Here's the opinion of my business partner on the House's Iraq War Funding Bill

see "House OKs timetable for troops in Iraq", 3/23/07
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070323/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Yesterday, the US House of Representatives passed a binding war spending bill that included a timetable for mandatory pullout of our troops from Iraq. The vote was very close 216-212, split mostly across party lines. Two Republicans voted for the bill with the majority and 14 Democrats voted against the bill with the minority party. President Bush vowed to veto this bill if it was passed.

Given the seriousness of potential damage to our position in the Iraq war should a mandatory timetable for withdrawal be enacted, I wonder how the vote would have turned out if the President were not expected to veto it. In a way, I would like to see the President sign this bill just so that the resulting problems of things breaking down in Iraq after our armed forces are removed would get properly blamed on the anti-war left that is trying to design this very scenario. I suppose however, the media would likely spin the outcome to be a Republican error once again. And more importantly, we should leave it to the Democrats, not our President, to risk our national security to score political points and to waste even more money on pork. Better veto it.

1 comment

# John Garback Email on 04/05/07 at 18:03
Please provide the "entire bill" that is going to be submitted to the President on this Iraq War funding bill. I understand that this bill, as with most other bills, have "pork" attached which would give the President "an excuse" to veto it. Historically, if the President is of a different party than the "majority of Congress" he will use his "veto power" to reduce the effectiveness of the majority party in Congress. The "sad" and "negative" effect to this "political ineffectiveness" is that the country suffers. I'm disgusted with my fellow Americans that "don't get it" and allow this system to continue in this vain. "Wake-Up-America" this political system is destroying our nation. "Term Limits" is the first "must step" which would eliminate "career politicians" - our Founding Fathers never intended that "our country would be served by career politicians" - that is what we have and the people are "sucking their thumbs" and letting it happen even though it's destroying our Democratic System.
I submit, "all political positions should be subject to Term Limits" (city,county,state,and federal). President - 1, 6-year term, Senators - 2, 6-year terms, Representatives - 2, 6-year terms.

Your Comments, Please!

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.

Your URL will be displayed.
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)

Politics, economics, current events, philosophy and more, with an emphasis on free minds, free markets, and free people.

August 2008
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
 << <   > >>
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Search

Blogroll

XML Feeds

Contents

powered by b2evolution