As I type this, you're discussing a "
compromise" on funding for the continuing occupation of Iraq, offering to leave out a timetable for withdrawal. Considering that it is congress that authorizes war in the first place, it is entirely plausible that congress could revoke that authorization. With that in mind, how is the bill that Bush vetoed not already a "compromise"? If you recognize that as a compromise, then in what way would it not be fair to interpret removing a withdrawal timetable as "bending over"?
One more thing: could someone among your ranks PLEASE make the case that Bush vetoing the bill, thus choosing a lack of funds w/ no real goal in sight over funding w/ an actual goal, shows he himself doesn't "support the troops", to use the GOP's favorite phrase?
Recent comments
2 days 2 hours ago
2 days 16 hours ago
2 days 20 hours ago
3 days 8 hours ago
5 days 18 hours ago
1 week 2 days ago
1 week 2 days ago
1 week 3 days ago
1 week 3 days ago
1 week 3 days ago