" Fair enough, point taken, Chris--I'll concede this minor point to you about this one specific bill.
Still, it doesn't excuse the reckless disregard for the troops' safety in the first two years of the war by this administration; you remember--the "you go to war with the army ya got" period, when the majority of casualties were taken.
You have to admit that the troop support bills signed recently have undoubtedly been in response to the harsh criticism that the administration has received from the media and Veterans' groups, so I don't think anyone can say that it signals a "change of heart"--more like convenient political posturing if you ask me.
ANd is still doesn't justify or excuse your "stoic" defense of these scumbags.
I understand "stoic", Chris--but being entrenched in the face of contradictory facts is not being admirably "stoic"; it's just being dumbly stubborn. I have to wonder what kind of battlefield commander you would be--you seem like the kind of guy who would establish a "fortress city" and doom his men to die rather than assess the situation, and strategically retreat to save lives and establish a more tenable defense line? "

" Karl, maybe if you actually read past the first couple of lines of why Bush vetoed the bill...This is a prime example of why the president should have line item veto powers.

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) — President Bush on Friday used a "pocket veto" to reject a sweeping defense bill because he dislikes a provision that would expose the Iraqi government to expensive lawsuits seeking damages from the Saddam Hussein era.
In a statement, Bush said the legislation "would imperil billions of dollars of Iraqi assets at a crucial juncture in that nation's reconstruction efforts."

Also:
“At issue is a provision deep in the defense authorization bill, which would essentially allow people harmed by Saddam Hussein’s regime to sue for damages (section 1083). The Iraqi government believes such lawsuits could target up to $25 billion in Iraqi assets held in U.S. banks, even though congressional leaders dispute that. Iraq has threatened to pull all of its money out of the U.S. banking system if the provision remains in the bill.”

Bush also states:
I urge the Congress to address the flaw in section 1083 as quickly as possible so I may sign into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, as modified. I also urge the Congress to ensure that any provisions affecting servicemember pay and bonuses, as well as provisions extending expiring authorities, are retroactive to January 1, 2008.

BUT ON JANAURY 31, 2008
President George W. Bush signed the long-delayed and sometimes-contentious fiscal 2008 National Defense Authorization Act into law Monday.
The Senate passed a $696 billion 2008 defense authorization bill Jan. 22. It includes a 3.5 percent military pay raise and provisions to improve health care and benefits for wounded troops and veterans.

All pays and incentives included in the authorization act will be retroactive to Jan. 1, a defense official said.

So Karl, the bill was passed after some of the language was taken out and made retroactive so no one was without their raise or the military was without its budget.

Liberal reading comprehension I suppose on Karl's part.

Nice try Karl but you make refuting your nonsense arguements way too easy... "

" --- Pam: I agree with you 100%+! Why are these men still there? Who's protecting them? My take is that it's the CORRUPT CORPORATIONS, UNIONS AND OTHER SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS & K Street.

--- And "The Producers" was great and so were you...you hussy, you!

---Karl: Great points, etc. and great research via Google. Should have The Citizen publish these 4 points for everyone to look at and think about, especially the great apologizer for Bush and Cheney, Mr. chris van note.

---Our Senators and Congressmen: What has Bush and Cheney have on all of you, anyway? What a disgrace you people are. "

" Chris, for crissakes, even if Congress passes bills for the vets, Bush has the power of the veto--c'mon! YOu 're not that ill-informed!
"President Bush on Dec. 28, 2007, vetoed a $696 billion defense-policy bill (HR 1585) that included improvements to veterans' health care benefits and pay increases for servicemembers, the Wall Street Journal reports (Pullizi, Wall Street Journal, 12/29/07).

The bill would have included nearly $950 million for military health care in fiscal year 2008. The bill included four amendments, including one that would have barred most personality-disorder discharges from the military until the Pentagon submits a report on such discharges and another that would have ensured wounded veterans receive transitional care from the military for 180 days from the time the servicemember is separated from active duty. The third amendment would have extended for one year current prohibitions on raising military health care fees and prescription drug copayments, while the final amendment would have permitted National Guard and Reserve members who have served two years of active-duty service to receive accelerated G.I. Bill educational benefits (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 10/2/07)."
Go ahead and google it Chris--there are pages and pages of stories on Bush vetoing bills that would have helped the troops.
Sheesh.
By the way, I strongly DISAGREE that the charges wouldn't hold up in court--they're apparently real enough to have senators making motions on them and for the press to have been talking about them more and more. The real problem is the Hooveresque/mafioso tactics that the Bush Syndicate have used to intimidate and ruin people who spoke out in the past--look at Valerie Plame.
Time will tell, Chris. I'll keep writing letters. And you, I presume, will keep making excuses.
Over and out. "

" I loved Heathers... great flick!


When I was young, I fell in love
I asked my sweetheart what lies ahead
Will we have rainbows, day after day
Here's what my sweetheart said.

Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours, to see
Que Sera, Sera
What will be, will be. "

" Karl, Congress controls the purse strings.
So, if congress doesn't pass a appropriation bill, then nobody gets anything. How hard is that to get?

And as far as Vet's compensations, that is handled by the VA. If the VA doesn't do what it should be doing, I'm at a loss as to how Bush is at fault. The President released the $3.7 billion in additional veterans funding provided by Congress last year. It is the largest single funding increase in the history of the VA. The Fiscal Year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act. This agreement provides a total of $43.1 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The VA budget for 2009 is being increased by 5.8%. Bush's requested funding in his first full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%.

In the eight years of the Clinton administration the increase was 31.7%

The stuff about personal body armor was true at the beginning of the war, but certainly isn't true now. The new Interceptor body armor being worn by our troops is doing an excellent job.
Again, there were shortages at the beginning of the conflict but they have been resolved...uparmored Humvees and MRAPs are also saving many lives.

I don't hate anyone, I just think that liberals are misguided.

I tend to look at things stoically. If you are going to try and impeach the president, you had better have a smoking gun. Those arguments you made wouldn't stand up to an agressive cross examination in court. I don't think GWB pulled these things out of thin air, he has a bevy of lawyers, the White House Counsel and the US Attorney General that are advising him. "

" Chris, in 100% seriousness and honesty, your last post made me truly sad--for you. You have lost your credibility; utterly.
For whatever deeply-seated psychological reasons you have, you will go to the ends of the Earth to excuse and exculpate a man and administration which, time and time again, has proved--PROVED--that they don't give a DAMN about you or your fighting buddies. On bill after bill to help the troops with things THAT REALLY MATTER--Addt'l armor, after-battle health care, vet's care--they've given you and yours the shaft while talking up your "sacrifices" on politically-appropriate occasions for their cynical benefit.
Here--read this site of just some of the injustices your "Commander in Chief" has committed against you and your kind:
http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/11/ana03304.html
I suspect though, that you know this full well; and that again, your inability or unwillingness to admit that these criminals deserve indictment has more to do with your hatred of "Liberals" than anything approaching common sense.
"Gray areas"--boy oh boy--and you're right there to dutifully provide the whitewash, aintcha?
In the immortal words of the Goddess Wynonna Ryder, in "Heathers"--the greatest teen angst flick of all time-- as she asks Christian Slater to define his motivations, I ask you with the same serousness..."What's your damage?!"?!? "

" If you are going to accuse the President of a criminal act, you better have your ducks in a row and the supporters of the impeachment don't.

1) The Offense of Wiretapping Surveillance in Defiance of the Law;

Very much a grey area, the President lawyer's asert the following:
Says Article II gives the president "all necessary authority" to protect the nation from further attacks. Argues that the president's power to conduct secret surveillance for the conduct of foreign affairs has long been recognized.
Engaging in warrantless surveillance is a common and critical practice for wartime presidents, the Justice Department says, citing George Washington's interception of British mail as an example.
Argues FISA cannot take away the president's inherent constitutional power to wiretap in the name of national security. Contends that the 2001 congressional authorization to use force fulfills FISA's mandate that a warrant is required "except where authorized by statute."

2) The Offence of Lying and Inducing America to Support a War;

Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.

3) The Offense of Reckless Indifference to the Lives and Welfare of American Troops;
Commanders make requests for equipment, the requests go up the chain of command then eventually they go off to the proper appropriations committee and then finally to congress to be included in a military appropriations bill. Bush and Cheney have nothing to do it.

4) The Offense of Torture in Violation of U.S. Laws and Treaties.
Waterboarding? Big deal. We have waterboarded thousands of our own troops during training. You don't die from it, there are no lasting physical or pyschological effects. Is it torure?
Again, another grey area.
BTW Karl, our Islamic fanatic enemies don't know what the Geneva Convention is let alone abide by it. Regardless of what we do, they are savages and have proved it time and again with their treatment of prisoners (Daniel Pearl ring a bell?).

I'm good on the couseling and I'm not angry. Fighting a war is a younger man's game and going thru bootcamp once in your life is enough. "

" I agree that the Impeachment movement is dead in the water--that's why we need War Crimes and Crimes of Treason trials against both of these SOB's and their criminal syndicate.
The evidence is coming out about how Gonzales and the corrupt "Justice" (LOL!) Department committed crimes in the firing of Federal prosecutors--indict these scumbags too.
Chris, really--in all seriousness, your service to your country is worth a slight handicap in respect to your purposeful, willfully ignorant defense of Bush and Cheney, but your credibility is really approaching negative numbers. Seriously. C'mon, man, get with it. YOu sound delusional; as delusional as Mike Savage or some of the most looney Right-Wingers.
For your enjoyment, here is a partial list of Bush's documentable crimes, taken from google, as per your suggestion:

1) The Offense of Wiretapping Surveillance in Defiance of the Law;

President Bush and Vice-President Cheney admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805;

2) The Offence of Lying and Inducing America to Support a War

President Bush and Vice-President Cheney intentionally misled the Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war against Iraq, intentionally conspired with others to defraud the United States in connection with the war against Iraq in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371;

3) The Offense of Reckless Indifference to the Lives and Welfare of American Troops;

President Bush and Vice-President Cheney failed to provide US soldiers with bulletproof vests or appropriately armored vehicles. A recent Pentagon study disclosed that proper bulletproof vests would have saved hundreds of lives. Furthermore, as the Downing Street memo revealed, they had no serious plan for the aftermath of the war. President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have demonstrated a complete disregard for the welfare of the troops and an utter indifference to the need for proper governance of a country after occupation. The result has been an endless war that has cost U.S. taxpayers over $350 billion with 3,000 U.S. soldiers killed and over 21,000 wounded.

4) The Offense of Torture in Violation of U.S. Laws and Treaties.

President Bush and Vice-President Cheney conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the "Federal Torture Act" Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of the "supreme Law of the Land.”
Chris, really; these are true facts--but the mere fact that you could dismiss and defend that last fact--that these filthy elitist chickenhawks could authorize Torture against enemy combatants, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT YOU SOLDIERS LIKE YOURSELF COULD HAVE BEEN TORTURED IN RETALIATION , makes me wonder what exactly is going on with you--are you in some kind of PST yourself? Angry at not being able to serve? Do you have to be twice as tough online because you weren't permitted to go to the war zone?
YOu might benefit from some counseling, you know? "

" I'm not saying she's a dingbat, but she is wrong on impeachment in my opinion.

And I've been following Bert's blog, his operation came out well and he says that they got everything out which is a very good thing.

I don't monger warts by the way.

And if you are going to call me an idiot, at least man up enough and put in your first name (since we apparently know each other). "

" Chris,

Leave Bert's mom alone. She is not a dingbat. Just because you are a wartmonger does not mean therest of us need to be.

I would expect that you, as a veteran, would have more repsect for the soldiers and sailors than to see them die for the benefit of Haliburton and the rest of Dick and George's War Crime buddies.

I used to like you, Flying V. Now I see that you really are an idiot. "

" Good luck with that...
Nothing will happen as you need to actually commit a crime but since the left is full of hate, not dislike, but hate for anything GWB or Cheney they'll just keep grasping at their emotional straws.
I read article 1 of the moonbat impeachment...Seizing power to wage war in defiance of the US Constitution? In fact, they had a vote in the Congress in October 2002 authorizing the war.
Again, being wrong doesn't make one a liar. There's nothing in the US Constitution that would make invasion of another country without "good" reason a "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Moonbats using emotion over intellect as usual.
Most of the left's complaints are against Bush's policy and are trying to impose their socialist, uber-liberal agenda thru the impeachment circus led by Dennis "I tawt I taw a UFO" Kucinich and some rabid, ultra-left congressmen and women.
Ain't gonna work today, ain't gonna work tomorrow, ain't gonna work period. "

" Ignore the previous post by the Town Neocon Lackey--what we need, Pamela, is not Impeachment Hearings--the damage which the Bush criminal cabal has wrought is done.
What we REALLY need are indictments and War Crimes trials for Iraq, as well as Murder and Treason charges against the American People for 9/11. Indictments for the corruption of the Justice Department would be proper as well!
I have been writing letters for years; it is time that all of America do the same!
Scott McLellan's book has laid the groundwork for the TRUTH to be told, and it shows that many of Bush's closest capos are willing to turn "rat"--it's time to go after the Bush Crime Family like they did the mob, because it's really no different.
TRY, INDICT, AND LET JUSTICE BE DONE! WHATEVER THE PUNISHMENT! "

" The "impeachment" nonsense will get nowhere. Being wrong doesn't mean being a liar. You liberal moonbats have been trying to pull this stunt for years because you don't agree with the way Bush and Cheney have handled things, like the war in Iraq and the overall fight against Muslim terrorists. Sorry kids: kind words, group hugs & drum circles don't do much to disuade a jihadi with a bomb strapped to his chest but a well placed 1000 pound JDAM sure does. "