Sooner or Later Dems Will Defund Iraq War

it's a race against time. The fight for civilization and morality v teh desire for US political power. Bush is fighting a holding action but I doubt he has more than a year to protect us from the enemy within.

The Democrats have yet to offer anything resembling a New Direction, nor will they. They will simply beaver away damning the Old Direction while avoiding any responsibility for offering a New Direction, whose consequences are unforseeable.

And live on borrowed time while they do so. Pure historical currents suggest a Democrat in the White house starting early '09. The whole mess will end up in their own laps.

EAGLEISLAND: Very likely and they will blame there failures on Bush---that, at least, is more than likely. It is a certainty.

Their hero, Bill Clinton, while President, accepted MONEY
from China in exchange for missile guidance technology
that makes it possible for Chinese nukes to hit America.

The Dems were delighted that his Impeachment was over
the fat intern instead of the REAL reason to Impeach: because
even Slick Willie would have lost that Senate battle (we could hope that
Snowe and Collins would have voted right for a change - but that's another issue.)

If Liberal Democrats would sell missile technology to China to
stay in POWER, is there any doubt they would do anything
now without any regard to the consequences; to finally
"defeat" the hated George W. Bush???

Bottom Line: Dems would rather have America lose in Iraq
than see a "win" for President Bush.

Yes, their hatred knows no bounds!

Martin, while I agree wholeheartedly with what you say about Bill Clinton, can we not say the same about George Bush? Has not Bush been not selling out America by leaving our borders open for the influx of criminal aliens and terrorists? Is not Bush working to merge our country with Mexico and Canada without the imput of congresss or the American people to the detriment of our national sovereignty? Did Bush not give to China, in a "no bid' contract, control of keeping our ports safe from nuclear material? Has not Bush overseen the transfer of millions of jobs to overseas markets?

As bad as Clinton was, I cannot see but what Bush has been just as bad for this nation. Only blindly loyal party hacks would not be able to see the similarities.
Bud

As bad as Clinton was, I cannot see but what Bush has been just as bad for this nation. Only blindly loyal party hacks would not be able to see the similarities.
Bud

So your answer for Iraq is????

My prediction: If Dems can get their votes on non-binding resolutions opposing Pres. Bush's troop buildup they will add that to their '06 gains as a greenlight to start defunding that buildup. It may be covert (i.e. political foot dragging).

skf

Secure the borders of Iraq. Don't get involved in internal battles. (Civil War.) They need to work it out among themselves, possibly with political help.

If you had ants in your house, would you spend all of your time and money trying to kill them? Or would you try to stop them from coming in the house in the first place?

SKF, what is the problem with Oversight and Accountability? I do not believe the Dems will defund the war.

Martin, my answer to you had as much to do with an Iraq answer as your hate filled reply to the original post. I would suggest you wake up, look around you and see the facts as they are. I do not have an answer for Iraq, as apparently , neither do you, the only difference being that I readily admit it.
Bud

We have been fighting this war with too much PC. It will be what loses us the war.

Our naive version of wartime morality handed Iraq to the murderers. Will our excuse for a sectarian bloodbath be that we "behaved with restraint?"

Any code of ethics that squanders the lives of tens of thousands and the future of millions so we can "claim the moral high ground" is hypocrisy worthy of the Europeans who made excuses for the Holocaust.

I was talking to one of my sons this morning. He told me that his son-in-law, who's currently serving in Baghdad, said the troops were disheartened when Rummy was forced out and now their morale is sinking with the we support the troops but not their mission crap.

Buddy Boy:

You get "hate filled" from six words? Good one!!!

Churchill said the role of an opposition party is to oppose;
and my question to the opposition is: beyond opposing
every word that comes from this White House - where's
your plan???

There were a number of Democrats in Congress calling for
more troops on the ground... until President Bush proposed
(you guessed it!): more troops on the ground!

= = = =

I think the answer in Iraq is to break the place into as
many small states as required to give each group, klan,
tribe, family, etc. their own little piece, that's theirs,
so they might consider the idea that they don't have
to kill each other. Quite a concept, I know.

= = = =

As far as you go, Buddy Boy ---> you seem pretty hate-filled
yourself. And not even as an opposition party member; because
as I recall... you pretty much hate everybody!!!

And even though you think HE runs everything:
JP Morgan is still dead!!!

BOO !!!

Martin, May I POLITELY remind you that while JP Morgan may well be dead and gone, his money empire still flourishes in the form of JP Morgan, JP morgan Chase, Jp Morgan Chase Capital xii, JP Morgan CIGNA Health Care, JP Morgan and Charles River and many other companies. Maybe as I suggested you should wake up and look around and I am able to make these suggestions with out a trace of your usual sarcasm.
Bud

Editor's Note: Here you go...

House Democratic Leaders Plan Iraq Vote

House Democratic Leaders Plan Vote on Measure Opposing Bush's Iraq Strategy

By ANNE FLAHERTY
WASHINGTON Feb 8, 2007 (AP)

[L]eaders described the vote as the first step of many...taken by Democrats to try to force an end to the...war...

Democrat leaders reassured lawmakers next week's symbolic vote would not be the last word.... Murtha [said] he plans to try limiting funding for the deployment of troops in an upcoming bill paying for the war unless they meet high readiness standards.

Pelosi told the caucus the goal was to end the war....

source

Modern Democrats:
(Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy
couldn't possibly recognize you!)

We Can Support The Troops

AND

Cut Their Funding Too!!

House to vote up or down on 'surge'

By Robert Stacy McCain
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 12, 2007

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer yesterday said Democrats will require an up-or-down vote this week on a resolution opposing President Bush's "surge" policy in Iraq, while Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Christopher J. Dodd said Congress must "step up to the plate" by cutting off funds for the deployment of more U.S. troops.

Mr. Hoyer: "We do not support the president's escalation of troops in Iraq."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070211-112901-5489r.htm

The funding for the surge is already in place. All they can do is hurt military funding for future operations or for the DoD overall which is clearly the goal of some of them.

Editor's Note: Am I the only one who thinks this is disgusting?

GOP Expects Defections as House Debates Iraq Resolution

By Lyndsey Layton and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, February 12, 2007; Page A05

Three days of intense debate over the Iraq war begins in the House today, with Democrats planning to propose a narrowly worded rebuke of President Bush's troop buildup and Republicans girding for broad defections on their side.

Both parties will jockey for prime time before the C-SPAN cameras, with leaders claiming the best time slots and rank-and-file members trying to make the most of the five minutes each will be allotted.

source

It's treason, what democrats and RINO's do...

Iraq Debate In Congress Shifts Focus

The Iraq debate in Congress is moving beyond nonbinding resolutions of disapproval to how far lawmakers will go to restrict funding for the war.

Republican leaders concede President Bush has lost the support of bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate....

Republicans want to skip ahead to the money fight, a more difficult forum for the war's critics....

Rep. Murtha: "The best thing to help the troops is get 'em...out of there."

Source: Wall Street Journal, February 13, 2007; Page A8

From: "Gov. Howard Dean"
Subject: Helping Republicans
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007

Dear Friends,

Today, House Democrats introduced a resolution that, in simple language, represents a vote of no confidence in the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq. This is the first opportunity House Republicans have had to join us and oppose the president's failed policy, and that's sending shockwaves through the White House.

Just like the overwhelming majority of Americans, many Republicans know escalation of the war in Iraq is wrong, and they're willing to break party lines to stop it. As one GOP Congressman from Maryland put it, "my internal soul goes a lot beyond my minuscule political career."

But the Republican leadership is doing everything it can to protect the President's escalation plan by working to get wavering Republicans to tow the party line. That's why we all need to speak up and remind House Republicans where the American people stand -- it's the job of Congress to represent us, and a bipartisan rejection of the White House's plan to escalate our involvement in Iraq will demonstrate just how far this president and the rest of the GOP leadership have drifted from mainstream America.

Remind them by adding your name right now:

This war is no longer what George Bush sold the American people. There are no WMD's in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is dead. Our troops are mired in a deadly, full-blown civil war. And the president couldn't be more out of touch; he wants to escalate our involvement with 21,500 more brave men and women.

The vast majority -- 70% -- of Americans disagree. They demanded a new direction on Iraq in the 2006 elections, and they're demanding that Congress stops this escalation and start ending this war.

The Republican leadership in Congress has put protecting an escalation of the war at the top of their agenda. Senate Republicans refuse to even have a debate about it. For them, it's not about what the American people want -- only what the president thinks he needs. There's one powerful interest silencing Republicans in Congress right now, and it's headquartered at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Add your name now:

For over a decade, the Republican leadership in Congress refused to allow serious debate on important issues, even keeping a muzzle on its members -- and the American people. Here's just a sample of what was ignored, day in and day out:

We have lost enough young people in this war, and we are not winning it with force. The money that we are pouring into Iraq could be educating our young people. They will be the ones that pay for this war.

-- Martha W., CA

President Bush created the mess in Iraq, and al Qaeda was NOT there before we invaded. We keep sending our young men there to be killed but things keep getting worse... We have to find a way for ALL the American people to wake up, see what is happening, and let their voices be heard.

-- Donna M., FL

Those are just a couple of the comments we've received from thousands of Americans. What do you have to add?

It's time for Americans everywhere -- no matter the party -- to stand with the Democrats in Congress and oppose escalation in Iraq.

Thank you,

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee

House Begins Debate On War
A Partisan Divide On Bush Troop Plan
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 14, 2007; Page A01

"In a few days and in fewer than 100 words, we will take our country in a new direction on Iraq," pledged Pelosi. "No more blank checks for President Bush on Iraq."

The Democratic resolution is not binding. The real fight will come next month, when Democrats are to move to attach to a $100 billion war spending bill binding language that would limit future deployments to Iraq and begin to bring troops home.

source

Washington Times

Murtha: 'We're going to stop this surge'
By Jon Ward
February 15, 2007

House Democrats today outlined their plan to restrict President Bush's use of war funding, with the goal of gradually ending the war in Iraq.
    
"This legislation will force the administration to consider alternatives rather than escalating," said Rep. John Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, during an interview that was aired this morning, in a unique twist, on a Web site: MoveCongress.org.

source

popmatters.com

Senate Democrats promise `relentless’ flood of anti-war legislation

by Margaret Talev
McClatchy Newspapers
18 February 2007

WASHINGTON - After Republicans blocked a Senate debate for a second time, Democrats said they’ll...offer a flurry of anti-war legislation “just like in the days of Vietnam.”

“There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment . . . just like in the days of Vietnam,” Sen. Schumer said. “The pressure will mount, the president will...have to change his strategy and the vast majority of our troops will be taken out of harm’s way and come home.”

source

Defunding the war will hurt the Dems politically..

After doing alot of reading on the Iraq and Vietnam war, there is a major differnce this time than last time...

This time the American people know that the consequences of pulling out of Iraq will effect our homeland security.. To attempt to defund the troops mission the dems are making the biggest political mistake on their time..My guess is if they do it 2008 will be an easy victory for the Republicans.

This is different than Nam because the risks are much higher, it involves an entire regional war if we pull out..

gopcs wrote:
"After doing alot of reading on the Iraq and Vietnam war, there is a major differnce this time than last time..."

May I ask what you have been reading?

Books for school don't remeber the names and a lot of newspapers from back in that time..

The major differnce this time around and the American people support the troops...

It is becoming clear that the politicans in Washington or Augusta for that matter may not support the troops at least that is the message they are sending by approving the commandar for the job and then passing a resultion agianst the mission..