It's on him now.

[lisah25 3]

I agree it would be nice if they came back home, but folks, the war will come with them. Are you hoping to see a war on our fields and in our streets and cities? Us being over there trying to get the situation stabilized (which is sadly become fruitless because I fully believe our enemy was not only underestimated, but largely unknown) is largely the reason we haven't had another 9/11. That and our improved intelligence.

I don't quite buy this. We'd had one 9/11 in history(OK, and another attack on the WTC earlier). I don't believe our being there is making us safer here. I'd rather see the troops here protecting us then over there. I do not believe we can change things there. A madman like Saddam didn't come to power in a vacuum after all.

[anonemouse 1]

I agree it would be nice if they came back home, but folks, the war will come with them. Are you hoping to see a war on our fields and in our streets and cities? Us being over there trying to get the situation stabilized (which is sadly become fruitless because I fully believe our enemy was not only underestimated, but largely unknown) is largely the reason we haven't had another 9/11. That and our improved intelligence.

The war in Iraq will not follow them here. That war is a civil war that we are stuck in the middle of. I support the idea of our soldiers staying in Afghanistan, where there are people who actually did attack our lands and our people. By the simple fact of us being in Iraq, we are making ourselves more vulnerable to terror attacks.

[smatyas 0]

before I even read this thread I'll put in my $.02

The Dem's IMHO put that extra crap in the bill to purposely get Bush to veto the bill so it would be his fault. They would be able to blame him the troops aren't going to be funded.

I don't agree with the bill. I think Bush should veto it anyways. The house and Senate need to realize tehy don't have control over wars. If they don't want our troops there anylonger, stop funding it. (of course that would be bad for them)

I wish I had the ability to be fighting in Iraq or wherever. Bringin them home will bring the war here.

[faithmd 14]

before I even read this thread I'll put in my $.02

The Dem's IMHO put that extra crap in the bill to purposely get Bush to veto the bill so it would be his fault. They would be able to blame him the troops aren't going to be funded.

I don't agree with the bill. I think Bush should veto it anyways. The house and Senate need to realize tehy don't have control over wars. If they don't want our troops there anylonger, stop funding it. (of course that would be bad for them)

I wish I had the ability to be fighting in Iraq or wherever. Bringin them home will bring the war here.

I was starting to think I was the only one.

[mousecrazy 2]

No, ya'll aren't the only ones.

The President, regardless of WHICH President, is the Commander in Chief. Thank goodness it isn't Congress. I feel the same way about them trying to micromanage education or just about anything else. (I do not have control over all the conservatives in all time and space over the past decade, or in the future.)

Supporting the troops, in an all-volunteer military, does not mean we "save" them from their mission. Does that strike anyone else as slightly ridiculous? Supporting the troops means that Congress approves the new general, then supports his plan for taking control of the situation in Iraq. It means Congress does not play political games with pork-infested funding bills and timelines, forcing the president to veto to set up a blame game for later in the 2008 election series.

These men and women do not volunteer to serve in the military to stay home with their families. It is not a welfare job. Ask them.

[lizrbit 0]

what is a pork barrel? and does it have anything to do with Pork Bellies?

what does a pork belly have to do with the iraq war? or a pork barrel?

is it like a hollowed out ham flavored jelly bean designed to hold nuclear weapons of mass destruction? :::gasp::::

i think something in my frontal lobes just exploded. literally exploded. suddenly i cant remember my childhood or what my middle name is.....

[faithmd 14]

Mmmmmmm Ham flavored jelly Beans.

Wait! No! Mmmmm, ham

MMmmmm jelly Beans

that's better

[Carlene 12]

I agree it would be nice if they came back home, but folks, the war will come with them. Are you hoping to see a war on our fields and in our streets and cities?

The war will not "come with them". Iraq is not going to invade the United States (although, who could blame them?).

Us being over there trying to get the situation stabilized (which is sadly become fruitless because I fully believe our enemy was not only underestimated, but largely unknown) is largely the reason we haven't had another 9/11. That and our improved intelligence.

Sadam Hussein was what kept the country stable. It was removing him that de-stabilized Iraq. And please don't play the 9/11 card. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Granted, our intelligence was wrong about WMD that took us in in the first place, but that's not Bush's fault, he acted on what he believed and was told to him was credible information.

No, he didn't. He told his advisers what he wanted to hear, and that's the "information" they gave him.

And if our men and women aren't fighting there, they'll be fighting here.

There is absolutely no reason to believe this to be true. It's just more Bush propaganda.

The last time a war was fought on our soil was too long ago for anyone alive to remember.

Not so. There are quite a few people who remember Pearl Harbor.

Do you think that those who chop off the heads of civilians and broadcast it on the internet can be reasoned with? Do you think that if we leave this will all just stop?

It won't stop even if we DON'T leave, so what's your point? And besides that, we are not the world's police force. It is not our responsibility to protect every nation from themselves.

How can we get it to stop without military force? I wish we could, I really do.

We can't...nor should we keep trying. The Iraqis did not start beheading Americans until Americans showed up in Iraq. If we bring our people home, the Iraqis may continue to fight with one another, but they are going to do that anyway, no matter what. We can't stay in Iraq forever. Would you have us re-enact Vietnam? Sixteen years and we still lost. Iraq has all the makings of another Vietnam.

Prozac wouldn't hurt, but I have a better idea....give Bush a machoectomy.

[anonemouse 1]

Instead of quoting everything you said, Carlene, I'll just say that I agree with everything.

[anonemouse 1]

We've yet to 'get out' of Japan; Germany; Korea; Okinawa; Bosnia;....

We may have a presence in those countries, but we aren't actively fighting there. We will be fighting every single second we are in Iraq if we don't leave. They won't tolerate our presence.

[DerickM 1]

Sadam Hussein was what kept the country stable. It was removing him that de-stabilized Iraq. And please don't play the 9/11 card. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

so you support a man who killed millions of people and actively practiced genocide, funded suicide bombers who have attacked Israel? How can you support a murderer?

I suppose you think Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were just fine human beings?

You, madam...disgust me :angry

[Wheetsin 714]

Yowzer. Saying that "someone kept a country stable", and saying they're "fine human beings" and "I support them" are completely, completely different statements.

[anonemouse 1]

so you support a man who killed millions of people and actively practiced genocide, funded suicide bombers who have attacked Israel? How can you support a murderer?

I suppose you think Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were just fine human beings?

You, madam...disgust me :angry

Where the hell did you get that from that statement?

[Carlene 12]

so you support a man who killed millions of people and actively practiced genocide, funded suicide bombers who have attacked Israel? How can you support a murderer?

I suppose you think Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were just fine human beings?

You, madam...disgust me :angry

First of all, I did not say I supported Saddam Hussein. I said he kept the country stable while he was in power, and that is a fact. And, while I have never personally "supported" Saddam Hussein, the United States government, in the person of Ronald Reagan, certainly did.

The following is from the George Washington University's web site.

U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s

DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

Fear of Iraq Collapse in Iran-Iraq War Motivated Reagan Administration Support;

U.S. Goals Were Access to Oil, Projection of Power, and Protection of Allies;

Rumsfeld Failed to Raise Chemical Weapons Issue in Personal Meeting with Saddam

Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003

- The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).

The declassified documents posted today include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use concurrent with the Reagan administration's decision to support Iraq, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific U.S. priorities for the region: preserving access to oil, expanding U.S. ability to project military power in the region, and protecting local allies from internal and external threats. The documents include:

• A U.S. cable recording the December 20, 1983 conversation between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein. Although Rumsfeld said during a September 21, 2002 CNN interview, "In that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a matter of fact, and discussed a host of other things," the document indicates there was no mention of chemical weapons. Rumsfeld did raise the issue in his subsequent meeting with Iraqi official Tariq Aziz.

• National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 of November 26, 1983, "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," delineating U.S. priorities: the ability to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, without reference to chemical weapons or human rights concerns.

• National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 139 of April 5, 1984, "Measures to Improve U.S. Posture and Readiness to Respond to Developments in the Iran-Iraq War," focusing again on increased access for U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf and enhanced intelligence-gathering capabilities. The directive calls for "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical weapons use, without naming Iraq, but places "equal stress" on protecting Iraq from Iran's "ruthless and inhumane tactics." The directive orders preparation of "a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi collapse."

• U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iran's 1984 draft resolution seeking United Nations Security Council condemnation of Iraq's chemical weapons use. Iraq conveyed several requests to the U.S. about the resolution, including its preference for a lower-level response and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical warfare; the final result complied with Iraq's requests.

• The 1984 public U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war, which said, referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected from power, "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."

Edited to add....

[anonemouse 1]

An interesting article on the funding. Apparently, the war effort is actually funded until July, so this thing can go on for a few more months.