If the Senate Intelligence Committee found no ties between Hussein and Al Qaeda...

sj23 · 09-08-2006, 10:40 PM

why did the Senate approve $63B more today with a 98-0 vote?

And aren't the majority of Dem's against the war for all of them to vote for this new money?

JaJae · 09-08-2006, 10:42 PM

Why should they stop funding Iraq because of this?

sj23 · 09-08-2006, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Why should they stop funding Iraq because of this?

Because billions have already been wasted or stolen. No need to give Halliburton and the like more money.

Thorgrim · 09-08-2006, 10:54 PM

if the democrats didn't vote for the funding they'd be called "anti-soldier" and "refusing to fight the war on terror" and get clobbered in the polls

sj23 · 09-08-2006, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

if the democrats didn't vote for the funding they'd be called "anti-soldier" and "refusing to fight the war on terror" and get clobbered in the polls

Isn't most of the nation, besides the Bush sack-riders, anti-war already?

thomez · 09-08-2006, 11:33 PM

you can't put the boys over there and then cut off their funds all of a sudden

support the troops, not the war

sj23 · 09-08-2006, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

you can't put the boys over there and then cut off their funds all of a sudden

support the troops, not the war

Almost half a trillion seems a little steep to me.

thomez · 09-08-2006, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by sj23

Almost half a trillion seems a little steep to me.

I can't speak for the entire sum, but I support any amount which helps them do their job better or safer.

I'm sure a lot of the money does not go to that effect, but you don't get an option of voting for the pieces you like when you are in the minority.

JaJae · 09-09-2006, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by sj23

Almost half a trillion seems a little steep to me.

Our troops are over there, we need to support them. Not supporting them is not the same as bringing them home. As long as we're going to have troops in Iraq (which Bush has said he would keep them there until the Iraqis ask us to leave) we need to keep as many of them alive. What kind of nation would we be to send our soldiers to another country and not give them support?

ballz2wallz · 09-09-2006, 01:11 AM

isn't this a defense bill, not necesarily a war bill?

Donkey® · 09-09-2006, 02:29 AM

What's even funnier is that the SIC found no ties...yet I keep hearing that Bush is going to make a 9/11 speech and tie the two together...once again.

Scrum · 09-09-2006, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

What's even funnier is that the SIC found no ties...yet I keep hearing that Bush is going to make a 9/11 speech and tie the two together...once again.

They are connected.

He used 9/11 as justification to invade Iraq which was the plan all along.

Ta-da!!!

avsp · 09-09-2006, 07:20 AM

So, if it wasnt about 9/11 & it wasnt about AQ & it wasnt about WMD then how does Bush justify Iraq?

Why does he not explictly say it was solely about 'draining the swamp' as part of some grand design, & thus emphasise the long term nature of the committment?

At the same time he could point out the huge risks in pulling out prior to the tasks completion

Thus the peoples of the coalition could then support the effort appropriately & prepare themselves for the range of possible sacrifices that may face.

Failure to get the fully informed consent & support from peoples of the coalition totally discredits the whole effort anyway.

motivez · 09-09-2006, 02:01 PM

We can't just cut all funding when we have troops over there in harms way.

We need to redeploy and allow the Iraqi's the responsibility of running their country while providing logistics and support as needed, rather than as procedure before anything like a decrease should be considered.

KatKanPlay · 09-09-2006, 02:14 PM

We broke it....

Sandrabon · 09-09-2006, 06:10 PM

IMO we attacked Iraq because we believed we coud beat them, and of course so that wealthy could make more money. Unfortunately, our leaders were not expecting another Vietnam. I still see no foundation for the war in Iraq. I want to know what we are doing about the terrorists responsible for 9/11. I am tired of Bush linking 9/11 to the war in Iraq, it is offensive to all who lost their lives. Shouldn't we be going after their killers, in a consistent offensive, rather than spend all of this time and money in Iraq. Why aren't we?

KatKanPlay · 09-09-2006, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Sandrabon

IMO we attacked Iraq because we believed we coud beat them, and of course so that wealthy could make more money. Unfortunately, our leaders were not expecting another Vietnam. I still see no foundation for the war in Iraq. I want to know what we are doing about the terrorists responsible for 9/11. I am tired of Bush linking 9/11 to the war in Iraq, it is offensive to all who lost their lives. Shouldn't we be going after their killers, in a consistent offensive, rather than spend all of this time and money in Iraq. Why aren't we?

Your preaching to the choir. Me being the choir.