2.16.2007

I Think We Can Have It Both Ways


Congress passed a non-binding resolution today, 246-182, telling the President that sending more troops to Iraq is not-a-good.

I spent 10 minutes trying to find out how our representative voted but had no luck. (What's up with this Internet thing?) The best I could find was the above quote. I'm guessing she sides with W.

12 comments:

ellis said...

we gotta get out of that evil place!!! now!!
signed,

conservative republican

Anonymous said...

Didn't slick hillbilly say that we were only going to be in Bosnia for a year?

Anonymous said...

Geezzz...9:44PM - I came in here to say the same thing.

Anonymous said...

Granger was NOT one of the 17 Republicans voting with the Democrats (minus 2) who voted for the resolution.

I think you can support the troops by indicating that they have done the best they could and it's time to bring them home. They were committed to a hopeless task - not of their choosing.

TXsharon said...

There's only one way. Support our troops by telling the truth in the first place, stop cutting their benefits (Bu$h just cut their benefits again), do not send them to wars of choice for profit, and when they do go to war, give them proper equipment and plenty of food. Bring them home.

Marines in Afghanistan had to be air evacuated out for malnutrition. WTF?

Anonymous said...

Kay Granger is an expert in immorality. Take her words for what they are worth as she tries to justify Bush's war of choice.

Anonymous said...

Yes, let's get out of that horrible place before something even more awful happens to us all. Withdraw all troops immediately! There's no other way to peace. War is unhealthy for all living things. There can't be a war if you just don't participate.

Gorilla said...

Why do they need more money? Last I heard, the Iraqi people are killing each other. Mission accomplished!

wordkyle said...

Whether the troop surge is correct or not, the resolution condemning it is wrong. Once again, action by Democrats (and scared Republicans) emboldens our enemies.

If and when the next Islamic terrorist attack occurs on US soil, the Democrats will be to blame.

Anonymous said...

WHEN (not "if") the next terrorist attack occurs on US soil, 60+ years of US foreign policy in the Middle East will be to blame; and Bush's failed peacock-strutting in Iraq will be the immediate incendiary incentive.

TXsharon said...

Right on, 8:52.

Let's see how the decider's war is effecting terrorism.

the number of terrorist attacks in the world jumped sharply in 2005, totalling more than 10,000 for the first time. That is almost triple the number of terrorist attacks in 2004 -- 3,194."
~Christian Science Monitor

"A declassified government intelligence report says the war in Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists, breeding deep resentment of the United States that is likely to get worse before it gets better.

In the bleak report, released Tuesday on President Bush's orders, the nation's most veteran analysts conclude that despite serious damage to the leadership of al Qaeda, the threat from Islamic extremists has spread both in numbers and in geographic reach.

"If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide,' the document says. "The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups."
~CBS News

"A string of at least 29 bombings and attacks by gunmen in parts of southern Thailand plagued by a Muslim insurgency killed at least seven people and wounded dozens more, officials said Monday."

and

"An explosion on a train headed for Pakistan set off a fire that swept through two cars and killed at least 66 people in an attack that a government minister said was aimed at undermining the peace process between India and Pakistan."
~New York Times


And there is more from a variety of news sources, none of which, I realize, are reliable as O'Lielly or Limpbaugh according to the Bu$h apologists.

Anonymous said...

If the congress really believes what it is saying, that they protest the war but support the troops, then why will they not do their constitutional duty and cut the funding for the war? How can the congress honestly say that they support the troops when their actions do little more than allow the president, in their minds, to send more troops to their deaths? The congress could stop this war if they had the political will to do so. It is obvious that they have no such conviction.