 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:15 pm Post subject: Blankley: "An incontinent Congress" |
 |
|
Hattip to Michelle Malkin (Lorie Byrd)...Blankley certainly gets it... (emphasis mine)
| Quote: | An incontinent Congress
By Tony Blankley
November 16, 2005
Washington Times
It was 30 years ago when Congress last took the reins of national war fighting. In August 1974, Nixon had been scandalized and left office. The November 1974 election brought forth the "Watergate babies" congress filled with young anti-war Democrats. One of the first actions of the Watergate Congress was to vote to deny an appropriation of $800 million to pay for South Vietnamese military aid, including ammunition and spare parts. Historical records now are known that reveal that five weeks after that vote, the North Vietnamese started planning their final offensive. The morale of the South Vietnamese was broken by that symbolic Congressional act of betrayal. The actual dollar cuts forced South Vietnamese President Thieu to abandon the Central Highland in March of 1975, leading to the collapse of our ally and the onset of genocide and police state brutalities that killed more Asians than all the thousand days of the war did.
Now the Watergate babies have grown old -- and age has not improved them. They plan to finish their careers as they started them -- in defeatism, betrayal and national dishonor. Oh, that America might see the last of these fish-eyed sacks of loathsome bile and infamy: Unwholesome in their birth; repugnant and stench-forming in their decline.
Now another Republican president has grown weak and struggles to hold on to his war-making powers. I am heartened that President Bush is finally fighting back. He should veto any bill that would grant Congress even a syllable of war-fighting strategy. Mr. President, don't believe a word of their legislative prose. They have defeat in their hearts, and they mean you ill. Stand and fight with veto pen and executive order in hand. Rally with defiant words those of us who would yet be your honored supporters. Let the long suffering people of Iraq know that you will fight furiously for their redemption, and will be deaf to the impleadings of the weak and defeatist here in America.
Two national betrayals in 20 years is too much for the heart of the nation to take. Send more troops, not less. Victory may yet be ours.
Washington Times - cont'd |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jwb7605
Rear Admiral
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 690
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:54 pm Post subject: Re: Blankley: "An incontinent Congress" |
|
|
| Me#1You#10 wrote: | Hattip to Michelle Malkin (Lorie Byrd)...Blankley certainly gets it... (emphasis mine)
| Quote: | An incontinent Congress
By Tony Blankley
November 16, 2005
Washington Times
<SNIP>
He should veto any bill that would grant Congress even a syllable of war-fighting strategy. Mr. President, don't believe a word of their legislative prose. They have defeat in their hearts, and they mean you ill. Stand and fight with veto pen and executive order in hand. Rally with defiant words those of us who would yet be your honored supporters. Let the long suffering people of Iraq know that you will fight furiously for their redemption, and will be deaf to the impleadings of the weak and defeatist here in America.
Two national betrayals in 20 years is too much for the heart of the nation to take. Send more troops, not less. Victory may yet be ours.
Washington Times - cont'd |
|
Nice sentiments, I agree with the gist, but the bill that was just passed was "non-binding", as, I suspect, the rest of the bills will be, and therefore non-vetoable. My main concern is that it is/will be difficult to veto anything in the future that doesn't provide adequate funding for an overall effort ... which is where things are headed, and largely how efforts get abandoned.
Senators/congressmen typically run on platforms of "strengthening the military", while simultaneously running on platforms of "cutting spending". AND, they usually get away with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If they are non-binding, they are not law, but an opinion of the majority. If non-binding they can be ignored.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jwb7605
Rear Admiral
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 690
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Understood.
How does one veto the non-binding ten dollars one does not receive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jwb7605 wrote: | Understood.
How does one veto the non-binding ten dollars one does not receive? |
Beats the hell out of me. I would hope somebody would have the nerve to thumb their nose at the Senate too. That would be someone with cajones, but who is a good question. Seems like nobody in DC has any these days. Pandering and posturing is the order of the day. 
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
