We are the Liberal Blog From Hollywood
L.A.'s Premier Post Facility

L.A.'s Premier Post Facility

Photographer in L.A.

Hot Pics & Gossip.

Bush Still Thinks He Should Get Whatever He Wants. (Will He Get It?)

Posted in H.L. News, Main Blog (All Posts) on March 13th, 2007 7:59 am by HL


Bush Seeks Iraq War Funds ‘With No Strings’

New York Times
Excerpt:
bush
BOGOTÁ, Colombia, March 11 — President Bush on Sunday called for Congress to provide financing for the Iraq war “with no strings attached.” And he defended his decision, made formal this weekend, to send more than 8,000 more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan by saying they would be dedicated to training and support missions.

Referring to the increase of 21,500 troops that he announced in January, Mr. Bush said during a press briefing here, “Those combat troops are going to need some support, and that’s what the American people are seeing in terms of Iraq — the support troops that are necessary to help the reinforcements do their job.”

The president’s aides announced this weekend that Mr. Bush had formally approved the deployment of 4,700 more troops to Iraq — on top of the 21,500 troops being sent as part of his new war plan — and 3,500 to Afghanistan. The Pentagon had already indicated that it would need to send additional troops to Iraq to support the increases Mr. Bush announced in January. But the specific increase for Afghanistan had not been previously mentioned.

Mr. Bush’s aides announced the increases after the president sent a letter to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, requesting $3.2 billion in emergency funds for the Iraq and Afghanistan missions. Mr. Bush has proposed making up for the increase with cuts elsewhere. He wrote the letter Friday night on his way from Brazil to Uruguay, the first two legs of his tour through Latin America.

He is awaiting approval of a $100 billion emergency spending bill for the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“My hope, of course, is that Congress provides the funding necessary for the combat troops to be able to do their job — without any strings attached,” he said Sunday.

HLs Take
Congress: Sure Jr. whatever you want. We just have to pretend to be against you a little first, then you’ll get everything, no problem.

7 Responses to “Bush Still Thinks He Should Get Whatever He Wants. (Will He Get It?)”

  1. Buck Says:

    The democrats in congress cant be stupid all the time now can they? Now I know they have MOST of the time squared away. But some times in the midst of their cut and run nature there is a tendantcy to go against the grain. Sometimes they have a glimmer of hope for a democrat in the white house in 08 and will show signs of it! Like the fear to cut off funding! S0, they wont cut off funding and will just bitch about wanting to! They will go back to what comes natural!…..Cut and running! And loosing the presidentcy! With me and Bush and McCain and Fred Thompson laughing and laughing and laughing!!!!

  2. NY Yankee Says:

    Hey Bucktooth, do you realize how many crimes your Connecticut Texan and his crew have committed since they were installed by the Supreme court? I would try to educate you, but I’m afraid it would just take too long. Try watching C-Span, PBS or MSNBC…Read a newspaper for goodness sake. Here is one little example of Bush’s criminal folley:
    George W. Bush has been found to be in criminal violation of the Constitution, as well as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and he has been found to be in violation of U.S. and International Law. Each of these court rulings declares the President of the United States of America to be a criminal! Yet he is still haphazardly roaming free…wreaking havoc on the US and the world. I ask you Bucktooth, when will Congress act to remove this two-time criminal?
    The facts: A federal court has ruled that President Bush has violated the Fourth Amendment against illegal search and seizure for his order to the National Security Agency to monitor the phone and Internet messages of Americans without using FISA to obtain a court order based upon probable cause. U.S. Supreme Court, ruled in June that the president had violated the Constitution by asserting he had the power to ignore the Third Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners of War–a treaty formally signed into law by the U.S. and made an integral part of the U.S. Criminal Code.
    All it took for Clinton to be impeach, was some DNA on a little blue dress and a lie under oath about an adulterous affair. Aren’t Bushes criminal acts more heinous? Bush lied the US into war, and recently…Mr. Bush was in the midst of explaining how the attacks of 9/11 inspired his “freedom agenda” and the attacks on Iraq until a reporter, Ken Herman of Cox News, interrupted to ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11. “Nothing,” Bush answered. He went on to say “Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq”. George W. Bush is the worst president ever, and the worst LIAR ever.
    Democrats have a long way to catch up to Bush’s stupid.

  3. Buck Says:

    No WMD’s Yeah your right Yank! Saddam must have use water baloons and cotton candy on the kurds. That must be it! Are they ALL stupid in New York. Name one of my constiutional rights that have been violated by this administration! Your full of hot air… like all liberals.

  4. NY Yank Says:

    From Vermont:
    We the people have the power — and the responsibility — to remove executives who transgress not just the law, but the rule of law.
    The oaths that the President and Vice President take binds them to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The failure to do so forms a sound basis for articles of impeachment.
    The President and Vice President have failed to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” in the following ways:
    1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.
    2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.
    3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.
    4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention — all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights.
    When strong evidence exists of the most serious crimes, we must use impeachment — or lose the ability of the legislative branch to compel the executive branch to obey the law.
    George Bush has led our country to a constitutional crisis, and it is our responsibility to remove him from office.
    Can you wrap your mind around this?

  5. Constitution_1 Says:

    You said “Name one of my constiutional rights that have been violated by this administration!” What about Habeas Corpus? You’ve heard of that? This protection was stripped away by the Military Commissions Act. Is that a civil liberty you want Americans to have, or is it OK to suspend?

    Habeas Corpus
    habeas corpus n. Law A writ issued to bring a party before a court to prevent unlawful restraint. [

  6. Buck Says:

    In common law and other countries, habeas corpus according to H.L. and all liberals (/’heɪbiÉ™s ‘kɔɹpÉ™s/) is the name of a legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. The writ of habeas corpus according to liberals is an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual terrorists against arbitrary state action.

    Known as the “Great Writ”, a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum according to liberals is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that an Al Qaida member be brought before the court so that the court can determine whether that Al Qaida member is serving a lawful sentence or should be released from custody. The Al Qaida member, or some other terrorist on his behalf (for example, where the prisoner is being held incommunicado), may petition the court or an individual judge for a writ of habeas corpus. So they can get out and rejoin the jihad with their Al Qaida brothers and fellow radical islamists!

    Well goddam! I said name me one of my constitutional rights that have been violated by this administration. Do you think I am f**king detaine or something? I have not been to prison you silly liberal! Maybe you just want me to care about the rights of terrorists! Shades of grey with no distinctions. An assault on the terrorists rights is an assault on ALL of our rights! Yall some dumb sumbitches!

  7. Bill Says:

    You are all talking about the fact that habeas corpus have been removed and you are all partly wrong. They have removed habeas corpus but the part that they removed was not in reguards to US citizens it was in reguards to anyone designated as an “enemy combatant”
    And if you think that they are going to start calling everyone an enemy combatant than think again. Not to mention if the Democrats get in to the oval office they wont change the ruling.