Jan 10 2007

Playing Poker With George Bush

Published by at 10:23 am under All General Discussions

I am seeing article after article that Bush can send troops to Iraq, but he cannot move money the Pentagon’s enormous budget around to pay them. Well, paying the troops is not Bush’s responsibility – that job belongs to Congress. So, will Congress not fund troops sent to a Congressionally sanctioned war effort by a duly elected President of the People? Will Democrats leave our military high and dry as a sick show of support for the troops? I kid you not, the 2008 election year could very well be determined in the next few months. The Democrats may actually be stupid enough to punish the troops over their frustration with Bush. BDS is that strong in them.

21 responses so far

21 Responses to “Playing Poker With George Bush”

  1. crosspatch says:

    The real problem comes if efforts in Iraq begin to show fruit. If the Iraqi military is able to beat down these insurgent groups and if the security situation begins to improve, the Democrats would be faced with their worst nightmare … success.

    Americans have this interesting psychological trait. They instinctively like underdogs. If Bush is trounced and then turns out to be right and things improve and it looks like we are actually reaching our goals there, public opinion could swing positive in a way that would endear Bush in the hearts of the many to an extent that the Democrats wouldn’t be able to shake. The Democrats would then look like sore losers and their rhetoric like sour grapes.

    This is why the Democrats must, in their minds, sabotage any chance of success in Iraq at this point. They must prevent victory by any means they can because should things turn around now, they are going to have more than just egg on their faces. They are going to look like a bunch of whining losers.

    So their goal at this point is to obstruct, delay, prevent any chance of any victory in Iraq. An al Qaida victory at this point is directly tied to the success of the Democratic Party and any defeat of al Qaida will be seen as a defeat for the Dems.

    It is despicable. The Democrats are playing a cynical game with the lives of our troops for their own political power. The Democrats are simply evil, in my opinion.

  2. crosspatch says:

    Put bluntly, the Democrats appear to be Democrats first and Americans second. They have no problem killing Americans for partisan gain.

  3. robert lewis says:

    The problem with playing poker with Dubbya is he can’t count the pips on the cards beyond 5 – so sometimes he thinks he’s got a straight and he doesn’t – or that he’s got a full house that ain’t full. He gets those black pointy ones confused with the black roundy ones, too.

    And then he gets all pissed off, because as we all can recall from April 13, 2004:

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President . . . After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?

    THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I’m sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just — I’m sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn’t yet.

    No mistakes. Yeah, right.

  4. conesplif says:

    The problem with playing poker with the Deciderer is he has a real hard time counting the pips on the cards once you get beyond 5. Some times he’ll think he’s got a full house – and it’s really not , or he has a straight and it’s a busted straight. Plus there his difficulty with telling the pointy black cards from the roundy black cards.

    As we all know from April of 2004:

    Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you’d made in your life, . . . after 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?

    THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. John, I’m sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just — I’m sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn’t yet.

    No mistakes. Yeah, right.

  5. lurker9876 says:

    Congress should NOT force the retreat like they did with the Vietnam War. If Bush thinks that we need to send more troops, then Congress should fund it. Congress should not have the authority to force Bush’s hands.

  6. lurker9876 says:

    Our Vietnam War veterans have never forgiven the Democrats for the retreat from Vietnam. Tomorrow, our troops in Iraqi will never forgive today’s Democrats for their symbolic votes.

  7. For Enforcement says:

    The Demsocrats are just being themselves “surrendercrats”
    I guess it might be ideal for Repubs if Dems oppose and we have a great outccome.
    But really, it would really be better if the country were united. Just imagine the Pres and the leaders of congress all standing together and declaring that the goal is to win.
    But that wouldn’t give the Dems an advantage would it? Well yes it would. Because it didn’t happen under the repubs so if it did happen under the dems, it would be a plus.

  8. clarice says:

    I think the President’s “listening tour” was a ruse to hold off his announcment until after the Somalian adventure was launched and successful. All surveys–carefully read–indicate it’s the slow, uncertain pace of the war, not the war, that’s the big sticking point.
    Did you notice that there was not a single leak about the operation ahead of time? All the reports were that Somalia had fallen to AQ which now had control of the Horn of Africa.

  9. Wizbang says:

    A New Wave of Troops Heading to Iraq…

    ***Bumped and Updated*** The report comes from the AP: The first of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops will move into Iraq by month’s end under President Bush’s new war plan, a senior defense official said Tuesday. House Speaker Nancy……

  10. clarice says:

    I posted this earlier but it seems to have been eaten up.
    I think Bush’s listening tour was a stall to hold off the announcement of the shift in tactics in Iraq until we had this victory in Somalia..
    Amazing that nothing of the battle plan leaked out. In the weeks leading up to the Ethiopian advance all that was published was that the Horn of Africa was now in AQ hands.

    I do not think most Americans oppose the war, just the inept handling of it–crap like catch and release and using our Marines as law enforecment officers. Now, the Iraqis with their own more suitable ROE will be at the forefront.Not a moment too soon.

  11. Linda says:

    I think they hate Bush so much they don’t think about anything else.

  12. TomAnon says:

    Linda, That is a very good definition of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). The mental gymastics the left has to play right now to justify their positions on the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), the Iraq war in particular, are quite pathtic.

  13. Barbara says:

    The dems have always wanted us to lose this war. And they are running out of time to do so. They cannot let Bush win. His legacy will be enormous and Bubba’s legacy is now down the toilet. The democrats have always in my lifetime been democrats first and Americans not second but last. They have been obstructionists par excellence for the last 6 years starting with Tom Daschle and then on to Harry Reid. Anthing they could do to stop any iniative of Bush’s they went into overtime. It didn’t matter if it was good for the country or not they had to stop Bush. They could not allow him to get credit for anything.

    The brouhaha about the 2000 election is still being discussed by these people like it was yesterday even though recount after recount showed Bush won. They still feel the presidency should have been handed to them on a silver platter. I have nothing for contempt for them and cannot understand how the American people keep electing these people to represent them.

  14. coffee260 says:

    AJ, It is never mentioned that the Democrats were in the majority in the Senate when they “sanctioned” this war.

    You said: “So, will Congress not fund troops sent to a Congressionally sanctioned war effort… ”

    For what it’s worth, I don’t really blame the Dems for sanctioning the war, I blame them for turning their proverbial “spineless” backs on the war.

  15. momdear1 says:

    To the unenlightened…”The strategy in Iraq was: If you can’t take the mountain to Mohhmed, bring Mohammed to the mountain.”

    Everyone knows that the Far Left lunatic anti American rent-a-mob gang, aided and abetted by the Dems and the MSM would never let any President invade all the countries where the militant Islamists were holed up planning future attacts, even if it were possible. So the strategy was to lure them from their hiding places into one place where out troops would be able to dispose of them. What better place than Iraq with all it’s Holy Sites and an evil dictator who had aided and abetted our enemies and committed attrocities in the past. Instead of creating more Islamic fanatics the war has drawn them out of their hiding places and into the trap. It just looks like there are more of them because they are all joining in the last ditch effort not to lose the fight. Some have referred to Iraq as flypaper which is attracting and catching the militants. Call it what you will, if the lunatic left and power hungry Dems had supported the effotrt fromthe begining it just might have worked by now. As it is, they are just prolonging the agony because they give hope to our enemies. if they can just hold out until the Dems are back in control, they will win, because tyhe Dems will see to it.

  16. The Macker says:

    The Democratic Party of George Meany andScoop Jackson is dead.

  17. dennisa says:

    “The Democratic Party of George Meany andScoop Jackson is dead.”

    Man, that is true. You can’t get an angry response out of the Democrats even when New York City and Washington are attacked.

  18. For Enforcement says:

    Coffee, this IS mentioned on this site very regularly.

    It is never mentioned that the Democrats were in the majority in the Senate when they “sanctioned” this war.
    and you said:
    For what it’s worth, I don’t really blame the Dems for sanctioning the war, I blame them for turning their proverbial “spineless” backs on the war.

    No one should be ‘blamed’ for sanctioning the war, it was the right thing to do.

  19. colanut22 says:

    Mom, You’ve put it all in a nutshell. Now, if only we can hang on long enough to see Iraq government take hold. For so long, the terrorists have been imported, but the MSM never takes note.

  20. clarice says:

    The party began in Baghdad 2 nights ago according to Iraq the Model-One brigade is a Kurdish one.