The house and senate democrats have tentatively agreed on a spending bill for the war, according to todays USA Today. (sorry no link but on page 7A April 25, 2007) They put an end date of no later than next April 1 for the ending combat operations by beginning a troop draw down this October 1. I think this is like telling the terrorist insurgents that they have won.

 

But here is the trick. The bill has these two things added......

-$20 billion added for various items including Katrina relief (anyone see the movie "Money Pit")and farm disaster programs.

-Minimum wage $5.15 to $7.25

 

I am not saying anything is wrong with either addition on the surface, but anyone who votes to continue the war in Iraq (remember the terrorist could be here), will have to vote against both of these measures. This will be used to crucify any senator or house member that votes against the bill when they come up for election.

 

I know this is done all the time by both sides, that is why the President needs a line item veto. It is also the reason no President wants one.

There are plenty of terrorists already here on our turf and more coming in anytime they so desire. We are not protecting our borders and we're fighting a civil war in Iraq, not a "war on terror" there.

Iraq is the current battleground in the war on terror and terrorists are not coming in when they so desire.

Bush will veto this anyways, right?

Iraq is the current battleground in the war on terror and terrorists are not coming in when they so desire.

 

 

Iraq may be our primary battleground in the war on terror, but what success are we seeing at this point? Like someone else said, it seems like we're right in the middle of a civil war.

If Iraq is the primary battle ground in the so-called war on terror, it's because we made it so. I'm sure there will be lots of people to respond 'better there than here,' but that's cold comfort to the Iraqi civilians we choose to place in the way.

Especially since we already had the perfect battle ground to 'fight them over there instead of here' in Afghanistan. We all see how that strategy has panned out. 5 1/2 years later, and the man responsible is still free.

Especially since we already had the perfect battle ground to 'fight them over there instead of here' in Afghanistan. We all see how that strategy has panned out. 5 1/2 years later, and the man responsible is still free.

 

 

:thumb:

Setting a date for withdrawal is the same as declaring our defeat.

 

It makes as much sense as a visiting high school football team informing the home team, "Our A.D. scheduled this game without taking into consideration all our other commitments. We have a long trip back home and lots of other stuff we need to be doing, so we'll be heading home at 8:15 no matter what."

 

All the home team has to do is hang in until 8:15. They know that even if they're down four touchdowns, as long as there is time left on the clock, they will win.

 

Playing political games with the supplies we've sent our men and women away to fight with is contemptable. There is no excuse whatsoever for democrats in congress attempting to manage the war by witholding supplies essential to their comfort and survival and maybe even their success.

Setting a date for withdrawal is the same as declaring our defeat.

 

It makes as much sense as a visiting high school football team informing the home team, "Our A.D. scheduled this game without taking into consideration all our other commitments. We have a long trip back home and lots of other stuff we need to be doing, so we'll be heading home at 8:15 no matter what."

 

All the home team has to do is hang in until 8:15. They know that even if they're down four touchdowns, as long as there is time left on the clock, they will win.

 

Playing political games with the supplies we've sent our men and women away to fight with is contemptable. There is no excuse whatsoever for democrats in congress attempting to manage the war by witholding supplies essential to their comfort and survival and maybe even their success.

Amen! :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

Amen! :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

:ylsuper: :thumb: :thumb:

Setting a date for withdrawal is the same as declaring our defeat.

 

It makes as much sense as a visiting high school football team informing the home team, "Our A.D. scheduled this game without taking into consideration all our other commitments. We have a long trip back home and lots of other stuff we need to be doing, so we'll be heading home at 8:15 no matter what."

 

All the home team has to do is hang in until 8:15. They know that even if they're down four touchdowns, as long as there is time left on the clock, they will win.

 

Playing political games with the supplies we've sent our men and women away to fight with is contemptable. There is no excuse whatsoever for democrats in congress attempting to manage the war by witholding supplies essential to their comfort and survival and maybe even their success.

:ylsuper: :fight:

Iraq may be our primary battleground in the war on terror, but what success are we seeing at this point? Like someone else said, it seems like we're right in the middle of a civil war.

 

 

Great success! When was that last attack that killed more in 2 hours than have been killed in 4 years? That is no accident despite what some want to claim. What do you think will happen WHEN the terrorists gain control of the oil and have unlimited funds?

If Iraq is the primary battle ground in the so-called war on terror, it's because we made it so. I'm sure there will be lots of people to respond 'better there than here,' but that's cold comfort to the Iraqi civilians we choose to place in the way.

 

So you would rather fight it out here? What is your solution? We pull out and what happens next in the war on terror in your scenario?

You know the Dems talking point as soon as GWB vetos this insanity will be that he cut funds to the troops.

 

I already heard liberal mouthpiece Alan Colmes use it.