The Senate has passed the Iraq funding bill with the withdrawal deadline in it. It's up to Bush to sign off on it. I can guarantee that if he doesn't, the Democrats (and a lot of Republicans) will be very vocal about him failing to support the soldiers in Iraq. It's up to him, now. He'll be the only person stopping those soldiers from getting the equipment they need if he doesn't sign the bill into law.

I have to admit, I feel like I should be feeling sorry for him. He's really between a rock and a hard place. Either he passes the withdrawal deadline or he fails the troops. I am sure that if I were a nicer person, I would be feeling sorry for him. But really, all I think is that it couldn't have happened to a better guy.:heh:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.....

Mmmmmmm Ham flavored jelly Beans.

Wait! No! Mmmmm, ham

MMmmmm jelly beans

that's better

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.

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

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.

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

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

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?

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....

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.

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

I'm missing where I said Iraq was going to invade us, in my earlier post I think I mentioned the fundamentalists (you know, the insurgents-not Iraqi civilians). I certainly do not think the Iraqi civilians will be coming over and starting a war with us. What WILL happen is the slow and insidious infiltration of terrorists into society (either ours or anywhere else deemed not to be living the way of fundamental Islam) and when you least expect it, there will be a dirty bomb or another terror strike like 9/11 (yep, I mentioned 9/11) or the London Bombings or the first WTC, or the USS Cole, or the Marine barracks in Beirut, the discotheque in Berlin, the bombings on Fiji, the cruiseliner that was hijacked in the Mediterranean, the bombing in Manila...

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.

Excuse me, but I never said Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11 You quoted me, as stated now for a third time:"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 sort of miss where I said Iraq or Saddam perpetrated 9/11? What I said was that our attempting to stabilize the situation (and perhaps I'm globalizing our troops in the Middle East, as opposed to in Iraq only) and our improved intelligence (I believe) has helped to prevent another occurence like 9/11. I suppose I could have said London Bombings instead of 9/11, interchangeable really.

Sure, we could have done nothing and maybe we should have. Maybe he would have just continued along happily pillaging his people and by now he would have just been a washed up dictator, but consider the possibility that he could easily have been (and very likely was) planning to take over the world by any means necessary. (Kuwait was just a first stop for him in 1990-91.) There have been many comparisons to Hitler made, and I don't think they are too far off. But we'll never know, will we? So those who oppose the war (let me clarify, in Iraq) and those who do not (I would never say I think it's great we are there, and do NOT think I'm a Bush lover, because I am NOT) will be able to spin the possibilites any way they want to. But then again, I am not at all convinced Saddam is dead, anyway. But that's another thread altogether.

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

That just doesn't make any sense. If the thought is that Bush is an idiot, then what you are suggesting is that he is an absolute genious to come up with a way to tell his advisers what they are to then tell back to him, and then he somehow single-handedly was able to convince Congress to declare war, all based on his own personal agenda? He made all this up and somehow created all the intelligence reports, too? He fed them himself to his advisors? What, is he a hyponotist, or did he use some kind of Jedi mind trick on his Cabinet, the Joint Chiefs, and Congress? He convinced all these people? People can't have it both ways, he can't be so smart as to be able to do all that, yet be as stupid as some folks believe.

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

What propaganda? Bush is not keeping us informed enough to create any propaganda. (Which is one of my many beefs with this administration.) The only propaganda I've been hearing is from the enemy and supporters of the enemy. Lots of stuff from former anti-Western clerics, former Iraqi officials (many of whom are now supposedly dead) and insurgents (Al-jazeera anyone?).

The fighting is not with Iraqi's, it is with insurgents, they will go anywhere to defeat us. They tried to bring that fight to our soil on September 11, 2001, and to Britain's soil on July 7, 2005. That's just to name a few.

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.

The way our troops protect us here is by being over there. It is illegal for them to perform policing action in the States. That is the function and purpose of our police forces, Homeland Security and National and Coast Guard troops.

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

First of all, Pearl Harbor was not "the war," it was a sneak attack that drew us into the war (US declared war on Japan on 12/8/1941-on Monday, Pearl Harbor was 12/7/1941-a Sunday, why? Because the politicians did not want to come in on a Sunday, they had to wait until the work week to declare war). And by the way, it did not occur on American soil, Hawaii was not a state until 1959, Hawaii at the time had a monarchy and its own King, we were there as a guest of Hawaii. The last war on American soil with a foreign enemy (for the record) was the Mexican-American War from 1846-1848.

No one touched on what I brought up earlier and I have to believe that is because it doesn't help the case of those who want us out: The fact is that this conflict, though sad because even one life has been lost, is statistically (for the length of time in the conflict, and for the amount of firepower expended and territory covered) the least in troop causalties than any other conflict in the history of mankind. Again I bring up: Nearly 4,500 Allied and American troops lost their lives in mere hours on the 6th of June, 1944 alone.

There have been 3,503 coalition deaths in the war in Iraq as of March 29, 2007, according to a CNN count.

WWII, which was from 1939 (but the US wasn't in it immediately) to 1945, resulted in a loss of 407,000 US troops.

During the first two days of Iwo Jima 3,650 soldiers were killed and that was taking an island so tiny it barely held an airstrip. Iwo Jima was invaded after 74 days of continuous naval and air bombardment, and STILL when we arrived, there was a loss of more lives in the first two days than have been lost in the entire Iraq war.

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.

We are not protecting every nation from themselves, we are protecting our nation from those who want to destroy us and our way of life. Those people are and/or were based in that region (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc...). People tend to forget that us going in this time was round 2 with Saddam Hussein. Lest we forget that at the time of the first war he had the number four military in the world and was invading other countries (sound familiar, Hitler anyone?). We went in because he was again saber-rattling. He did it once, there was no reason to believe he was bluffing this time. He was even defiant to all inspections after Desert Storm. We knew that at one time, he had a shitload of weapons and believed he was working on nuclear capability. That was the intelligence we had during the Clinton administration. Remember weapons inspectors and Iraq?

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.

It is being made into another Vietnam by folks who protest the war just like they did then. The men and women who came home from Vietnam were spat on, we are metaphorically spitting on our troops with every protest and outcry against what they are there doing. Sure we have free speech, and I'm not saying we shouldn't be able to express our opinion about the war, but I also have to believe that our protests are not helpful to our troops. During WWII, American people did not protest the war, they supported the troops by not protesting the war. By protesting the war, you are comforting and aiding the enemy. You are encouraging those who want to kill us. DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? The fundamentalists will NOT stop until everyone on earth conforms to their view of Islam. Everyone must follow their laws and think the way they want us to think. And those of us who were not born of Islam will be enslaved. Yes, as in slaves. It doesn't matter if it's Iraq or Afghanistan or Israel or Syria or anywhere, the fundamentalists want everyone who does not believe as they do, DEAD. Iraq is just perfect for them. It has divided our nation and played right into their hands. We are giving them exactly what they want. They are using a millenia old, very effective tactic: infiltrate, divide, confuse and conquer. We're already well into the confused part, way past divide. They are frighteningly close to conquering us. But if choose to not believe that, then I do wish you luck.

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.

Oh yes, and we supported Hitler (Hitler's great Hindenberg was in the US when it blew up) and Noriega, too. But that, like our support of Saddam, was before we knew exactly what atrocities they were capable of. When we knew, we took them out. We also supported the Soviet Union all during WWII, until they turned on us. You know, just because someone is once your ally, doesn't mean they will always be your ally. So your argument about us supporting Saddam at one time is pointless.

One last thought: Like it or not, we are in the situation. If we pull out without a victory, do you realize that everyone who has died there, and who will die, will have died in vain? Our troops and the civilians. All for nothing...

The fact is that we are a world power and there are responsibilities and consequences that go with it. One of those is to stay a world power.

Now I really am done. I have to go to bed. And I wore I would never get into one of these discussions. It's fruitless, one is not likely to change the other's mind. And that's okay. Differences is what makes the world go 'round.