Setting a deadline for withdrawal would guarantee defeat in Iraq. God Bless Joe Lieberman who again calls it correctly. here is the link: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/03/opp...g_view_t_1.html The silence from the left is deafening here.
I would love to see Bush get a Gavel looking hammer thing with about a 3 foot long handle and a mallet head about 5 inches in diameter that says veto on it. Ink up the Veto head, stand back, put the mallet over his head and bring it swinging down, bouncing off that bill followed by a "Now get me a funding bill without a surrender deadline in it!!"..
Silence is deafening? How about the fact that the so called deadline is totally symbolic? The bill allows US forces to stay in Iraq past the deadline if terrorism is still active. It's called a loophole. And it will be used. No one is responding to you, as we all know it's just more grandstanding, delaying, and obfuscation. The reality is, main street media is just now, THIS WEEK, starting to print stories about peak oil, after years of ignoring it. Peak oil will soon replace both terrorism and WMD as the reson we need to be in the ME. It will also replace global warming as the reason we need to kick the oil habit. This will serve Republicans very well, as they can have their own call to arms over oil use that doesn't give credit to Al Gore.
No one is responding because they're completely clueless as to what is actually going on. Jon Stewart hasn't made a joke about it so they don't have an opinion yet.
Get ready for a weekend of Nancy saying the President is not funding the troops. Apparently she's had her head up her a$$ the last 2 weeks when he's been telling her that he will veto the funding bill if it has a surrender deadline included. I guess her hips are big enough it's totally silent in there when she gets her head all the way in... which is 99% of the time.
No one is responding because response is a lose-lose situation. regardless what is said, or how much merit it has, you'll just ignore it and tell everyone how the poster is anti-american or sees good where there is evil, or whatever drivel stains all of your posts. *note i didn't voice any sort of opinion on the subject, and what i said shouldn't be taken as an implication of my opinion*
1)This is the bill you said the dems "don't have the balls" to pass Dr. B. 2)No silence, this has been responded to in other threads. 3)What are you going to do when your president refuses to fund/support the troops by vetoing the funding Bill?
