Politicians Endanger Our Troops in Iraq

President Bush should sign the bill. He is the one who placed our troops in harm's way based on false information. He should be helping to protect them by signing the funding bill.

 

Which the American people (whoever they are) are not.

 

You hear about how the bills are getting tied up due to time tables, but what really sickened me was when I heard that they were also padding the bills with utterly outrageous PORK. "Oh, we care for the troops... but let us make sure we remain loyal to those lobbyists first". I heard the President mention the pork as a concern of his, but how come in the media it never gets mentioned?

 

I am sure this is rhetorical.

 

Wrong.

The Congress sets policy. The president merely executes it.

If the Congress decides to set deadlines it has the constitutional power to do so.

In a critical time like this for our troops that the president has misused by his misguided policies it is unconsionable for him to refuse to sign the bill.

 

Yep... my bad :laugh:

 

What concerns the president is that the Congress is starting to stand up on its hinds legs a bit and not allowing him to run roughshod over the interests of the United States concerning ending the American involvement in the Iraq debacle that his policies have created.

 

It is reprehensible that congress won't give him a bill. These pork-laden surrender papers should never be passed to him, and as a taxpayer, I resent the hypocrat's game. Put up a bill that funds our troops they say they support, and leave everything else out.

BTW, paruse the war blogs, those men & women want to stay. And it's not because they're dumb.

 

The Congress gave the president a bill and if he cares about the troops then he should sign it. It's not like his Republican cohorts in the Congress have clean hands when it comes to manipulating the legislative process.

Our troops don't set policy. The Congress does.

 

The reference to the troops is an answer to everyone that says supporting them means bringing them home.

Congress needs to pass a bill that funds our troops, not special hypocrat interests. Until then, Persident Bush is doing the right thing. I believe he'll get his bill, also. This ins't a fight the hypocrats want to win.

 

If the president foolishly follows through on his threat and vetoes the bill I hope that those who are standing up for America's interests concerning the Iraq debacle will remain firm and force the president's hand on signing this.

I understand that those of us who support the troops are divided on what to do about our policy in the midst of the civil war in Iraq and the debacle it has become.

 

The president would be the one tying up the funds if he vetoes the bill. And it would be morally reprehensible for him to do so.

The president has created a mess in Iraq and he stubbornly refuses to see that it is in America's best interest to withdraw from Iraq now that we have deposed Saddam Hussein and given the Iraqi people a representative form of government.

If we keep our troops in Iraq for another ten years it won't make any difference on the ground in Iraq. We can't solve the Iraqi civil war. Only the Iraqis can do that.

 

Well said, Ken. They should give them just enough money for packing up and coming home.

 

The Pentagon budget is what? Along the lines of $600 billion? If there isn't enough money already in place to supply our troops while we withdraw them and bring them home or send them to Afghanistan then the Secretary of Defense needs to learn the basics of budgeting.

 

It is the president who is putting our troops at risk because of his pride.

Surely a bad bill that funds our troops is better than no bill at all from the president's perspective.

It is time for George W. Bush to act presidential and stop acting like a teenager playing a game of chicken.