Seems like the lid is coming down...

[no1tovote4]

Agreed. I don't think the Democratic party truly has a read on the electorate, but enough intuition to bar total non-funding. I still think their actions will come back to haunt them, though maybe not until 2012, when the electorate realizes what has been done.

If they are successful in forcing a withdrawal, it will be on or about that time that we will be going back to finish what we should have. With even less trust from the citizenry of Iraq to "help" us on our way.

They mistrusted us this time after so many were killed when W's father suggested that we would help them if they started a revolution, then we just left them to die rather than backing up the word of the US. If we leave before we have given them stability as we promised, if we turn away from them again it will only make it that much more difficult to gain their trust when we are forced to return.

 

[no1tovote4]

Bush has had a blank check from Congress ever since he stated this war. He resents any attempt by Congress to assert the oversight duties it has abandoned over the last six years. That is the whole basis of his veto threat...A temper tantrum because he no longer has free access to the cookie jar...Typical of a spoiled child and the emotional retard that he is.

This ignores the fact that Bush has, per article II of the constitution, the right to run foreign policy. The only oversight the congress has per the constitution is to fund or not to fund the war. Attempting to assert foreign policy limitations is stepping on the constitutional authority of another branch of the government. While I personally don't think that Bush is the best Foriegn Policy authority, he is the only Constitutionally lawful authority on that subject.

So, either vote for funding or not, don't attempt to assert yourself onto the authority of another branch.

 

[Annie]

If they are successful in forcing a withdrawal, it will be on or about that time that we will be going back to finish what we should have. With even less trust from the citizenry of Iraq to "help" us on our way.

They mistrusted us this time after so many were killed when W's father suggested that we would help them if they started a revolution, then we just left them to die rather than backing up the word of the US. If we leave before we have given them stability as we promised, if we turn away from them again it will only make it that much more difficult to gain their trust when we are forced to return.

I'm forced to agree, the problems between Bush 1 and 2 have not been addressed in most places, certainly not the MSM. It's taken a long time, and still not complete for many Iraqis to trust the US, in light of the WMD used against them, but not 'found' this time around.

 

[Mr.Conley]

With such a bill, and a veto, Bush links any success of his party in the next elections to the war. But so do the Democrats. They are betting on what they believe to be a far more likely outcome.

However, if they were truly serious in believing that the war was wholly unjustified and without any merit the only moral vote would be to defund the war entirely and force a return to the US. However they haven't the balls to make the only logical and moral choice that agrees with their argument, they believe such a vote would kill their chances in '08. They prefer the military lose more lives so that they gain more seats in the Senate rather than lose them.

I totally disagree with your second paragraph. I was totally against going into this war from the start; however, once we were in Iraq I accepted the fact that now that we were there, we had to stay until things were running smoothly. Leaving millions of people engulfed in a civil war doesn't strike me as particularly moral, yet you're claiming that somehow my opposition to the war necessitates my support for withdrawal even on a moral scale. Because you somehow connect my critical view with some "moral" requirement that I call for withdrawal doesn't strike me as particularly true. Just because I believe that "the war was wholly unjustified" doesn't mean that the only "moral" position I can take is to "defund the war entirely and force a return to the US." You can't paint people into a corner like that.

Furthermore, if I recall, weren't you saying a few months ago that, if elected, the Democrats would immediately "cut and run". Yet, now that they have won the Congress and have decided that instead of leaving the country immediately it'd be better to give the President his last shot and if it doesn't work move out, here you are criticizing them for taking the reasonable course of action. You got exactly what you wanted. Why are you complaining?

 

[Superlative]

The nly lid I see coming down is the toilet lid coming down on Dems and their surrender bill

Thats because you are ignorant.

 

[no1tovote4]

I totally disagree with your second paragraph. I was totally against going into this war from the start; however, once we were in Iraq I accepted the fact that now that we were there, we had to stay until things were running smoothly. Leaving millions of people engulfed in a civil war doesn't strike me as particularly moral, yet you're claiming that somehow my opposition to the war necessitates my support for withdrawal even on a moral scale. Because you somehow connect my critical view with some "moral" requirement that I call for withdrawal doesn't strike me as particularly true. Just because I believe that "the war was wholly unjustified" doesn't mean that the only "moral" position I can take is to "defund the war entirely and force a return to the US." You can't paint people into a corner like that.

Furthermore, if I recall, weren't you saying a few months ago that, if elected, the Democrats would immediately "cut and run". Yet, now that they have won the Congress and have decided that instead of leaving the country immediately it'd be better to give the President his last shot and if it doesn't work move out, here you are criticizing them for taking the reasonable course of action. You got exactly what you wanted. Why are you complaining?

What I wanted? I do not support undeclared wars. I believe that the "War Powers Act" is an unprecedented and largely unchallenged foray into unconstitutional lawmaking, continuing such unconstitutional powergrabs by reaching into what is specifically proscribed to another branch and attempting to tell that branch what to do doesn't make it better. The declaration clause was made to protect us from just such unconscionable action. I do not imagine that the Senate, on the evidence presented, would have declared war on Iraq. I do believe that they would have in Afghanistan had the President valued the constitution, and had the Congress done so as well, we would not be in such a mess to begin with.

"Leaving millions engulfed in a civil war" is exactly what they propose to do when they say that nothing is going to change for the better in the whole 6 months that they gave in their unconstitutional foray into Foreign Policy.

I do agree with you on one thing, that leaving without first complying with the original promise of a stable Iraq would be immoral. However, if you truly believe as a Congressperson that the war is an inescapable boondoggle that will just get worse and that there is no chance to provide any stability then there is no moral value in letting it get to such a point. If you truly believe, as Reid does, that the war is already lost then the only logical moral choice is to end it right now, they have the power to do so. Letting it continue while saying it is "lost" already and that it will get no better gives them some of the responsibility in the end result.

Personally I plan on counting every one of the deaths that come from us leaving prematurely and placing them at the feet of the Democratic Party when and if they actually do force the US to leave before stability can be reached. Fourth Gen warfare can only be lost when the public outcry forces early retreat.

I believe that if we do not finish it now, that it will only be worse when we are forced to face this again, and that early withdrawal will only make that a certainty.

 

[red states rule]

Thats because you are ignorant.

Because I am right. Dems know their surrender bill is DOA - what will they do next?

Stand firm - they have never done that before when it comes to natioanl security

Cave - probably. They really have no other choice. Pres Bush called their bluff and now the Dems are screwed