Republicans May Win One

[red states rule]

The Dem led Congress is running around in circles, poll numbers for Dems are falling, Speaker of State Pelosi is tanking, and Dems cannot make up their minds on what their party wants or stands for

Some Dems are saying they will not block attempts to block funding for the troops as Harry Reid wants

It seems most of those Dems are up for reelection in 08.

So much for the libs spin that cutting off funding was what voters wanted in 06


GOP eyes success on war funding
By S.A. Miller
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senate Republicans yesterday said Democrats are weakening in the war-funding standoff with the White House, citing party infighting and the capitulation of its leaders to meet next week with President Bush.
"They are very divided on the issue," said Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, chairman of the Republican Conference. "The Democrats are all over the board on this."
He said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi looked "embarrassed" when they snubbed a White House invitation but then turned around and agreed to the talks on the war-funding bill Mr. Bush vows to veto.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Democrats are having "a debate among themselves" and he sees cracks in support for a troop pullout from Iraq.
"The first dam that is going to break is going to be on the other side after they see a presidential veto," the Kentucky Republican said.
But Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat, said his caucus will not retreat from the troop-withdrawal timelines Congress attached to $100 billion of emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We're not going to back down from what we think is right for this country," Mr. Reid told reporters Thursday after reluctantly accepting the president's invitation.
The standoff over withdrawal deadlines for U.S. forces in Iraq threatens to stall war funds even as Pentagon officials say money starts to run out tomorrow. Mr. Bush says it undermines the war effort, but Democrats say troops need to exit Iraq's "civil war."
Mr. Reid has noted continued support for the timelines by freshman Democratic senators, who won office in November's elections that swept their party into the majority for the first time in a dozen years.
However, Democrats throughout the Senate ranks say they will refuse to withholding troop funding -- a tactic advocated by Mr. Reid.
Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat up for re-election next year, said she would not block war funds and opposes withdrawal timetables, although she joined the 51-47 vote to pass the carefully worded "goal" of a complete pullout by March 31.
"We must set clear goals and benchmarks for success in Iraq. ... But I cannot support timetables that call for redeployment based on an arbitrary calendar date," Mrs. Landrieu said, stressing she supports full funding for the troops.


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070414-122242-7079r.htm

 

[Paul Revere]

 

[red states rule]

Then go play on the freeway

 

[Creek_George]

Who do you work for?..Red States Rule?...(smile)..

C'mon on man.....Sit down at the campfire...all the same hot dogs..buns..and heinz k-up..Mustard...quality as well...

Can I please ask..How can one be so determined?...You are more aggressive than....Well it's scary to use an example...because one...I have not a clue on who you are...Secondly..it would be a scary example....(not that bad).....But dam...you are a full time job at your party bro...

Nobody is right 100% of the time....Good & bad in everbody....Also that maybe only 40% if that...have a grasp what's going on in this country..

Even I bro..Know that every Con & Lib is not an enemy of the state......

Don't let religion..your political..or who you are as a person be so one sided.

Welcome to the human race....

Creek

 

[red states rule]

Who do you work for?..Red States Rule?...(smile)..

C'mon on man.....Sit down at the campfire...all the same hot dogs..buns..and heinz k-up..Mustard...quality as well...

Can I please ask..How can one be so determined?...You are more aggressive than....Well it's scary to use an example...because one...I have not a clue on who you are...Secondly..it would be a scary example....(not that bad).....But dam...you are a full time job at your party bro...

Nobody is right 100% of the time....Good & bad in everbody....Also that maybe only 40% if that...have a grasp what's going on in this country..

Even I bro..Know that every Con & Lib is not an enemy of the state......

Don't let religion..your political..or who you are as a person be so one sided.

Welcome to the human race....

Creek

I do not work for anyone.

I am a Ronald Regan conservative and all I am doing is calling liberals on what they say and do. To liberals that is hate speech

I am pointing out how Dems are flip floping all over the place on the war and the funding

I do not hate Dems - they are dangerous when they are in power. Right now they are doing what the terrorists want them to do - cut off funding and thus forcing the US out of Iraq

Am I bias - yes. Unlike liberals who claim to be so tolerant, I do not hate those who disagree with me

 

[red states rule]

Who do you work for?..Red States Rule?...(smile)..

C'mon on man.....Sit down at the campfire...all the same hot dogs..buns..and heinz k-up..Mustard...quality as well...

Can I please ask..How can one be so determined?...You are more aggressive than....Well it's scary to use an example...because one...I have not a clue on who you are...Secondly..it would be a scary example....(not that bad).....But dam...you are a full time job at your party bro...

Nobody is right 100% of the time....Good & bad in everbody....Also that maybe only 40% if that...have a grasp what's going on in this country..

Even I bro..Know that every Con & Lib is not an enemy of the state......

Don't let religion..your political..or who you are as a person be so one sided.

Welcome to the human race....

Creek

Now libs think they will gain seats in Congress over Iraq

Here I thought they were voted into power to fix problems - not think about what they do or don't do will benefit them politically


WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats know they might lose this month's showdown with President Bush on legislation to pull troops out of Iraq. But with 2008 elections in mind, majority Democrats says it is only a matter of time before they will get their way.
Senior Democrats are calculating that if they keep the pressure on, eventually more Republicans will jump ship and challenge the president — or lose their seats to Democratic contenders.

"It's at least my belief that they are going to have to break because they're going to look extinction, some of them, in the eye," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., of his Republican colleagues.

Added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.: "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war."

The House and Senate are expected to negotiate war spending legislation this week. The Democratic proposal would approve $96 billion in military money, mostly for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and set a timetable for troop withdrawal.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-15-dems-iraq_N.htm

 

[Paul Revere]

Who do you work for?..Red States Rule?...(smile)..

C'mon on man.....Sit down at the campfire...all the same hot dogs..buns..and heinz k-up..Mustard...quality as well...

Can I please ask..How can one be so determined?...You are more aggressive than....Well it's scary to use an example...because one...I have not a clue on who you are...Secondly..it would be a scary example....(not that bad).....But dam...you are a full time job at your party bro...

Nobody is right 100% of the time....Good & bad in everbody....Also that maybe only 40% if that...have a grasp what's going on in this country..

Even I bro..Know that every Con & Lib is not an enemy of the state......

Don't let religion..your political..or who you are as a person be so one sided.

Welcome to the human race....

Creek

I know him....You are correct, he is scary.

 

[red states rule]

I know him....You are correct, he is scary.

Scary only to the kook left

 

[red states rule]

Empowering the terrorists
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
April 16, 2007


"I don't want to push the Maliki government by congressional actions that will empower the terrorists. That's the difference between me and our Democratic friends." -- Sen. Lindsey Graham Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, has cut through the preening and pontificating on Capitol Hill to succinctly describe the differences between President Bush and the Democrats on Iraq. The question is whether Congress will give the U.S. military the resources to do the job against the jihadists, or merely score cheap points against the elected Iraqi government. This appears to be what Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, who appeared with Mr. Graham, has set out to do.
Reversing errors made during de-Ba'athification and coming up with a plan to share oil revenues are desirable things. But they are clearly secondary to the number one imperative: security for millions of innocent Iraqis who are being preyed on by terrorists and other criminal thugs. Troop reinforcements have arrived, and there are hopeful signs. Some areas of Baghdad appear to be less dangerous; the Iraqi Army is doing a better job; and Sunni militias in Anbar province are turning against al Qaeda. But for now, the 150,000 U.S. combat troops in Iraq are engaged in a difficult struggle to maintain stability. Although the Iraqis have made some important strides on the security front, they are nowhere near able to take over the job from the coalition, nor will they be able to do that soon.
By pushing to weaken U.S. combat forces to ineffectiveness by next year, the Iraq war-funding bills passed by the House and Senate on largely party-line votes send plain messages to Tehran, al Qaeda and the other jihadists seeking to drive the United States out of the Middle East: Hold out for another 16 months or so, and Iraq will be yours. The Senate-passed bill, rammed through by Majority Leader Harry Reid, would begin withdrawing U.S. troops within 18 weeks of passage, with a March 31, 2008 goal of ending combat operations in Iraq. The House bill pushed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi would set a firm deadline. By Aug. 31, 2008, all U.S. combat forces must be withdrawn from Iraq. Smaller-sized forces would in theory remain in Iraq to conduct military training for the Iraqis and to carry out "counterterrorism training and security operations." This is unrealistic, and risks setting up a reprise of Saigon 1975, when the enemy overruns a collapsing government abandoned by the United States.
President Bush is determined to prevent that, and he rightly promises to veto legislation to enable the terrorists. On Wednesday the president will meet Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid at the White House to discuss the supplemental spending bills. For a time last week, the congressional leaders were reluctant to go to the White House because the president is not willing to discuss "compromise" with them. But Mrs. Pelosi was effectively needled by critics who said that if she could travel to Syria to talk to a dictator, President Bashar Assad, she ought to find time to go to the White House to discuss legislation for sending ammunition (and bandages) to American soldiers. So she and Mr. Reid grumpily agreed to meet with Mr. Bush, but insist they expect to use the occasion to push the president to see things their way.
When they do this and lecture us on how they "support the troops," we trust that Mr. Bush will set the record straight. By refusing to enact a "clean" emergency funding measure, Congress has inexcusably delayed critical support for operations in Iraq. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has performed skillfully, and eight other congressional Republicans sent a letter to Mrs. Pelosi rebuking her failure to appoint conferees to work on the legislation. Mr. McConnell and his colleagues reminded the speaker that U.S. Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker has written that "without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families." Secretary of Defense Robert Gates further emphasized the damaging effects of delay: "This kind of disruption to key programs will have a genuinely adverse effect on the readiness of the Army and the quality of life for soldiers and their families."
Noting that the Senate returned from vacation last week, the Republican lawmakers asked Mrs. Pelosi to cancel the remainder of the House vacation to return to Washington and "work in good faith to pass a clean supplemental funding bull that the President can sign as soon as possible. Every day that we don't fund our troops is a day their ability to fight this war is weakened." Mrs. Pelosi ignored this. It's her prerogative to do so, but she should spare the president and the American people the nonsense about how strongly Democrats "support the troops."

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/200...5042-6593r.htm

 

[Avatar4321]

The sad thing is that the fact there are people who want to deny troops funding for political purposes.

 

[Avatar4321]

You have time to look up a website to find a picture to post here saying that you cant read this and don't have time to actually sit down and read a paragraph and provide a response?

If you don't have time to read it, why respond? Only a fool comments on things he hasnt read.

 

[Rosotar]

The sad thing is that the fact there are people who want to deny troops funding for political purposes.

I know....it's sad isn't it?

Our troops deserve better from their President!

 

[Paul Revere]

You have time to look up a website to find a picture to post here saying that you cant read this and don't have time to actually sit down and read a paragraph and provide a response?

If you don't have time to read it, why respond? Only a fool comments on things he hasnt read.

If you haven't figured it out by now, I guess I will have to spell it out for you.

I d-o n-o-t l-i-k-e R-S-R.

W-e h-a-v-e a l-o-n-g f-e-u-d g-o-i-n-g o-n.


Besides that I said I did not have time to read CRAP....meaning after a few sentences, I saw it was crap.

Had the article been worthwhile, I would have read it.

 

[red states rule]

If you haven't figured it out by now, I guess I will have to spell it out for you.

I d-o n-o-t l-i-k-e R-S-R.

W-e h-a-v-e a l-o-n-g f-e-u-d g-o-i-n-g o-n.


Besides that I said I did not have time to read CRAP....meaning after a few sentences, I saw it was crap.

Had the article been worthwhile, I would have read it.

Being a liberal kook you can't Paul to read different viewpoints

 

[red states rule]

I know....it's sad isn't it?

Our troops deserve better from their President!

No, you mean the Dems.

They are the ones who passed the "Surrender At All Cots" bill, and it was Harry Reid who bellowed the Senate would cut off funding

 

[Rosotar]

No, you mean the Dems.

They are the ones who passed the "Surrender At All Cots" bill, and it was Harry Reid who bellowed the Senate would cut off funding

Cons have been screaming for months that if Dems had any "balls" they'd quit messing with non-binding resolutions and just come out and use their power to cut off funding.

Then when Dems send a perfectly valid bill to Bush that puts the ball in his court they scream even louder because the only person who can cut off funding now is Bush through his veto power.

Now the idea of Bush cutting funding for the troops doesn't seem so good to them.

Waaaaah!

Why the "flip-flop?"

 

[red states rule]

Cons have been screaming for months that if Dems had any "balls" they'd quit messing with non-binding resolutions and just come out and use their power to cut off funding.

Then when Dems send a perfectly valid bill to Bush that puts the ball in his court they scream even louder because the only person who can cut off funding now is Bush through his veto power.

Now the idea of Bush cutting funding for the troops doesn't seem so good to them.

Waaaaah!

Why the "flip-flop?"

They still have not had the balls to cut of funding. They are trying to do a back door method by setting a surrender date

When Reid said the Senate would cut off funding - Levin said they would not

Dems have boxed themselvs in a corner. They either have to cut off funding (not all Dems agree) or they will have to drop the pork and surrender date

They do not have a veto proof majority

Dems have over played their hand and they are stuck

 

[red states rule]

The sad thing is that the fact there are people who want to deny troops funding for political purposes.

Bush, Democrats at loggerheads on Iraq timeline
By Jon Ward

President Bush and Democratic congressional leaders yesterday drew lines in the sand, saying they won't back down from their positions at a meeting tomorrow about a Democrat-backed deadline for withdrawal from Iraq in an emergency war-funding bill.
"I hope the Democratic leadership will drop their unreasonable demands for a precipitous withdrawal," Mr. Bush said during a brief speech to military families at the White House. "I am willing to discuss any way forward that does not hamstring our troops, set an artificial timetable for withdrawal and spend billions on projects not related to the war."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Democrats would stand their ground.
"We're going to send the president a bill that has timetables in it," Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat, said at a press conference with two retired Army generals, shortly after the president's speech. "Congress is committed to fully funding the troops, changing the course in Iraq and responsibly ending the conflict in far-away Iraq. We are committed to pressing these goals to the administration until they do change course."
The Democrat-controlled Senate and House have passed separate emergency-funding bills of about $100 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. The House bill sets a September 2008 withdrawal deadline, and the Senate bill calls for most troops to leave Iraq before next April. The differences must be worked out in a House-Senate conference committee, which has not met.
Mr. Bush has said for months that he would veto any bill with a withdrawal deadline, and he will meet with Democratic leaders tomorrow at the White House.
Mr. Reid did say that if Mr. Bush vetoes a bill with a withdrawal timeline, then Congress will still send him a bill with benchmarks for the Iraqi government and military's progress that must be met for U.S. troops to remain. "The president is not going to get a bill that has nothing on it," he said.
In the argument between Mr. Bush and Democratic leaders that has gone on for weeks, the administration has often said it will not negotiate with Mr. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat.
Yesterday, however, Mr. Bush, while not ceding any ground in substance, struck a more conciliatory tone, while Mr. Reid more soundly rejected compromise.
"I understand Republicans and Democrats in Washington have differences over the best course in Iraq. That's healthy. That's normal. And we should debate those differences. But our troops should not be caught in the middle," Mr. Bush said.
Mr. Reid, however, said that Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are "isolated in their thinking and are failing our troops and our country."
"Maybe [Mr. Bush is] so protected in that White House that he really doesn't hear what's going on on the outside. And he will," Mr. Reid said. "We will express to him in no uncertain terms that he's wrong in his threats to Congress."
Mrs. Pelosi said that "we are ready to work with the president to change the direction in Iraq, but the president must accept the facts and put aside partisan attacks and heated rhetoric."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070416-111448-8099r.htm