Posted on 11/07/2006 9:52:15 PM PST by quesney
Edited on 11/07/2006 9:59:09 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Does the big Democrat win of the House mean Democrats will be able and willing to pull the plug on funding for our war in Iraq, force our withdrawal, encourage the Kurds to declare outright independence, send the whole country into the toilet (err...deeper into the toilet) and greatly embolden Islamofascists everywhere?
Bush has already been fighting this War on Terror with at least one arm tied behind his back. Is the War on Terror effectively over now?...err, until the next terrorist attack? Thoughts?
"I wonder do the Democrats realize if we leave Iraq, Iran will invade the country and cause a bloodbath on an unprecedented scale as the Iranian Shi'ites wipe out the Sunnis, Kurds, etc?"
They are Democrats. They do not deal in truths or facts.
Drop like a rock.
"Bush is still President. He is sworn to defend the United States. He is still Commaner in Chief ot the armed forces.
Nothing has changed in that regard. His jo has gotten even harder now. God help him."
And he has brought this on himself. He alienated the base by incessantly going on about "comprehensive immigration reform," nominating Harriet Miers, defending the Dubai Ports World deal, and waiting until a month before the election to finally wake up and get serious about stumping for candidates. I'll be praying for him because he needs God's guidance more now than ever I think.
"He's going to push amnesty to illegals on us. That's what he's going to do."
Sh*t. Forgot about this. Time to post a new question.
"Welcome to the late 1970's."
Oh please, dear Lord, don't force another Jimmah Cahtah on us!
"Democrats Take Congress... Ozama Bin Laden Claims Victory."
One thing that is sure coming though, and this is what I worry about because it will kill us in 2008, is we will get amnesty for sure now.
If you watched FOX tonight, you heard Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes blaming many of the losses on "the hard line immigration stance". Here it goes, pointing the fingers in the wrong direction and killing ourselves again.
Just make millions and millions of illegals legal and then see how bad the Pubs lose.
Can't believe how many boneheads are in our party.
I need a stiff drink, bed, and engulf myself in work for a few weeks to clear my mind.
I agree with you and I am worried about the amnesty issue as well. This election had little or nothing to do with a strong stance on immigration, but with the media brow-beating day in and day out the bad news from Iraq and how no matter what problem our country is facing, it is the President's fault. They got the result they wanted and now our entire country and all of the Iraqis will suffer for it.
No. Because if it does, we will surely be hit and hit hard once again. That's the fact of the matter and I think many dems understand that.
No.
That's why this election, while tragic, isn't nearly as big of a disaster as it would have been had it happened in 2004.
Bush is many things, not all of them good. But one thing he is not is a quitter, one thing he is not is afraid.
He will continue to do just what he likes in the WOT, he will veto anything stupid the D's send him, and he will dare the D's to do whatever they can to stop him. And they won't be able to.
Bush is a bit like Harry Truman in 1950 now. Unfortunately, Republicans played the cowards back then. He's got 2 more years, and nomatter what happens, he'll stick to his guns on what he knows is best for the Country and the world, and he'll fight for Iraq till his last breath.
Iranian Shi'ites, Sunnis, Kurds,ect were fighting and killing
each other before my father was born and they will be fighting and killing each other after my grandkids are dead. I have no answer for ya.
It's not that easy. For one thing, most Dems can't cut funding and have any hope of surviving, and the other thing, is Bush still has veto power.
What's the market gonna do tomorrow?
Probally gonna go up.
Gridlock is usually good for the market.
Hey look a silver lining already.
If a dem house and senate could be called gridlock.
Probally not.
And instead of creating an ally in the Mideast, we will have recreated hatred in Iraq because the United States cut and run. The Iraqi people will never forgive us.
We do not deserve to be forgiven.
We have been cut and run since vietnam, beruit, somalia, soon Iraq. Again. We ran away after the first gulf war and now we will do it again.
It will take 50 years before anybody will fight with us again.
Lo siento, amigo (yeah, we'd best get used to Spanish around here, Shamnesty coming soon to YOUR neighborhood!)
If you're looking for Bush to whip out that Veto pen, well, good luck. Especially when it's possible he may pass rat legislation in order to avoid impeachment. We have to remember he let "CFR" pass and effectively slaughtered free speech.
Don't get me wrong. I'm looking for hope where I can find it right now. When I read your commentary, I thought, "well, maybe...". So I looked up how likely it would be. Stats don't appear too supportive.
The following table shows the total number of vetoes made by each president. For a complete table that shows regular vetoes, pocket vetoes, and vetoes overridden, see this table from the House of Representatives.
| President |
|
| George Washington |
2
|
| John Adams |
0
|
| Thomas Jefferson |
0
|
| James Madison |
7
|
| James Monroe |
1
|
| John Quincy Adams |
0
|
| Andrew Jackson |
12
|
| Martin Van Buren |
1
|
| William Henry Harrison |
0
|
| John Tyler |
10
|
| James K. Polk |
3
|
| Zachary Taylor |
0
|
| Millard Fillmore |
0
|
| Franklin Pierce |
9
|
| James Buchanan |
7
|
| Abraham Lincoln |
7
|
| Andrew Johnson |
29
|
| Ulysses S. Grant |
93
|
| Rutherford B. Hayes |
13
|
| James A. Garfield |
0
|
| Chester A. Arthur |
12
|
| Grover Cleveland I |
414
|
| Benjamin Harrison |
44
|
| Grover Cleveland II |
170
|
| William McKinley |
42
|
| Theodore Roosevelt |
82
|
| William Howard Taft |
39
|
| Woodrow Wilson |
44
|
| Warren G. Harding |
6
|
| Calvin Coolidge |
50
|
| Herbert C. Hoover |
37
|
| Franklin D. Roosevelt |
635
|
| Harry S. Truman |
250
|
| Dwight D. Eisenhower |
181
|
| John F. Kennedy |
21
|
| Lyndon B. Johnson |
30
|
| Richard M. Nixon |
43
|
| Gerald R. Ford |
66
|
| James E. Carter |
31
|
| Ronald Reagan |
78
|
| George H. W. Bush |
46
|
| William J. Clinton |
17
|
| George W. Bush |
0
|
The total number of presidential vetoes is 2,550. Regular vetoes number 1,484. Pocket vetoes number 1,066. Only 106 vetoes have been overridden.
See my post #78. That's an awful lot of dust he'll have to uncover to find it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.