The ONLY reason bush will veto the funding bill is because he wants permanent occupation

[still_one]

They can't define what winning is, they just keep repeating over and over if we set a deadline then they win. Who is they?

The Iraqii people are not going anywhere. Is it because al queada is their? Do to our wonderful adventure the Shia now are in control and there is NO WAY the Shiites will allow a Sunni terrorist group to thrive in Iraq, so that excuse will not work

The excuse that there will be a bloodbath if we leave is equally inane. We have created that state of affiars, and it is now up to the Iraqiis to deal with it, not some foreign power who want to control their oil

There are four candidates with the Democrats have who want us completely out of Iraq:

1. Obama
2. Edwards
3. Richardson
4. Kucinich

There is one who says we should redeploy, but sees some U.S. prescence for some time:

1. Clinton

All of the current republican candidates want to stay the course

If Hagel runs, it is unclear if he will assume a Clinton position, or complete withdrawl

The choices should be very clear to anyone who believes we should not stay in Iraq

[CC]

1. Let him veto it.

It will be only his second veto. The first being the Shivo fiasco. It will show he does not support the troops, only his war and only if he can do it his way.

[Prophet 451]

3. Hist first veto was the stem-cell mess n/t

[CC]

5. I missed that one, I thought he came

up with a half assed one. The Shivo fiasco is stuck in my mind. Maybe because he interrupted his vacation for it. I still think he will do more damage to his cabal vetoing the supplemental and the Dem should be sure he gets it with a time table. Thanks for setting me straight.

[Prophet 451]

7. no problem

He never actually vetoed anything during the Schiavo fiasco because his party were still in control at the time and pushing for (in effect) him to overrule the courts. Admittedly, he made a huge song-and-dance of supporting the measure. Vetoing the appropriations bill would be only his 2nd veto and, if teh movement to impeach is any indication, his last (at least, I pray so).

[still_one]

8. then the Democrats should resubmit the same bill and continue to do so

until bush is either out of office, or doesn't veto it

[Prophet 451]

2. Bush always wanted permanent occupation

Permanent occupation means a country in permanent chaos (or near enough) which means less oil coming out of the country which leads (through the law of supply and demand) to higher profits for oil companies which leads to the enrichment of W and his cronies.

Add in the opportunity to use Iraq as a kind of forward base for further adventures in the Middle East (Iran, Syria) and the ability to exploit the "war president", rally-round-the-flag crowd and it all makes perfect sense. You just have to discard compassion and experiance. Look at it in a Machiavellian way and it all makes total sense.

[hang a left]

4. Why does he need to veto the bill when...

He can just add one of his infamous signing statements to it?

[Monkeyman]

6. Waxman is looking into those

[hang a left]

11. That is good news. Thanks nt

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

9. Why Democrats don't emphasize this administration's intent to stay in Iraq, forever,...

,...is beyond me.

Why the Democrats fail to emphasize this administration's nearly immediate removal of military from Saudi Arabia (ESPECIALLY when the majority of 9/11 hijackers were from,...guess,...YUP,...SAUDI ARABIA),...is beyond me.

Well, when a foreign policy is, in fact, built upon MONEY rather than HUMANITY,...this administration's actions aren't really beyond me,...they simply disgust the hell out of me. "compassion" my ass.

[still_one]

10. I agree