He should make multiple addresses to the nation about the Democrats deliberately sabotaging the war effort. He should publicly call out Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, and Durbin as disloyal. He should explain how the plan to “bleed the troops” was put together by Murtha, and announce the first cuts in Nevada, California, Pennsylvania, and Illinois, to take place immediately.

Pennsylvania Representative John ‘The Saboteur’ Murtha still trying to surrender. I guess he’ll be trying to find a way to surrender right up until we completely defeat our enemies. As Butch, at 123Beta says, its one of the many r…

Second, when Kennedy was hectoring Gates to name an enemy which could possibly defeat the U.S. military, I wonder how many of you were hoping, as I was, that he’d say “Only the Democratic party.”

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on November 20, 2007 at 10:23 PM

Exactly what I was thinking when I watched that Gates-Kennedy exchange. Or if Gates had simply responded by saying “You sir” that would’ve been outstanding.

Too bad the administration is so concerned over being conciliatory and “setting a new tone” when the other side clearly isn’t interested in playing by the same rules.

Weebork on November 20, 2007 at 9:05 PM

Exactly, I couldn’t agree more.

This idea is either brilliant or not,Why doesn’t
President Bush just get air time and go directly
to the American people and explain how the Democrats
are trying to spin this for political gain,

Because Bush is just not that smart. He is not a Reagan who could convince the American people what was the right thing to do. Nope, he will just let the Dhims do whatever they want, veto away and not let the American public know why – even with elections coming up. Who the hell is is public relations manager?

First, if I were president, I’d make sure ever blue district defense contract or operation was cancelled or shut down, with pre-Christmas employee notices saying that this action had to be taken because Democrats would not pass a military bill. Then let the squealing begin.

Second, when Kennedy was hectoring Gates to name an enemy which could possibly defeat the U.S. military, I wonder how many of you were hoping, as I was, that he’d say “Only the Democratic party.”

Every time I turn around the Dems are either trying to foist shamnesty on us or undermine us overseas: Pelosi visiting Syria, the House’s ill-timed rebuke of Turkey, and the trickle of funds to the troops.

“Elections have consequences” indeed!

I wonder who their Foley surprise will be this coming November?

I disagree with whoever postulated above that the Democrats are strategic in their thinking. Their approach to the budget issue is, among everything else, linear in nature, rather than holistic strategy. It is tactical because Democrats do not think about the consequences of their actions over the military budget will have on the military itself, the Democrats’ only purpose is to damage president Bush. This approach is entirely tactical.

I hope the president continues to shove this issue back in Congress’s face. I hope he stands firm on his commitment to not let the enemy know that all they have to do is wait out a proposed timetable, binding or not, and they win. In fact, the very issue of discussing a timetable is a victory for the enemy. (As soon as there was talk for the Israel to withdraw out of Lebanon, Israel lost the war.)

the White House has been authorized by Congress to keep funding the war if it likes — by pulling money out of the Defense Department’s operational budget, thus generating the shortfalls Gates is trying to address with these cuts. It’s a clever, if typically gutless, strategy by the Dems in that it forces the decision of whether to continue the war onto Bush, with general military readiness the price.

It is a bit “clever” on the part of the dims if you will, who may not be so dim after all, as it puts the ball in Bush’s court. Does Bush cut back on Iraq, which most Americans want him to do, or does he cut back on military readiness, which most Americans do not want him to do.
He may want to consider whether half a loaf is better than none.

By they way, it always cracks me up to see a Naval installation at China Lake. Only the military would have a Navy installation in Ridgecrest, home of Borax and in the middle of a nothing desert.

right2bright on November 20, 2007 at 7:19 PM

That’s a Naval Weapons Center at China Lake. They test things that go boom out there. I know what you mean though…as a kid I lived in Olathe, Kansas where my Navy dad was stationed. Didn’t see one damn carrier there. :|

Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said: “Reports like these make it look like the Administration is playing politics with our troops.”

No, Jim. Reports like these make it look like the administration has a war to conduct, and you’ve gutted their budget, so they are laying off all non-essential personnel.

Whew – glad we don’t have any RINO loose cannons like that around now, that might try to cut a back-door deal for their own advantage! Oh, shit – wait….

Exit question: Will Bush go for the non-binding timetable? If not, how can he expect the Dems to cave on funding again and lose whatever tiny shred of credibility they still have?

The president always has the upper hand in budget battles. I think Bush should stick to his guns and force the dems to blink. AGAIN.

Your new exit question: Where are they going to put them all?

You aid them in building new homes with all the modern conveniences! Give them the necessary security they need for at least one year. That will give them the needed time to reflect on the brutality al-Qaida and the so-called “insurgents” was and is still offering and compare it to good life America had supplied them.
Then you sit back sit back and let human nature takes its’ course.
Talk about winning hearts and minds.

Mojack420 on November 20, 2007 at 6:34 PM

Better tell the military that their data as of 8/29/07 is not correct.
Here is a link that will help, I think there is more military than you think. Some may have a small contingent of a few hundred (and some a few thousand, Travis ain’t small), but it all adds up.
http://www.globemaster.de/regbases.html
Click on the military database link.

You have, to name a few;
San Jose
Mountain View
Alameda
Hayward
Sunnymead
San Fran
Travis AFB
and if you want to include Sac. area. Yuba City, Stockton
And more.

By they way, it always cracks me up to see a Naval installation at China Lake. Only the military would have a Navy installation in Ridgecrest, home of Borax and in the middle of a nothing desert.

right2bright on November 20, 2007 at 5:27 PM

there are no bases in sf or oakland anymore we have The air base in Fairfeild and thats pretty much it and since the bases closed the moonbats have taken a stronger hold . But on a side note not once when any navy ship has been at port here has the libs even dared to have one of their anti American marches . I guess they understand a red white and blue ass kicking is to much to pay for their first amendment rights .
they are cowards and they know it pure and simple

Didn’t Newt shut down the gov’t? Didn’t work.

JiangxiDad on November 20, 2007 at 5:05 PM

When Newt did it the news was primarily the MSM and the people didn’t know the information needed to make a proper judgement.

Today it’s different. The people of this country know what is happening and why. The Dems believe they can make this backfire on Bush, but it won’t. The Dems will be blamed for this act of Treason, and properly so.