Maineman

[Annie]

did you see this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...AR2007120701772.html?hpid=opinionsbox1&sub=AR

Getting Beyond Stalemate to Win a War

By John Batiste and Pete Hegseth
Saturday, December 8, 2007; A17

Congress has been entangled in a war-funding debate that pits war "supporters" against antiwar "defeatists." With all sides seemingly entrenched, a stalemate looms. The Pentagon, meanwhile, will soon begin stripping money from its training budget to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our military men and women deserve better than partisan politics; they deserve honest assessments of our nation's performance in fighting the Long War.

We are veterans of the Iraq war with vastly different experiences. Both of us commanded troops in Iraq. We, too, held seemingly entrenched, and incompatible, views upon our return. One of us spoke out against mismanagement of the war -- failed leadership, lack of strategy and misdirection. The other championed the cause of successfully completing our mission.

Our perspectives were different, yet not as stark as the "outspoken general" and "stay-the-course supporter" labels we received. Such labels are oversimplified and inaccurate, and we are united behind a greater purpose.

It's time to discuss the way forward rather than prosecute the past. Congress must do the same, for our nation and the troops.

Overall, this will require learning from our strategic blunders, acknowledging successes achieved by our courageous military and forging a bold path. We believe America can and must rally around five fundamental tenets:

First, the United States must be successful in the fight against worldwide Islamic extremism. We have seen this ruthless enemy firsthand, and its global ambitions are undeniable. This struggle, the Long War, will probably take decades to prosecute. Failure is not an option...

 

[jillian]

I agree there shouldn't be partisanship in funding the troops, Kathianne. Now all Bush has to do to make that happen is to sign off on a Bill that makes sure Congress can oversee what he's doing and provides for benchmarks. Remember, he's the one who's said he'd veto any funding bill that provides for that. I figure ball's in his court.

Or does bi-partisanship only run one way?

 

[Annie]

I agree there shouldn't be partisanship in funding the troops, Kathianne. Now all Bush has to do to make that happen is to sign off on a Bill that makes sure Congress can oversee what he's doing and provides for benchmarks. Remember, he's the one who's said he'd veto any funding bill that provides for that. I figure ball's in his court.

Or does bi-partisanship only run one way?

So why would the Dems be slipping domestic funding into the bill? I mean they would have no problem writing a domestic appropriation bill or adding the items to one already written. You're correct though, he'll have to hit that ball, one way or the other. Then again, he's not running for re-election, so he can tell 'the people' why it will be vetoed and send it back, again.

 

[maineman]

did you see this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...AR2007120701772.html?hpid=opinionsbox1&sub=AR

I hadn't seen it, but I have now.

I find myself in agreement with most everything written here.

I remain skeptical as to the will or the ability of the Iraqi politicians to do their parts.... and THAT creates an air of futility for me.

 

[jillian]

So why would the Dems be slipping domestic funding into the bill? I mean they would have no problem writing a domestic appropriation bill or adding the items to one already written. You're correct though, he'll have to hit that ball, one way or the other. Then again, he's not running for re-election, so he can tell 'the people' why it will be vetoed and send it back, again.

There are always unrelated things "slipped" into Bills. That said, it should be a straight up or down because the point is better made. But, as I always say about my party, we have an extraordinary knack for grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Congress will lose. And Bush knows it. Congress already has oversight. They can cut off funding. They do not have the Constitutional power or Authority to tell the President how to run a war. Their power is in budget. Either fund it or don't fund it.

Hell they can even be specific and write a bill that only funds all none Iraq expenses and ONLY provides funds to withdraw the troops. What they want is power they are NOT granted.

Congressional Losers, err I mean Democrats know now that the war is not the doom and gloom they have been insisting it was they can not cut off funds. So instead they want to tell the President how to run a war. They want to get what they want and be able to pretend they didn't cause us to lose.

These guys have no backbone. Bush won't blink and the Dems will look the fools they are. Just like when Reagan forced them to increase the defense funding in the 80's.

 

[Annie]

There are always unrelated things "slipped" into Bills. That said, it should be a straight up or down because the point is better made. But, as I always say about my party, we have an extraordinary knack for grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory.

On the other hand, 'my party' has had perhaps too much luck pulling victory out when defeat may have helped to save it.

 

[jillian]

On the other hand, 'my party' has had perhaps too much luck pulling victory out when defeat may have helped to save it.

Might be... *sigh*

 

[M14 Shooter]

I agree there shouldn't be partisanship in funding the troops, Kathianne. Now all Bush has to do to make that happen is to sign off on a Bill that makes sure Congress can oversee what he's doing and provides for benchmarks.

Congress has the power to fund the war, or not. That's its 'oversight' - its check against the power of the commander in chief.

Congressional Dems simply wants to make sure that we lose the war, as they have staked their political future on it.