May 9, 2007

New Veto Threat From Bush

George Bush does not appear to have bought into the idea of a sixty-day revolving credit line on funding the troops in Iraq. Today, Bush warned Congress that he would veto any bill that provided funding on such a short time line, and Gates joined him in underscoring the disruptive nature of these machinations on the supplemental:

President Bush would veto any bill drafted by House Democratic leaders that would fund the Iraq war only into the summer months, his spokesman said Wednesday.

And Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a Senate committee that such short-term funding would be very disruptive and "have a huge impact" on contracts to repair and replace equipment. The Defense Department, he said, just doesn't "have the agility to manage a two month appropriation."

Gates also told the Senate Defense Appropriations panel that if the military begins to see progress in Iraq later this fall, including political reconciliation within the Iraqi government, the U.S. could begin withdrawing troops.

Bush isn't the only leader in Washington that thinks short-term supplementals would create more problems than they solve. For instance, here's one Congressional leader last week on this very topic:

[Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid and other Democratic leaders are engaged in closed-door negotiations with White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and other senior Bush aides on how to agree on the funding bill given Bush's refusal to accept a pullout timetable and Democrats' desire to see an end to the war.

Asked if he would back a proposal floating around the House of Representatives to fund the war for just three months as a compromise to the war funding dispute, Reid said, "I personally don't support that."

That echoed the statement of the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Carl Levin voiced his objections last month to short-term funding efforts:

Even if House Democrats seek to pass a short-term bill, the Senate isn’t yet on board.

“I don’t think that’s the best approach,” Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich) said Friday. “I think it’s too close to the end of the fiscal year for that.”

Senate Democratic aides also downplayed the chances that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would agree to try to pass short-term funding bills for the war, noting that it likely would tie the Senate floor in knots and prevent Reid from bringing up other Democratic legislative priorities...

Of course, this latest effort to gimmick the supplemental comes from the House, not from the Senate. In that vein, we can look back to the #2 Democrat in the House, who said this two weeks ago:

Many senators, as well as House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), say they’re not inclined to support a two-month supplemental.

“There are a lot of ideas being discussed, and Mr. Hoyer personally feels that at this time he doesn't see that particular option moving forward,” said Hoyer spokeswoman Stacey Farnen Bernards.

I don't see this option gaining too much traction, not without these Democrats having to publicly reverse themselves within a few weeks of these statements. The sure way to look weak and vacillating is to start flip-flopping all over the place while our troops run out of money on the front lines, and they certainly can't afford to do that while making Bush look even stronger through another veto.

The only impetus for this 60-day window is the anti-war fringe of the Democratic party, primarily the netroots and the activists like MoveOn. With Gates warning Congress of the dangers inherent in this approach, the Democrats will have to explain why they want to create more risk for the troops in an effort to appease their activists.

UPDATE: It appears that the 51st vote for the last supplemental will not support this approach:

Sen. Ben Nelson, "who provided the crucial 51st vote on the original war supplemental and is likely to be a conferee on the second version, poured cold water all over the House proposal, saying he sensed that it 'would be dead on arrival over here.'" In fact, according to Roll Call, "House Democratic sources" say Pelosi "is teeing up the short-term measure in order to mollify Democratic liberals, even though she expects to have to ask those Members to vote for a conference report less to their liking."


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New Veto Threat From Bush:

» Email from Ramadi and New Veto of Iraq Bill from Wake up America-
Also in todays news, directly related to these words of our frontline military members, and Congress and the Senate's complete indiference to our military's words, we have yet another bill being proposed by Congress that will be vetoed, they know thi... [Read More]

» Bush will Veto any “micro-funding” bill from A Second Hand Conjecture
This has been pointed out elsewhere, but according to Secretary Gates: a short-term funding bill would be very disruptive and “have a huge impact” on contracts to repair and replace equipment. The Defense Department, he said, just doesnR... [Read More]

» Will Senate Democrats put the brakes on the ’short-term funding’ war supp idea? from Sister Toldjah
That’s what it looks like. Will these clowns ever get their acts together? While they’re diddling, our men and women are fighting, and the funds question still remains up in the air, because House Democrats would rather pander to their Nut... [Read More]

» The 60-Day Supplemental from Bluey Blog
Captain Ed has a wonderful post noting President Bush’s threat to veto a two-month supplemental spending bill for Iraq, which some Capitol Hill Democrats and liberal activists have embraced as an alternative. There’s just one problem: Senat... [Read More]

Comments (22)

Posted by Terry Gain [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 9, 2007 11:56 AM

"We're behind you boys all the way. ....Why do you keep turning around"?

Posted by BD [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 9, 2007 12:15 PM

The House has been driving this bus from the beginning - count on Reid changing his tune.

As for "fear of flip-flopping," Cap'n, I think you're giving that concern too much credence. They didn't mind a whit changing from "deadlines would be a mistake" to "we support deadlines" on the last bill and (as you might have noticed), they didn't catch much flack from the MSM about it.

Reid can change to "short term funding" with very little concern that he'll be called on it - all MSM memory of his prior pronouncements will disappear down the memory hole.

Posted by akabaseball [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 9, 2007 1:23 PM

If you analyze that Folk Song that went like this “old enough to kill but not for voten, don’t believe in war but what’s that gun your toten”.

I think those two complaints were taken under advisement and adjusted to appease the pot head who wrote the song. Nixon gave the 18 year old the vote, and ended the draft! But to quote another stoned song writer named Kurt Cobain, “Hey wait, I got a new complaint”.

So instead of us being satisfied that only people old enough to vote can kill and they volunteer for combat (this is another way of saying they believe in war). We are led by Pro Choice ideology that only keeps score of military soldiers not aborted.

I think the failure of following the lead of Left Wing Artists was learned back when Rome burned while Niro Fiddled. Art did not save Rome and media, Hollywood and television is made up of people who think Van Gogh cutting off his ear, drinking a liquid hallucinogen absinthe justifies Barry Bonds to be drug tested. Snake oil is snake oil, don’t drink it from surrender monkeys.

Posted by Lightwave [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 9, 2007 1:36 PM

Agreed with BD.

The Dems are *already* guilty of vacillating and flip-flopping on Iraq. They have done so since 2003. Senate Dems are at least savvy enough to realize this 60-day piecemeal funding ploy will drop Congress's already sub-Bush numbers into the single digits overnight.

As I have said on this bill a number of times, there is no conceivable way the Dems can win on this issue. Bush must stand firm until he gets 100% of funding and 0% strings, and he will get it because the Dems are going to get sick of seeing poll numbers half that of the President's supposedly "critically low" totals.

Anything other than cutting off funding will anger the moonbat base. And cutting off funding will greatly anger the other 80% of America and assure the Dems go down in history as having lost Iraq despite the Bush administration's numerous missteps. It's simply a question of how badly the Democrats lose in '08.

It's a good thing Bush is around to prevent the rest of us from losing as well: that's the real issue.

Posted by Bill Faith [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 9, 2007 2:21 PM

The Dhimms are giving the enemy cause for hope and getting more American soldiers killed, regardless of the long term outcome on the funding bill.

Halfway down the road to hell,
In a shady meadow green,
Are the souls of all dead troopers camped
Near a good old-time canteen.
And this eternal resting place
Is known as Fiddler’s Green.
-Author Unknown

And there shall our warriors rejoice at the sight as the Dhimmocrats parade by in chains enroute to their eternal reward.

I added an excerpt and link to my 2007.05.09 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup.

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 9, 2007 2:36 PM

The Dems are caught between a rock and a hard spot. Soros and his network's are pulling their strings, while leading them around like the worthless children they are.

Can you imagine how pathetic it must be, to be held accountable for "aiding & abetting" the enemy of your own country & not having any coherent defense for these accusations. The NYT, WAPO, Boston Globe, LAT; they all are sinking in quick sand due in part to the fact that they have no defense for their own behavioral patterns that suggest (boldly) that they have given much aid and comfort to the very movement that wants to see Israel wiped off the face of the planet, and Western civilization destroyed.

G.W. Bush stood tall in our time of need (2001) and has remained stead fast on the most important issue of our time. For that alone, I will always admire this man.

Posted by chsw [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 9, 2007 3:12 PM

If the Republicans are smart (and they probably are not), then they would be recruiting discharged servicemen to run against various Jackasses in 2008.


Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 9, 2007 3:59 PM

Out of her element and in over her head, Rep. Pelosi, is completely unqualified for her job.

How about putting together the Commander in Chief will sign?

Why is this incompetent and completely corrupt trophy wife even in the House of Representatives?

Why is this nitwit impeding our national defense?

Who elected the idiots who gave this dingbat the House Majority Leader job? What were they thinking?

Posted by Lightwave [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 9, 2007 4:02 PM

By the way, if anyone is still wondering about the possibility of leaving Iraq before 2009, the answer is an unqualified "no".

Cheney's trip to Iraq has one real purpose: to assure the Saudis and the Gulf States that we will not be leaving Iraq. The Democrats are irrelevant to the actual outcome of the Iraq funding debate, the effort in Iraq will magically be 100% funded with no strings about the time the headlines start appearing saying "Democrats Fail To Fund Iraq War".

The only question is, as I have said, how much damage they will do to themselves in the futile effort.

We will not leave Iraq until the job is done. And the job will take years.

Posted by Fight4TheRight [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 9, 2007 6:39 PM

BD, you mentioned...." The House has been driving this bus from the beginning "

I'm starting to wonder if it is really a bus or a very wee car that pulls up into the center ring and out of this amazingly tiny vehicle, a whole bevy of Dem congressmen come streaming ....all in plain sight of jugglers, trapeze artists and of course, an occasional elephant that would love to stomp on each of them.

Posted by sam pender [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 9, 2007 6:53 PM

Take the pork out of the bill, and it'll never reach the President's desk.

Keep the pork in the bill, and the President will veto it

Keep cutting funds and redeploying in the bill, and the President will veto it.

Ain't gonna pass. Nothin but more opposition for opposition's sake. Were the Democrats really interested in solutions, they'd look at the briefings for information to form their solutions. Instead they cut class, skip briefings, don't even have staffers read the intelligence assessments, and openly declare that they will not listen to anything anyone says unless they support the cut funding and runaway idea.

Can Democrats sing the national anthem and advocate cut and run at the same time? Can they do so honestly?

Posted by conservative democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 9, 2007 7:12 PM

60% of the American people want a timeline to get out of Iraq. Congress is listening to their constituents. The neo-cons would stay in that quagmire till the army was broken. Maliki doesn't care about political settlements, he's going on vacation for 2 months this summer. The neo-cons can bark all they want, we control the purse strings, we''ll show YOU cojones. Heard today the Kurds were making oil deals with OTHER COUNTRIES on their own. Wow, that central government in Baghdad really has control over the country-not.ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES GET OVER IT.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 9, 2007 7:23 PM

Okay. Let's make believe we're at war.

And, you've done a reconissance. You come back to base and report that you "basically saw the Ma and Pa Kettle Show heating up.

Now, remember. I said "we're at war."

The date the war breaks out? November (fill in the date) 2008.

The target? It's a "VOTERS" target-rich environment out there. You want to "shoot them up" so they vote for your dog. And, not the other player in the race. (Presume we're talking about dogs.)

Why is the left so thoroughly convinced they don't have to paddle to the center, yet?

Have they taken a weather report? Did they find out that the sky's fallen on the GOP?

Yes. There's plenty of hatred to go around.

When I read that Harry Reid REFUSED his invitation to Bush's State Dinner for da' queen; I realized that there's no friendship, now, between the two warring parties.

I can't remember when things were this bad. (Bill Clinton never made it look like he was wacking at individual contressmen. Even though I am now aware that Pelosi removed DeLay's testicles. In 1998. After the HOUSE showed that voters didn't return some of those "accusers" to their seats.)

But that was then. And, this is now.

At some point Bush was unasailable. He had the people offering support. And, while we're not really losing in Iraq, he sure has lost the SUPPORT of people who were hopeful for democracy. But just see different brands of towel heads, instead.

You'd think IF the "sky was falling," then some pieces of the roof would have hit the Ma and Pa Kettle Show in the head. How come, not?

Or is it, "not just yet?"

The donks see the candidates vying, on the GOP side. With or without Fred Thompson, I'm sure they've done "position" papers on the lot. ANd, they probably feel they can take out Guiliani, NOT IN THE MAINSTREAM, but in the right's swamp. By inuendo. And, what not.

The other thing? Wherever Bush IS, in terms of popularity, he's coasted to a STAND STILL. With his FOOTING securely in the Oval Office.

And, oddly enough, the FRENCH have sailed in to "halp" us out. Just like they did back then. When we were just babes in the woods.

Lots of moderates in the Mideast are actually looking up at Sarkozy as just the type of answer France needs to shake itself out of lethargy.

Hopefully, the smart people on the right will recognize that Sarkozy has nothing to do with abortion. Though, today, he said France will not abandon the women trapped in burkas.

IF there's a mistake in Iraq? I think it has something to do with going from Saddam; to going towards another lunatic takeover of a muslem country by crazed radicals. Posing as imams. But really just garden-variety terrorists.

Those threats are still there.

And, solving those threats WITHOUT CHEWING ISRAEL APART TO APPEASE THE SUADI'S! Is stil something that sits in George Dubya Bush's hands.

The veto pen is good. But it's not his best shot.

Oh, just to keep the "war reconnisance straight: The donks have a master plan. And, in it they see the weaknesses HERE. That's why they're doing their current dance.

Sure. They can lose! Gonna take a lot, though, to get through all the dirty crap and politics that they're gonna toss.


Posted by richard mcenroe [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 9, 2007 7:26 PM

If elections have consequences, conservative democrat (oh, please), where are the Democrats in Congress who will honor the "will of the people" as they see it and outright defund?

Hypocrites, cowards and poseurs all...

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 9, 2007 7:48 PM


Hello, out there.

Congress is not fully functional. When you talk about the "whole thing" ... you'd notice lots of people by the wayside. Not part of the trip you're seeing at all.

I kind'a think of it now as "headlights," on a car without enough wheels to "hug the road."

But, sure. The donks are extremely nasty for a reason. But how many of you have tapped the reason out, huh?

They're nasty because their margin is thinner than what would pass as "healthy weight."

As a matter of fact, over in France, where the fight is over; you can see that as she was losing altitude, the pretty, Royal, began having fits of temper. You should have heard her going wild with claims that if she loses "there will be riots in france."

As if her screams amounted to a hill of beans. She fell at 47%. And, Sarkozy galloped by with a 6-point lead.

If there was a way to see the future; and the future showed the results, ahead of time, of what we're gonna get in 2008? I think you'd see lots of stuff. But nobody would go down and pray on their knees.

Politicians are in business to sucker you out of your votes.

They're good at what they do.

Like cosmetics on a whore.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 9, 2007 8:40 PM

Gee, how come nobody mentions that Lott sits on the other side of the senate? Did he fall asleep?

Are republicans like Snow White's dwarves?

It's no wonder Reid toodles about flashing his sirens and his headlights. It's not as if you have far to go; when you're traveling about the ring in a circus.

More wonder, still, that Lott seems so sleep deprived he can't get up?

Or perhaps you have another idea why the republicans are letting ideas soar? It's not as if you had to go up high, to toss the ball over the heads of midgets, ya know?

But the war plans are such, that there's been an evaluation done of Lott. Similar dude to the one Lincoln got in McLellan! Boy, did that guy love a parade!

He sure knew everything there was to know, too, about spit and polish. Didn't know shit about attack. And, always refused to PERSUE.

Now, grab that, and' you're holding onto a major reason there are problems on one side of this war's line. But not the other. Where clowns are carrying the day.

By the way, do you know why Barnum added a side show? The freaks made money for the show's hosts. And, they didn't need fancy bangles, and beads, either. Cuts down on the production overhead.

And, when you wanted to get out? Barnum charged ten cents for you to see the egress. You dropped your dime. Followed the arrow. ANd, you were OUT.

If you want your business plan to do better, ya gotta go wake Lott up.

Or? Lots of GOP candidates for his chair should start wearing lapel buttons, saying that they're available.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 9, 2007 10:19 PM

Drudge has a "developing story" up that a group of republican House members have gone to the White House. And, were very blunt with the president.

According to Drudge, they said the president can't even go out and try to get the public to listen to him; because his word's not trusted.

To talk, ahead, of progress in Iraq, on Patraeus can do it. And, then he has to deliver the message STRAIGHT.

The last line told it all. (See, it's not Cindy Sheehan that brought on this calamity.) The GOP moderates, told Bush that they see damage, ahead, to the party. (No. Political seat winners aren't known for being willing to do Hari-Kari and jump on their swords.)

Seems the subject of Cheney's recent "drop-in" in Baghdad, came about TO TELL THOSE IDIOTS THEY BETTER NOT GO ON VACATION THIS SUMMER!

Maliki? I don't know if he listens. Or not. He heads a government in another country, where America's respect level for him is not running high.

Sure, you can ask. How did we get into this thing?

You could even point out, that originally, Bush made contact with the People. And, his military plans were green lighted. FIVE YEARS AGO.

Now, the accountants have shown up. Wanna talk about what's available on the books?

Really, don't go blaming Cindy Sheehan. She's had nothing to do with the mess the GOP now finds itself IN.

Getting out of the mess? Well, it looks as if Bush is still shoveling.

Let's hope by the time he leaves office there's no recognized Palestinian state; that's fully committed to terrorism.

He sure pulled that one out of a very strange hat!

Just a reminder. Jimmy Carter also prayed a lot. Made Mort Sahl go out on stage and tell him, that his prayers, done so often each day, were probably pissing the Man Upstairs off! Which meant we were losing at the table. No. Jimmy Carter didn't end up a poor man, just beause he was a poor performer. The Saud's splashed millions on him.

And, yes. The Saud's splashed millions on Clinton. That's why there's a double-wide trailer, sitting in Arkansas. As a monument to the stupidity of a bright man, who has no soul.

Still, there's only two teams to choose from. And, from Drudge's headline, Bush is LOSING HIS OWN TROOPS. And, that means? Let the Saud's fund their own stinking war. Why do we keep getting the bills?

It's almost a given. Now that we've seen Iraq without Saddam. When he led them, they were better served. Now, it's an open field day for a few to go after the world's oil resources.

News like this makes me plotz.

Posted by Adjoran [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 3:59 AM

It's flatly impossible to run a war on a short-term budget authorization. You can't keep contractors on terms like that - unless you pay them super-premium prices, about which I suspect the Democrats would also find reason to whine.

If Democrats were HONEST about wanting to end the war, believing it "lost" or at least "unwinnable," and HONEST about wanting to "bring the boys home" or whatever bullshit slogan they are currently using to disguise their intent to surrender, they could simply de-fund the war immediately. Cut off all the money. Bush has no funding beyond what Congress authorizes.

Put up or shut up, you traitorous bastards. Be grateful you aren't swinging at the end of a rope.

Posted by onlineanalyst [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 7:26 AM

Let's review:

The "secular" Saddam was using his oil wealth to finance Palestinian suicide bombers.

The number of troops for the surge is not even fully implemented, and the Dems are calling for two-month budgetary support based on "benchmarks" that allow for not one miss. (These are the same Dems who have not passed one meaningful bit of legislation in 100 (???) days?)

Pelosi and Reid are even lower in the tank than is President Bush. That's the ticket! Foreign policy determined by push-polls!

Drudge runs a headline story about Russert's "confidential" story on a souper-dooper-no-holds-barred meeting of some "concerned" Republicans with the president. This is the same Russert, whose selective memory of l'affaire Plame trumps Libby's?

From what I read in scouting around the Web, it is the Dems that think Baker is the second coming. (Are the Dems buying "carbon credits" from the House of Saud, too?)

Cheney is in Iraq to lay a few hard facts on Maliki, telling him that perhaps the Iraqi governing body had better cancel the two-month reservation at the vacation condominium for the time being. (Interesting that Sadr's crew is sending greeting-bombs to Cheney into the Green Zone with the same message as the anti-war crowds'...)

Meanwhile, the idjits on the left "can't wait" to view Mikey Moore's next crockumentary about health care (scheduled for theaters everywhere before the 2008 conventions) , this bit of propaganda to prep the passive masses to accept gub'mint intrusion for "free". Then others "can't wait" for Madame Hillary to take over the Big Earl industry a la Chavez to show those evil capitalistic corporations just who is in charge. What about the ones who "can't wait" to put it to the neck of "the rich" even though many of the avengers pay no tax at all... or would lose their jobs if investment monies dry up? Other "true believers" "can't wait" to give up their freedoms of choice in the marketplace in order to buy into Al Gore's con game. Pass the toilet paper, puh-lee-uz. This job will require more than one sheet, thank you.

All of this bitterness because the SC upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion? (FYI: Iraq the Model is very concerned about precipitate withdrawal and an America that is becoming "wobbly".

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 7:39 AM

Whatever legislation the dingbat Pelosi manages to crayon together, should be stapled to her botox'ed forehead, after which a large red "VETO" stamp should be applied.

The President should then use an executive order to defund the Dept. of Education, the Dept. of Labor and the Dept. of Energy. Sell the buildings if necessary.

Put all of the employees on unpaid furlough, fire who can be fired, move the funds to the Pentagon and use the money to fund the war.

In the meantime, cut off the power supply to the Capitol, so the Dhimmicrats have to scurry around on their little rat feet, with flashlights in paw.

Now is the time to stand tall. Break the rat spines of the Dhimmicrat Congress and win the war.

Posted by akabaseball [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 11:17 AM

conservative democrat, says his party is about the will of the people! The will of the people want the border shut down, but his party needs to hide behind the image of being a kinder and gently political party. Keep counting the soldier body count of 3 thousand and forget in 1994, 1. 25 million abortions were reported in America. That’s one year! If the Demosrates want to stay back in the safety of the village and ignore the waste of life their PRO CHOICE Crap has turn the USA into? Quit counting the bravest of deaths,,,,Just stay back in the village, pick some berry’s and stay out of the real fights. Kattie Curic is replaying her colon video journey so your party can get a better look at where their head is. Gosh Darn, I feel Better.

Posted by gil | May 10, 2007 5:14 PM

Answer to Home Page.

Bush can veto all he wants. At the end of the day what he has, is an Iraqi Government going on a two month vacation while he vetoes every attemp by the Democrats to put dead lines to the Iraqi Government.

Do you have any idea how this looks to the American people? Republicans trowing the lives of our soldiers to protect an Iraqi Government that honors their sacrifice by taking off to the beach!!

Pardon me but was not the entire purpose of the surge designed to buy the Iraqi Government time to do what they urgently needed to do politically? Whas it not clear by even Bush's remarks and many statements, that the surge was to be accompanied by Political progress??

Is this how you Republicans define political progress? Or do you plan to ask Gen. Petraeus to take care of the politics also? You want to wait until September to find out if this surge is working?

I have an answer for you right now. Our soldiers will make it work...... But the problem is not our soldiers, it has never been our soldiers making the latest Bush delusion work or not. The problem is that you Republicans keep on giving our soldiers the wrong mission , the impossible mission.

Since when do you have to pacify a country first, before the Government does what is necessary ..... to pacify the country? You are asking our troops to pacify Iraq by force with their lives, so that the Iraqi Government does not have to do any hevy lifting that's just not going to work. It is the Iraqi Government comming to a general agreement and our troops (the surge) enforcing it.... That might have worked. But of course that would have ment that the heavy lifting is done by politicians in Washington and Iraq, and is so much easier for these bunch of coward incompetents to just see if the Army can solve the problem for them.

Are we going to convince the Shiite and the Sunni by force to share oil revenues? are we going to stop Al Quaida from attacking Shiite to provoque them into a retaliation cycle? Are we going to force a Constitution on people that can't agree to one? Is the "surge" going to do that????????

No people wake up. The surge is only taking off the immediate pressure that the Iraqi Government was having to compromise and do the heavy lifting because the option was to see their country go to hell...... Now they go on a vacation!!!!! How is that for your plan working Republicans?????

Seriously people where has your common sence gone?