“You left out the other part of your brilliant observation. That as soon as the Soviet Union fell the democrats wanted a “peace dividend”. The idea was that now that the only enemy we had in the entire world was gone,”

You left out the part that it was Bush 41 that laid the plan to use that peace dividend. The cuts in military spending were planned by the GOP and Clinton continued those reductions. We did cut the military and CIA too much. However that was the fault of both parties!

All that has nothing to do with the LIES Bush and Chehey used to get Congress to approve the invasion of Iraq. I bet we learn a lot from the former CIA Director.

I did not leave anything out unlike you. The second part of this farce is you parroting what I wrote months ago to you and now you try to use it on me. You are a joke.



Each member of Congress was given the opportunity to read the exact intelligence the President had. If I remember correctly only two or four members on the democrat side bothered to read the reports. The rest of them choose not to read the reports so they can claim they were lied to.



Lets see if I get this, you think the man will give up secret informaton that will prove your points? Talk about grasping at straws!

Paladin77


“Each member of Congress was given the opportunity to read the exact intelligence the President had.”

That is what we do not know. If a member of Congress had access to ALL the Intel and voted to give Bush authorization to invade Iraq they LIED just like Bush and Cheney. However, it was Bush and Cheney that sought the invasion not Congress saying we must invade Iraq. We know Bush and Cheney had the intelligence that did not support the premise that we were in danger from Iraq. Thus my statement that the two top leaders of our country LIED to our Military and the American people who did not have access to the intelligence that Saddam was NO danger to the U.S. is CORRECT!

the president chooses the wars the house approves the war

the president commands the military

the congress pays the military

what this congress is trying to do is command the military

that is not their job if they want to end the war they cut funding

they are not allowed to give time tables for the military action that is the president

dainielost

Congress has the right to impose restrictions on how money is spent. They have EVERY Right to say after a date no more money can be spent to support combat operations in Iraq. I believe they should continue to send Bush the SAME BILL and if Bush veto's these bills it will be Bush that cuts off the funding. Congress has provided all the money Bush requested. When the money runs out because Bush has vetoed the supplemental funding he will have to bring the troops home because he will not have the authority to continue the war without the funding.

dainielost Congress has the right to impose restrictions on how money is spent. They have EVERY Right to say after a date no more money can be spent to support combat operations in Iraq. I believe they should continue to send Bush the SAME BILL and if Bush veto's these bills it will be Bush that cuts off the funding. Congress has provided all the money Bush requested. When the money runs out because Bush has vetoed the supplemental funding he will have to bring the troops home because he will not have the authority to continue the war without the funding

You're correct that Congress can impose restrictions on how money is spent. But that is "not" what they're doing. They're saying that if you want this money you will start bring troops home by this date. That is congress trying to control the military, which they have NO legal right to do. If hey knock off the timetable crap, GW would probably sign the bill even with all the pork in it.

drmiler

The issue is not the pork. In fact some of the added funding is money that the VA needs for our troops that Bush ignored. It is time to bring an end to the war as the VAST majority of Americans and the majority of Congress wants. As I said if it were up to me, Bush would get the very same bill each time he would veto it. When the funding comes to an end he would be forced to end to the war.

that isn't what they are saying they are telling the president when to bring the troops home

if they want to cut funding them let them say that

the demos want to be able to tell american in october of next year that they are the ones that ended the war in iraq so that they can get elected in november

and that is what it is all about



just becouse you run out of money doesnt mean you lose the authority to command the troops it just means you can't pay them

oh and by the way iraq was the only country to have a mock up of a jet liner for the sole purpose of training to hi-jacking one

so guess where the al quida members on 9/11 learned to hi-jack planes at

now your response will be that the demos didnt choose october to get elected

they just plucked it out of thin air for no good reason


go ahead and say that i dare you

This is wrong as usual for you. Congress can set a date for ending the funds for the war. Congress can not set a date for the troops to come home. They did this in Vietnam so it is not something new for the democrats. To set a date for pulling the troops out of Iraq is outside of their purview.

"that isn't what they are saying they are telling the president when to bring the troops home"

Yes by restricting the president's ability to spend money on the war. That is how Congress can affect an end to this war.

"just because you run out of money doesn’t mean you lose the authority to command the troops it just means you can't pay them "

Bush may be in command but without recourses he can NOT conduct combat operations.

"so guess where the al quida members on 9/11 learned to hi-jack planes at "

There is still no link between 9/11 and Saddam.


The issue here is we did not tell our military the truth about the danger posed our country by Saddam. We sent them into combat believing the U.S. was in danger and they were going to make us safer. THAT WAS A LIE. We were NOT in danger from Saddam and their sacrifice HAS NOT MADE us safer!

but their not trying to restrict the presidents ability to spend money
they didn't pass this bill to restrict they passed this bill to take the presidents job away from him

if this war is lost then why are we waiting a year and half to bring the troops home

if this war is lost i would want the troops home tomorrow

tell me ARE WE WAITING A YEAR

shall i tell you next year is a presidental election year

most americans have a 30 day attention/memory span

so the demos do not want the troops to come home now they want them to come home a month before the election

and if you cant see that i feel sorry for you

again if this war is lost why are we waiting a year and half to bring them home

if al quida didn't have to fight in iraq then where would they be fighting

This is against the law. You know that pesky constitution thingy.



Yeah, that is what Congress tried on Mr. Reagan who found a creative way of dealing with that crap. You call it Iran/Contra. If the president can find money not under control of the Congress the war can go on. I am not suggesting it but the Saudi government has little to lose but much to gain by underwriting the war on terror. The President can send troops anywhere in the world without the Congress.



No one said there was a link. Training terrorist in Iraq was something that was not connected to 9/11 because the idea, planning,and training for 9/11 was done outside Iraq.



The U.S. is in danger from AQ and that danger has been pushed back away from our shores. We are not being attacked on our soil because we are taking the fight to them instead of waiting for them to attack us at home.

You have a point but not a valid point.

"if this war is lost then why are we waiting a year and half to bring the troops home"

Because we have an arrogant President that will not face the truth or admit he was WRONG! To affect an orderly withdrawal and protect our personnel and remove our equipment would take about a year. The time lines in the funding bill are realistic given the magnitude of the withdrawal operation.

"if al Qaeda didn't have to fight in Iraq then where would they be fighting "

They are operating to the extent they are because we removed Saddam and did not have the troops to prevent them from establishing their operations in Iraq. The truth is they also operate in other locations and even if we could some how eliminate them from operating in Iraq they would continue to operate from their other locations.


The U.S. is in danger from AQ and that danger has been pushed back away from our shores. We are not being attacked on our soil because we are taking the fight to them instead of waiting for them to attack us at home. We are not being attacked in the U.S, because we have improved out efforts to keep them out of our country. So far we have been successful. However the fighting in Iraq has NOT reduced the threat from future attacks. In fact because out invasion of Iraq has added to the numbers of groups like al Qaeda, we are in MORE danger of future attack. That is what the NIE said. Iraq has NOT made America less likely to be attached in the future. It has increased the number of Moslems that would be willing to try another 9/11. That make the job of protecting our country harder because Iraq. That is one of the lies to our troops. They thought by going to Iraq they were helping REDUCE the danger to future attacks in the U.S. THAT IS NOT TRUE!

i am sorry that year and half is the democrats time table. the president doesnt have a time table at least not one he has broadcast to the enamy




again i am sorry i have heard the number of groups have gone up but the number of people have gone down.

unless of course you use democrats to fill in the numbers