A yea vote was not in Israels interest.No surprise tnhhat he voted with the Bushits.

I meant to say this in the 2nd paragraph of my earlier post:

"In fact, if you're honest, you KNOW that most informed observers strongly criticized the Iraq distraction for siphoning needed troops and resources to an unneeded war of choice in Iraq."

Sorry, I ought to proofread a bit better.

the way dems have addressed Iraq is the exact way they would have addressed Afghanistan if we had only gone there.

It's the way the world works for them. There is no conflict worth fighting for beyond endless talk and a lot of crossed fingers.

My brother in law knows that and that Afghanistan will be the next target on the dems list.

I know this is useless, because your entire purpose in life is to come to boards, spew RNC approved talking points, and generally raise my blood pressure, but here we go:

First of all, not to sound callous, but your brother-in-law can vote right? He doens't like the outcome, vote. It's what I do. I don't get special priveledges. He's a citizen, just like me, who volunteered for a dangerous job. Is it right that his will gets preference over a majority (repeat: MAJORITY) of the American people? I support the troops. I pay my taxes (a majority of which, thanks to republicans, goes to military contractors and CEO's and Lobbyists, not to equipment for the troops thank you very much). I support the troops enough to want them home with their families and away from flying bullets and bombs TOMORROW. not a year from now.

You're in the MINORITY on this issue, my friend. Americans, (even Republicans, cause some of them crossed the aisle today, read the roll call) overwhelmingly support Congress's right to exercise oversight over the Presiden't misguided and useless foreign policy. That's called DEMOCRACY! It's called checks and balances. I'm sorry you haven't been used to them for awhile, but they're back.

I'll repeat something I heard from folks like you in 2004: You don't like it? Move.

When everyone in this country was so gung-ho to invade Iraq, my biggest fear was that the American voters would loose their taste for the whole adventure the moment body bags started coming home. The war in Iraq was sold to us on false pretenses on every level, including the price tag. Now we are demanding a refund, but that ain't gonna happen.

Broadly speaking, the situation is this. Terrorists hate us because of our long history of intervening in the Middle East when it suits us and leaving a big mess behind when we loose interest.

If we withdraw from Iraq, there will be bloodshed and chaos. Anyone can speculate whether it will be worse or better in the long run, depending on which blogs they read, but no one can really say for sure. One thing is for sure - it will be ugly, innocents will die, and the people close to this horror will hold the U.S. to be at least partly responsible for ruining their lives. This cannot be in our best interest.

Any debate on this war should include grave concern for the future of Iraqis. Not just for moral reasons, but in the interest of our own defense. The debate in Washington is appallingly simplistic. Nobody seems to be talking about realistic SOLUTIONS. The democrats were elected to "bring our troops home" without real concern for the Iraqis, and the Republicans are stubbornly hell bent on a victory they are unable to define.

Something... anything. Even their own people aren't behind them 100% anymore. I frequently look at Free Republic to see how the right wingnut tide is flowing, and was shocked to see an actual debate occurring on a post about the recent bombing where 9 soldiers were killed. There were some freepers suggesting that it was time to bring our troops home. There was also the predictable backlash, but it was amazing that anybody dared to even bring up the possibility on that site.

"Independent Joe Lieberman joined the rest of the Republicans in voting against it."

Just appreciate the grammatical ambiguity.

When did George Bush sprout a conscience about using a signing statement to wiggle out of any provision he doesn't like in a bill?

Is his reluctance tied to getting caught doing so?

This sudden respect for legislative process strikes me as cynical.

tiberius is too stupid to realize that the timetable has nothing at all to do with Afghanistan, but he thinks he' smart enough to know exactly what "they" are thinking. Maybe he's the one who should be appointed War Czar since ono one esle wants the job.

Read Tiberius' other emails. I believe he is being ironic and facetiously spouting the RW talking points. He does such a good job of impersonating the ridiculousness of trolls, he always seem to catch a few readers who need to respond.

Horselover Fat

Here are Obama and Edwards reacting to the passage of the Bring 'em Home Alive Bill:

Obama:

“We are one signature away from ending the Iraq War. President Bush must listen to the will of the American people and sign this bill so that our troops can come home.”...

“All of us have been touched by the heroic sacrifices troops have made in service to our country. With the stroke of a pen, President Bush can bring them home to the families who love them and to a country ready to give honor them for their service.”

Edwards:

"Today, the Senate passed a bill that would fund the war in Iraq while bringing the conflict to a close. Both Houses of Congress have now given voice to the will of the American people that we must end the war in Iraq. The President has said he will veto this legislation, which will defy the American people and deny our troops the funding they need. The President will be the one blocking support for our troops, not Congress. If the President does proceed on this stubborn path, Congress must not back down in a false game of chicken. They should send the same bill back to the President -- and should do this again and again, as many times as it takes for him to understand that the American people are right and the war must be brought to an end."

Edwards is bold -- the idea of just resubmitting the bill over and over is tough and correct. But look at Obama's use of words. He's done what those sonsabitches have been all too good at: framing the debate by clever phrasing and loaded vocabulary. Everyone in this country will now have in his or her mind that when Bush sits down with his pen and this bill, he's one signature away from ending the war. That's POWERFUL stuff. GoBama!