, 2007 08:43 PM            

He wants to stay, until he has finished his Mission.

I can't get more clearer than that, if that is too much for you to grasp, then that is your problem.

posted May 01, 2007 08:44 PM              

Bombing and guns?

posted May 01, 2007 08:49 PM              

We have destroyed the country of Iraq more and more everyday.

The citizens are tired of the bombings.

They are scared.

I thing they were better with Saddam.

Its to bad now.

They cannot sleep with war around them.

posted May 01, 2007 08:57 PM            

I don't believe your posts nor do I believe you sincerely care about anything astrology related. You are here just to get attention because you are a troll.

Good luck posting, I am sure you will find yourself shown to the cyber door.

Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

God Bless the troops... and God Bless the death of Saddam

posted May 01, 2007 09:05 PM              

God bless the death of Saddam and God bless the death of Bush!

God bless the death of Seung-Hui Cho! God bless the death of Hitler!

God bless the death of Timothy McVeigh!

God bless the death of terrorists!

God bless the death of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

God bless the death of people in Afghanistan!

God bless the death of everyone!

God bless the death of the victims of 9/11!

We all have to want to like this war! Support it!

We have to agree!

Give into world destruction!

posted May 01, 2007 09:46 PM              

Maybe we can learn from other countries who have sent hundreds of thousands (France, Germany, ect.) and even millions (UK, Spain) into the streets in protest of the war. Washington with well over 100,000 was a good start.

war isn't part of human nature.

posted May 02, 2007 01:48 AM            

"war isn't part of human nature."

I'd like you to try and prove that point. Throughout the ages people have warred against one group or another. From the Vikings to the Anasazi, to the Palestinians and the Israelis.

War is always based on either wanting what someone has (such as when Japan had their sights on the US and the Anasazi ran out of necessary resources) or as a result of retaliation over a wrong (see 9-11 or WWI and WWII).

Maybe a history lesson as well as a lesson on human psychology is necessary in order to understand the absurdity of that statement.

posted May 02, 2007 02:09 AM            

I am doing well. Bear is doing well- I'm waiting for our night time chat before I go to bed. I received a package from him yesterday with little goodies and two beautiful cards. That man has so much to say (and he fits alot on a card with his teeny weeny writing LOL).

I haven't seen jwhop in awhile. Maybe he took some time off for a vacation? I hope he is all right.

I also haven't seen TINK or Petron in a good while. Have you heard from them at all?

Hugs and Love to you Lala....

posted May 02, 2007 02:47 AM              

-----

or maybe we can stop assuming..

posted May 02, 2007 02:50 AM            

Hmm... I think you would do well by following your own advice. Based on your posts, assumptions are your facts of choice.

posted May 02, 2007 02:56 AM              

would it have been more to your liking if I said "In my humble opinion, war is not in human nature."

you know, if my brother had died in Iraq, would I have chalked it up to human nature than?

I tend to try and be more optomistic and not look at our species as hateful and aggressive. rather, the majority peaceful and loving and not wanting anything to do with war. sadly, there are a few power hungry elites who have a lot of gain from war.

I don't think most human beings live for war, they live to love and be peaceful I am pretty sure, but that is an assumption huh? But a pretty fair one I would say? War is hell, I don't hear of many stories of people feeling at home in the war zone in fact. do you? please point those out if you do. However. I do hear a lot more stories about Post traumatic stress syndrome and many suffering the negative consequences of war and what they saw. people seeing the faces of those they killed in the mirror instead of themselves. terrible flashbacks and dreams. People who have a difficult time readapting to the society they had left for such a long time.

I have known people who have gone to basic training..who have been broken down, humiliated, suffered pain, gone off to a distant land..but without this conditioning, they would not be ready for the warzone. Without conditioning, it is not in our nature to be at war with other people on this earth. basic training and the conditioning that ensues prepares you for just that.

most people who start war and plan it, aren't on the battlefield themselves.

I can't be convinced that, deep down inside, it is in our nature to fight with others of our kind. I can't be convinced that 1 million Iraqis and well over 10,000 our men dead is deeply engrained in us all.
not without a lot of conditioning.

If I were sent to Iraq, no joke I would be huddled in a fetal position in the corner. Would you agree that most common citizens would act in a similar fashion? without the conditioning, I would not be able to function on the battle zone. But if you would like to believe war is in human nature, than maybe I would be fine without basic training. But, no, it has to be conditioned into me or any other citizen. It is not in our human nature.

PS: Thank goodness my bro is back home and safe.

Is it any surprise that some of the biggest opponents and protesters of the Vietnam war were soldiers who had returned with horror stories. It was not so much the protesters, but the veterans who were finally able to help in the anti war movement. and we are slowly seeing it again, with more iraq veterans speaking of the horrors and speaking out against the war.

posted May 02, 2007 01:37 PM            

What makes up states and nations? People. War in an inevitable function arizing from the need to defend or the need to take. Do I believe that people live to kill? Of course humanity would rather have no war. Humans would also like to have unlimited funds, resources and not have to work as hard as they do, but that type of life only exists for a few- the trust fund babies.

War is inherent in our nature because as humans we are built to defend or take if we need it. I am not talking about criminal behaviour, instead I am talking about the ingrain motivation in most of us that wants more. More out of life, a better life, to create something that is beneficial to someone else.

When that is endangered, we fight. We battle, either in the court room, in the board room or in the battle field. War is NOT just bombs and guns.

You are merely looking at individual battles, using your fear of being unable to survive in said battle and then applying it to war as a whole. You are assuming that people NOT trained in battle could not function in war.

1) Our country was built on such people, receiving no training but defending their Country

2) Tribes have been going to war since the beginning of their evolution. Often women and adolescents would fight to preserve their tribe and territory.

3)We were compelled to war with Germany and Japan after a) Japan wanted OUR homeland and b) Germany began to violate the rights of others.

In Africa we see wars between ethnic groups occuring even today. Children caught between the crossfire of those that want what the other has.

War is ingrained in our nature. Reams of books have been written on the subject from ancient Greeks down to our current Generals. The best war is fought through strategy. This war employs both, but we are dealing with a group of people that have been trying to ethnically cleanse their regions for hundreds of years.

I think that is what bothers me the most. Where are the protesters that rally against the violence and systematic killing of one Muslim group over the other? Where are the protests against those extremists that use bombs strapped to women and children to kill innocents on a school bus? It is that kind of mentality that can easily spill over to here and wants it starts how easy is it going to stop?

I am very close to my husbands platoon and the kids from the other 2 platoons. These are people that I break bread with, go play pool with and send care packages to. Of course I hate the thought of anything happening to them. I also know how they feel and they are proud to do a mission and accomplish what we have set out to do.

We have made major progress in Iraq, about 40% more than the media even touches on. Instead they search for disgruntled Soldiers or they flat out make up their own stories to feed negativity to the American people.

The weapons caches have been enormous with thousands of pounds of nitric acid confiscated along with other chemicals and weapons.. but hardly a peep from the media. Nope, they would rather concentrate on the negatives. Just like the Liberals that attached so much pork to these bills.

Now... lets get to that pork filled bill that was vetoed. Ask your brother about setting at time-line. How effective is it to tell the enemy "Oh hey, we're leaving in October... heads up". Yeah.... that gives them time to plan, wait.. and then take over control of the government.

It is similar to putting a big sign out on ones house when they leave for vacation. What do you think that invites?

The bill was for the emergency funding for our troops. Please explain to me how saving Christmas trees or insect control in Nevada (Harry Reids state was due to receive a whopping Million dollars) helps our Soldiers in the field?

I am actually appalled that the Democrats would be so brazen as to attach disgusting pork projects onto a bill such as this one. I picture these slimball greedy guts salivating over the thought of "hmm, well if it is going to pass then at least my pockets will get greased".

Talk about making a buck off the blood of Soldiers. How immature is that?

So they want to give the enemy a time line to take over control of the government.

In order to fund the troops and give them the necessary tools they need to battle, we'd have to spend billions in pork projects to fund spinach farmers and political conventions?

The reason these projects were attached is simple. The American people never would have stood for so much pork spending on its own.

The Bill deserved to be vetoed. Now lets hope they can get something constructive done.

posted May 02, 2007 01:44 PM            

I also haven't heard the Veterans that I know from several wars complain about this one or cry about "pull them out now" If anything they complain about politicians and untrained civilians that try to dictate policy.

I know my husband will come home safe, as will his platoon and his two brothers that will be deploying before the end of summer as well as possible our brother in law. SO I guess you could say I know a bit about this war and why we're there.

posted May 02, 2007 06:22 PM              

people like to kill each other

LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- The mayor of Los Angeles ordered Wednesday an investigation into a clash between police and pro-immigration protesters a day earlier, saying he was "deeply concerned" by televised images of the incident.

Police Chief William Bratton has already said he will open an internal probe into the actions of officers who used batons and rubber bullets to clear the city's MacArthur Park of protesters, apparently after a small group of people began pelting them with rocks.

Local TV stations have shown videotapes in which a line of officers in riot gear are seen shoving mostly Latino demonstrators from the park, swinging batons and firing rubber bullets as people fall to the ground before them. (Watch police clash with protesters Video)

The protesters, mostly Latinos, had been participating in a day of peaceful nationwide protests on the immigration issue.

Several journalists were also caught in the fray and the local Radio and Television News Association also demanded an investigation, saying reporters were pushed to the ground or clubbed with batons, and their equipment damaged.

"I have reviewed extensive video of the incident and, like every Angeleno, I am obviously and deeply concerned," Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who is traveling in El Salvador, said in a statement released through his office.

"I have asked Chief Bratton to oversee a complete and comprehensive review of this incident," he said.

"While we won't make any rush to judgment, we can't be afraid to make tough judgments about this or any incident," he said.

Bratton has said that he was "disturbed" by television images of the confrontation. "Some of the officers' actions ... were inappropriate in terms of batons and possible use of non-lethal rounds fired," he told KNX-AM radio.

A police spokeswoman said the department would have no further comment pending a later news conference by Bratton.

Los Angeles police have struggled for years to overcome a black eye from the videotaped beating by four of its officers -- three white and one Hispanic -- of black motorist Rodney King. The city erupted into some of the worst urban riots in modern U.S. history after a jury acquitted the officers in 1992.

Some 25,000 people marched through the streets of Los Angeles Tuesday as part of nationwide protests intended to demonstrate the political might of Latinos and help win amnesty for illegal immigrants.

The rallies came as Congress seeks to write a bill to provide tougher border control and workplace enforcement while addressing the status of illegal immigrants.

The May Day demonstrations attracted much smaller crowds than last year and Villaraigosa called the MacArthur Park incident "a sad end to a very peaceful and positive day." http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/02/immigration.melee.reut/index.html