Funding Bill for US Troops

@bobmnu (8160)
United States
March 28, 2007 3:44pm CST
We now know the truth about the Democrats. They are for sale to the highest bidder. If Iran offers them $1,000,000, each will they vote to surrender to Iran? The Democratics talk about supporting the troops yet they are going on vacation and will return the day after funding runs out. The Democratics support the troops but will tie up the Commander in Chief in hearings and which hunts. The Democratics support the troops but will recall the Generals to testify before a Committee. The Democratics support the troops but send the message to the enemy the message that we are willing to leave if you will kill a few more soldiers. Some support for the troops. I am beginning to think the Democratics are hoping to lose the War so that they will be reelected and remain in power. That is their only concern is to keep power and control our lives.
1 person likes this
1 response
@soccermom (3200)
• United States
28 Mar 07
Can you please explain to me where the idea of giving them each $1,000,000 to vote to surrender comes from? I have not heard of this. I have been against this war since day one, for various reasons. Pakistan and North Korea have more WMD's than Iraq ever did, and Iraq was years away from having any nuclear capabilities. They were not a huge threat to the security of the US. Iraqis were not on the planes 9/11. Iraq has 10 Billion sitting in its traesury and they aren't touching a penny of it because they know the US will foot the bill to rebuild, and we see how well that is going. Democrats will tie the president up in hearings and whitchh hunts...hey at least it's for an important issue, as opposed to lets say...getting b***jobs from an intern. The General in charge at centcom just visited Iraq for the first time this week, it wasn't because he was tied up on Capital Hill. Who should we be calling to testify if not the Generals? More soldiers will die over this war whether we are in Iraq or not, terrorism is a global thing. It doesn't matter what party is in office, this isn't a war that will have a definative "winner." Last time I checked the government was supposed to be "for the people" and I think last congressional election "the people" spoke, as I'm sure they will in 2008. Do you think the Republicans want to retain office to lose power? I think the point trying to made is that what has beeen done so far isn't working. There is all this talk about the terrorists following us to our own soil, but if we could spend the money securing our borders and our interests this wouldn't be such a huge issue, but we can't do that because we are to busy trying to secure a noation that doesn't seem to want us there to begin with.
@soccermom (3200)
• United States
29 Mar 07
I agree with the fact that there is a lot of "pork" attached to this bill, thank you for letting me know where you were coming from with this figure. As far as the troop surge working, it is my belief that the insurgency is laying low for the time being and regrouping if you will. They will come back as strong as they can, regardless of how many troops we have there. The attacks of 9/11 do not have anything to do with who was in office at the time. Terrorists did not wake up one day and go "hey, Geprge Bush got elected, lets attack their soil!" These attacks took years, not months, of planning. Our invasion of Iraq though is another story, George Bush was planning the Iraqi invasion long before 9/11. Unfortunately the events that took place that September opened the door wide to "market" his plan. In January 1998 Don Rumsfeld wrote to President Clinton about invading Iraq because "the world supply of oil will be put at hazard" if we didn't invade. Ex Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil has said that his first meetings with President Bush involved planning on how we could invade Iraq and be justified in doing so. Bush also recruited 40 members of the oil industry to serve in his administration. Is this coincidence? I don't think so. It is unfortunate that this administrations greed for oil, instead of it's focus on other energy sources, has turned into such a catastophic event. It has evolved into a religious war, and inflamed several terrorist groups, making the world more unstable than it has ever been. Statitics prove terrorist attacks have gone up worldwide in the last 4 years. As far as Iran goes...why wouldn't they be trying to goad us into a conflict? Our military is stretched too thin and global perception of us is at an all time low, they know how hard it will be to get support from our allies. I agree with your "history lesson", and unfortunately it looks as though history may be doomed to repeat itself, although this time with the technology and weapons involved it could be much more catastrophic.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
29 Mar 07
You are correct that the terriorst did take a long time to plan the attacks. As early as 1996 they knew that there would be a new president in the United States in 2000, so why not test him/her early. It is fine if the insurgencs lay low waiting for us to finally leave is fine. The longer they are away the harder it is for them to make a come back and find support. The Associated Press(AP) reported sent a report that the Markets in Bagdad have reopened and are very busy. There are festivals being scheduled. About 3 weeks ago there was a report, again from AP, reporting that the US Troops and Iraqi forces made a raid on a huge Insurgancy Training Camp. Six Americans and 14 Iraqi troops were killed. This was reported as the "Bloodiest Weekend" for US Troops, insurgence killed 6 Americans. What was in the orginal AP report and not reported by the media was that fact that this was a major battle and defeat of the insurgancy. The camp was training 400 people for a susicide mission trying to kill 10 of the top religious leaders and their followers. The US and Iraqis killed or captured all 400 in the camp and prevented a mass murder. Why was this not reported by the media? The reports do not fit their agenda