.
December 19th, 2007
02:13 PM ET

Approving Iraq $?

ALT TEXT

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

As the Los Angeles Times rightly sums it up, the Democrats' "Yearlong campaign to bring the war in Iraq to an end concluded with a whimper yesterday as the Senate failed again to pass a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from the conflict."

The House still has to approve this revised spending bill, with unrestricted war funds for Iraq and Afghanistan, but it seems likely to pass there with strong Republican support.

No, it's not your imagination. As recently as last month, House and Senate Democrats vowed not to give President Bush any more money for the war in Iraq without withdrawal timelines. But the president threatened to veto the massive spending bill needed to keep the government running unless he got the war money. And the Democrats, lacking any backbone whatsoever, of course immediately surrendered. These people make the French look courageous.

Democratic Senator Russ Feingold offered the failed amendment that would have required the withdrawal of most U.S. troops within 9 months. He remained defiant, saying that nothing is more important to him or his constituents than "ending this disastrous war."

But Republicans insisted that they were doing the right thing for the troops, and that Washington can't ignore the military progress in Iraq.

Here’s my question to you: Should Congress have refused to pass funding for the war in Iraq without some timeline for troop withdrawals?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

B writes:
They will be criticized for not standing up to Bush, so why not just do what the majority of Americans want and demand a timeline. I think they worry about their image too much and we as Americans, not being totally stupid, see that. The troops could have been home months ago.

John writes:
No, Congress should not have refused funding for our troops. They are not simply pawns in some beltway power struggle; they are our sons and daughters, and do need resources to stay that way. Unfortunately, the situation is more complicated than having one right or wrong answer to this political tug-of-war.

Jeremy writes:
Are you kidding me? I'm actually supposed to expect that this Democratic-controlled Congress, who claimed they would take us in a new direction with the war in Iraq, to actually keep their word and make some sort of progress? Seriously, stop pulling my leg. To this date they have done absolutely nothing to bring our troops home and Bush has essentially had his way just as he did when Republicans had the majority. Very sad indeed.

Jack writes:
You want a "yes/no" answer, Jack? Why don't you just ask everyone to raise their hands like were asked of the candidates in the debate? Is it really that simple? There is no easy out, Jack. And political posturing by this venal Congress is just pandering at its worst.

Laura from Newport News, Virginia writes:
One more indication that we wasted our votes in 2006, trying to change the direction of our govenment and its policies. You can't vote in courage!

George writes:
Congress should do as they promised to do, end the war. They have the power to end it; they just don't have the backbone.
This is the most useless Congress in my lifetime. (I'm 73)

Maybe Jack will read yours tomorrow.


Filed under: Congress • Iraq
soundoff (214 Responses)
  1. Michael

    of course they should have. But Ma'am Speaker Pelosi and all the others are just as spineless and lying as W. Rating = Zero not 11%.
    if you look for a torture tape, ask Dick or W. pretty sure they kept one for private viewing.

    December 19, 2007 at 2:22 pm |
  2. Scott

    yes Jack , the presidents veto can't work if they refuse to fund the troops .
    the spinless congress should do the peoples work. it's the president who is refuseing to fund the troops each time he vetos.if he vetos a bill then congress shouldn't revisit it agian. his veto says he thinks they can survive without it.

    scott emily missouri

    December 19, 2007 at 2:25 pm |
  3. Rebecca Wood

    Of course they should've, but they didn't- because these days they're just as bad as the Republicans. The people and the polls are speaking: we want our troops and our country OUT of Iraq. But time and time again we're ignored. Democrats and Republicans alike should be ashamed of the way they're "representing" their constituents.

    December 19, 2007 at 2:26 pm |
  4. Matt

    No, Jack, because it wouldn't have done any good. Anyone who thought the Democrats' newly-won majority in Congress would result in change was badly mistaken. There was a time when a divided Congress could find compromise so that the Peoples' work could get done, but these days, a veto-proof majority might be the only way for Congress to put forth its agenda. That is, unless We the People create real change in 2008.

    Matt
    Naples, Florida

    December 19, 2007 at 2:30 pm |
  5. George Koger

    Congress should do as they promised to do, end the war. They have the power to end it, they just don't have the backbone.

    This is the most useless Congress in my lifetime. (I'm 73)

    December 19, 2007 at 2:44 pm |
  6. Barry, Miami, FL

    OMG! What part of "voter mandate" and "no more funding without a timeline" do these people not get? With more than two-thirds of the voting public against the war they have backing but apparently no backbone. This is disgusting. While we continue to pour money and bodies down a rathole the Republicans continue to ramrod this disaster down our throats and the Democrats fold like a lawn chair.

    Memo to American voters in November 2008. No matter your affiliation, vote them out!

    December 19, 2007 at 2:47 pm |
  7. john wade

    Yes, there should have been a time set for withdrawal.

    December 19, 2007 at 2:51 pm |
  8. Jerry Nepon-Sixt

    This is not the real question. The real question is when are the Democrats going to grow a pair and stand up to the bully-boys in the administration. I am so disappointed in their performance to date, particularly on Iraq. Reid is a big fat weinie, and should be retired in favor of someone with some cajones.

    December 19, 2007 at 2:52 pm |
  9. margaret Triplett

    When Republicans were in control Bush had a blank. Now that the Democrats are in control Bush still has a blank check. Talk about a bunch of spineless cowards.

    December 19, 2007 at 2:54 pm |
  10. Karl

    Yes, last January. If they had any spine this mess could have been over with by now. The Bush Brat has gotten everything he wants without compromise. JUST SAY NO!

    December 19, 2007 at 2:55 pm |
  11. Rich, McKinney Texas

    Congress should have never given the green light to go to war in the first place. What did Iraq ever do to any of us or our allies? They may have invaded Kuwait at one time but that was years ago. Since congress passed the funding for war in Iraq we have killed and or caused a lot of innocent people to be killed that had absolutely nothing to do with September 11th 2001. I honestly do not know how those congress members sleep at night with that much blood on their hands.

    People tend to blame Bush for all of this but let me tell you folks, without the approval from Congress we could have never started this war. There was a whole lot more then just One moron in charge of this disaster. The rest of them are just cowards that will never take responsibility for it and as long as they can point fingers and cast aspersions on anyone else they will continue to do it to justify their meager existence in congress. This congress is the congress that has cried wolf one time to many. Americans are not that stupid.

    December 19, 2007 at 2:57 pm |
  12. Karl

    I wonder how many of our troops are saying, "pull the plug on this mess", under their breaths.

    December 19, 2007 at 2:59 pm |
  13. CRAIG R. MCNEES

    NO ONE ON THE HILL REMEMBERS WHAT THE LAST ELECTION WAS ALL ABOUT, END THE WARS (NOW) AND SECURE OUR PORTS & BORDERS (NOW). THESE BAFFOONS ARE NEVER GOING TO STOP SHOVELING MONEY INTO THESE BOTTOMLESS PITS AND ARE NEVER GOING TO ALLOW OUR TROUPS TO COME HOME. I'VE STOOD IN PROTEST MARCHES, WRITTEN, EMAILED, AND PHONED ALL OF MY REPS. ALL HAVE THEIR OWN AGENDA WHICH IS NO WHERE MINE. STOP SPENDING MY TAX DOLLARS AND PUT IMPEACHMENT BACK ON THE TABLE. BE NICE IF SOMEONE FOUND OUT WHERE ALL MY WASTED TAX DOLLARS ARE GOING AND TO HAVE SOMEONE TRY TO GET IT BACK.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:03 pm |
  14. douglas gengler knoxville arkansas

    yes... i want someone to tell the public how we are going to pay for $700 million a day we are currently spending. how much more will it cost to rebuild iraq, but more importantly when is the iraq government is going to accomplish something. there is no end in sight if the iraqi government wont take over. we dont fund the V.A. but have no problem giving the iraqi people medical care. if bush wants money for this war 25% should go directly to the V.A..

    December 19, 2007 at 3:04 pm |
  15. John

    No, Congress should not have refused funding for our troops. They are not simply pawns in some beltway power struggle–they are our sons and daughters, and do need resources to stay that way. Unfortunately, the situation is more complicated than having one right or wrong answer to this political tug-of-war. The real question that should be being asked is whether or not it's acceptable for the White House and Congress to treat the troops' welfare akin to a child in a horrible divorce.

    They don't deserve the disservice either branch is granting them.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:04 pm |
  16. Jeremy

    Are you kidding me? I'm actually supposed to expect that this democratically controlled congress, who claimed they would take us in a new direction with the War in Iraq, to actually keep their word and make some sort of progress? Seriously, stop pulling my leg.

    To this date they have done absolutely nothing to bring our troops home and Bush has essentially had his way just as he did when Republicans had the majority.

    Very sad indeed.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:04 pm |
  17. Don Bezler

    Jack, If Congress gives Bush another "DIME" for Iraq they are not doing there job.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:06 pm |
  18. Carolyn Gray

    Well, duh! The Demowimps have proven over and over and over again, that they are part and parcel of the U.S. government's sick foreign policy. BUSH may have started this obscene invasion, rape and occupation of a sovereign nation on the wing of lies, but the equally corrupt Democrats have enabled him from DAY ONE.

    I am sick to death of the falsehood that we have two main political parties in America: We have ONE party – and all who wish to serve in it must FIRST pay allegiance to IMPERIAL US FOREIGN POLICY.

    Let's see if CNN is willing to print this truth...

    December 19, 2007 at 3:08 pm |
  19. Diane

    Yes. They should have refused to pass any spending legislation, recessed for the Holidays and left George figure out how to run HIS war and the government since he and his neocon-Cheneyites feel that the legislative branch of government doesn't exist. This has become especially evident sincehe lost his Republican-led legislative rubber stamp. His unwillingness to negotiate with our Congress is tantamount to refusing to negotiate with "We the People".

    December 19, 2007 at 3:10 pm |
  20. Guy Maxcy

    The whimper you speak of means that Congress finally understands that a majority of the American people know that to set a time line means more risk to putting troops in harms way. End of story.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:11 pm |
  21. Andrew Hummel-Schluger

    On the one hand we have the Bush Administration with no brain, no soul and no conscience. On the other hand, we have the Democratic Congress with no spine and no balls.

    I want a government of whole people.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:18 pm |
  22. Gayle Cates

    It means that the "Tin Man", George Bush is still ordering his "Tin Soldiers" to march to his tune, and they can not think for themselves enough to do differently, except for Senator Hagel who is leaving the Senate.

    I would hope that if the Democrats had a large enough majority that they would act differently, but then there are always those "testerone members" that love war, such as the "Blue Dogs".

    We need a third party.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:19 pm |
  23. Patricia

    There are 2 reasons Congress should not have supplied George Bush with more money for Iraq: 1. If the surge is working as well as Gen. Petraeus says it is, then the military shouldn't need all the extra money for Iraq. Or:2. The surge is failing & the only thing Gen. Petraeus should be doing is bring our troops home, & he should not need the extra money, because most of the troops that are there were being sent home after their extended deployment anyway.
    Either way, Congress should not have let BushCo bully them into giving more money to Iraq.
    I've said this before, when 9/11 happened I understood the reason for going into Afghanistan to get OBL, I reallllly did. And had BushCo stuck to doing just that, even though I have never liked BushCo, I wouldn't have complained as much as I have about this man being the worst President since Garfield. But, he went into Iraq & the US has lost what good will the world gave us since 9/11. I will never forgive George Bush, "Dead-eye" Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, or anyone else in this administration for what they have done to our Armed Forces. This Administration is gulity of "Crimes Against Humanity", for what they have done to the Iraqi people, & the American poeple & they should be led away in chains to stand trial at the Hague.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:19 pm |
  24. Terry O'Flaherty

    Jack
    Lets be realistic we will have troops in Iraq for awhile and we should support them with the funds they need to operate from day to day as long as they are there. Its not a question of lets bring the troops home and stop this war, you and I both know it aint gonna happen till Jan.20th 2009.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:21 pm |
  25. W B in Las Vegas

    the Democrates THINK that are between the political rock of an apparently successful "troop surge" and the political hard place of their antiwar left wing base. IF they DON'T give Bush the money, the Republicans will scream that "they are not supporting the troops" BUT IF they DO give Bush the funds with no timeline attached, then the antiwar liberal base calls them cowards for not forcing the issue like they were elected to do.

    what they SHOULD realise is that a two third majority of the American public WANTS the TROOPS OUT of IRAQ. they SHOULD send Bush the bill WITH TIMELINES and if he VETOS IT, then HE has cut off the funds NOT the Democrate Congress.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:21 pm |
  26. Tina

    And Feingold is the only Democrat who refuses to bow down to the King's court and he is the only one who has bollocks and too bad there are not more like him. It is time to tell Bush the bank of the American People is shut down in words that he will understand, King George you have bankrupt America. Get your hand's out of the cookie jar.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:24 pm |
  27. Rogue Cowboy

    NO FUNDS WITHOUT DRAWDOWN COMMITTMENT

    December 19, 2007 at 3:28 pm |
  28. Jack Wilkes

    You want a "yes/no" answer, Jack? Why don't you just ask everyone to raise their hands like were asked of the candidates in the debate? Is it really that simple? There is no easy out, Jack. And political posturing by this venal congress is just pandering at its worst.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:28 pm |
  29. Bert

    What Congress should have refused to do is transfer their power to declare war to the Bush regime in the first place. What fools. They are now powerless to end the occupation or even modify it in any small way. And they will be unable to prevent George's next war with Iran. Oh, it's going to happen; just look at the map. Iran cradles the Caspian Sea, the worlds largest known oil field. Dick simply cannot resist this oil opportunity. Why do you think Haliburtun moved to Dubai?
    I would suggest the Democrats simply walk off the job, essentially go on strike. If they didn't come back until after the 08 election, at least in their absense they would not be complicit in another imperialistic oil war and the murdering of another million innocent civilians for the oil and the money.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:29 pm |
  30. Philthy Phil

    Absolutely! What are two thirds of American taxpayers screaming about? Why are my hard-earned taxes being flushed down the "toilet without a cause"? Why do I have to shell out my own hard-earned money to have innocent (Iraqi) men, women and children killed? Where are all these "promises" from the Democrats? It's time to DELIVER! Set a deadline, bring our brave soldiers home, focus the billions wasted on our own country...and vote out every one of these morons in office...including impeachment of Bevis and Butthead!

    December 19, 2007 at 3:35 pm |
  31. Hubie Nelson

    Jack, Jack

    Congress should not give Bush one more penny without a deadline to bring our troops home. Congress for one time needs to stand up to George Bush about this nonsense stupid war and give him nothing else but a deadline and zero dollars.

    This man has already cause to much greed and heart aces. No more money for this war without a deadline. Enough lives have already been lost.

    Olive Branch MS

    December 19, 2007 at 3:36 pm |
  32. JOHN FEDAKO

    I am shocked. The congress of the USA has failed to follow though wih their promises. Please tell me it ain't so. Soon you will tell me that there is no Santa Claus.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:37 pm |
  33. Spencer, Pennsylvania

    No Jack.

    It's essentially like fishing without bait... You're never going to get anywhere.

    Decreasing the funding while making a workable plan for withdrawal would have been the smart thing to do.

    The defence budget is through the roof though, and decreasing it will provide more wiggle room for other priorities (e.g. education, public health)

    December 19, 2007 at 3:38 pm |
  34. bnthdntht

    They will be criticized for not standing up to Bush so why not just do what the majority of americans want and demand a timeline. I think they worry about their image too much and we as americans not being totally stupid see that. The troops could have been home months ago.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:40 pm |
  35. Ed Reed

    Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. According to a new poll by the State Department, 65% of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence. There was no WMD, no ties to Al Qaeda, and no link to 9/11. The Iraq War has been the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:41 pm |
  36. Lauri

    There is nothing I want more then to see a timeline put to troop withdrawel and I have been very disappointed that the Dems have not been able to accomplish this or anything else for that matter. Having said that, I would not want to see funding pulled from the troops. They've been order over there and we have to support them in every way. They did not call this war, but they sure are paying the price for it. Just get them home. Problem solved!

    December 19, 2007 at 3:42 pm |
  37. Russ Amundsen

    the Democrats better realize soon that the mandate given them in 2006 is reversible if they continue to be afraid to do their job. Stop the funding and you'll soon see actual compromise from Bush and his cronies. The Bush administration is a severe danger to us all, from Iraq, to outing a CIA operative, to secret government within a government, failure to secure our borders, Bush says hes bringing our men and woman home from Iraq as he knows full well he's deploying similar amounts of new troops to Iraq. I hope this country can survive till the end of his term.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:44 pm |
  38. Kofi

    No. I do not think congress should have approved more funds for irad to begin with. Poor miliatary men and women, my heart goes out to all of them. This is a senseless war and the whole entrie world know about it. What a shame!!

    December 19, 2007 at 3:44 pm |
  39. David Cissner,San Bernardino,CA.

    Yes,If you want to end this stupid war you have to stop the funding,just like congress did in Vietnam. The democrats need to show some cojones.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:50 pm |
  40. Chris

    They should have absolutely refused funding. That is what they were elected to do. Put an end of this war in Iraq. But after all.. we all know the opposite of pro-gress in con-gress.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:51 pm |
  41. Matt DelGiudice

    Obviously, congress should have refused to pass the spending bill. It's ridiculous that congress continues to fund this disaster of a war and yet points the finger at the President for his continued vetoes. If the Democrats had any sense of duty to their constituents, they would cut funding for the war entirely. A great hoax is being perpetrated by claiming that not funding the war means not supporting the troops – a lack of money means we must bring the troops home, not leave them in harm's way without the proper equipment.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:51 pm |
  42. Jackson

    I think they should. If the troops were that desperate, surely BushCo would cave. I mean, the congress have to start showing some spine.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:55 pm |
  43. Ruby Coria

    Jack, for crying out loud YES, we need to but a stop to the spending in that war. By the way I forgot why we're there? Ooh to protect the Americans, ok well then bring the boy's and girls home and spend that money on their rehab. Congress said there was going to be a limit, to the funds what happen? duh it's call Politics.

    December 19, 2007 at 3:57 pm |
  44. Richard-MN

    Of course they should have; but why would the American public care? They don't vote, they don't want to know what's going on, they truly don't care, and the leadership of both major parties know that. They also know they only have to be accountable to their contributors, which for BOTH parties are the same bankers, credit card companies, war products providers, pharma(s), and oil companies. They know they can pull off whatever move they want, and within hours it will be 'old newz'.
    DNC leadership wants the dollars. Leadership provides the lip service, they continue to get rich, we continue to pay the bill.
    Who's to blame? Starts with the apathetic citizenship. If they ever decide to stand up for themselves, we might get lasting effects that make it to being at least a week-long.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:01 pm |
  45. Mickie T. West

    They should have done it ages ago and, yes, they should have done it now instead of letting Bush get away with his bullying tactics. They have not shown guts on any issue yet. Time to vote all new representatives in, not just the President who should have been impeached years ago!

    December 19, 2007 at 4:03 pm |
  46. Mark Peterson

    Jack, they shouldn't have passed it because it was a rush job. There isn't enough time to investigate all the pork that the bill is loaded with–which is precisely why so much got inserted in the first place. The whole thing indicates–once again–corrupt government. This should have been done long ago with enough time to scrutinize it properly. Just shows they aren't doing their job!

    December 19, 2007 at 4:08 pm |
  47. David

    Of course they should refuse to pass funding for the war! My guess is they plan to use this issue as fuel for their campaigns next year. There is no better platform to run on then something 70% of the population agrees on. They are stalling on purpose. I believe Ron Paul has been pushing for our removal for years (even before the invasion). Maybe some democrat voters should look to him to get the job done!

    December 19, 2007 at 4:09 pm |
  48. Joe

    Yes

    December 19, 2007 at 4:11 pm |
  49. Kendy

    Geez Jack...why would they? This spineless excuse for a congress hasn't done anything else they promised either!

    December 19, 2007 at 4:11 pm |
  50. James S. Lenon

    Congress should have refused to pass any funding that Bush and Cheney demanded. Instead, Congress should have insisted that they get the funds from Haliburton and the energy companies that have been growing ever fatter by war profiteering.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:12 pm |
  51. Scott

    The democrats acted responsibly. Our country is not a vacuum and for every reaction there is an equal an opposite reaction. That is our society,

    December 19, 2007 at 4:12 pm |
  52. Roger

    Look Jack, from who I see it whats good for all Americans and that so called "Coalition of the willing" is to be humble. Congress should continue pressing for change, I voted for them and I proudly did it. I believe that for lasting peace diplomatic efforts should be made, but apparently we'd need a new President for that.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:12 pm |
  53. Joseph

    Republicans say that you shouldn't ignore the military progress. Apparently they are fine with ignoring the lack of any political process in Iraq.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:13 pm |
  54. Shannon

    Yes, we should get out of Irag and not only there but leave other parts of the world. It is high time America started taking care of America and stop policing the world. We should lead by example and not tyrany. More people should GOOGLE RON PAUL!

    December 19, 2007 at 4:13 pm |
  55. Bill J.

    Jack, it never ceases to amaze me that so few of the people who write to you have so little common sense, let alone experience in the "real world". As much as I, and my brethren who have actually served in war, find war in any form abhorrant, to suggest that we should telegraph a timetable for "pulling the plug" is, at the very least, naive. This war was entered into with all parties fully cognizant of the intelligence (no pun intended) that precipitated the decision to go into Iraq. Now, of course, with 20/20 hindsight and no gonads, everybody campaigns as though it was W & Cheney's fault that they were mislead. We're there people, and we are not going to be able to pull out until there is some semblance of governmental order in Iraq and the Iranians stop the flow of not so clandestine assistance to the insurgents. Continue to push the envelope for change, but in the meantime, get real and don't undermine or denegrate those who are serving. Now it's OUR war, not Bush's.

    USMC vet, Korea/Viet Nam

    December 19, 2007 at 4:13 pm |
  56. Brian, Alexandria, Virginia

    YES, my God man. The American people sent this Congress to Washington to accomplish one thing: end the war in Iraq. How they have been so thoroughly trounced at every turn by a disastrously unpopular President with no political capital to spend is mind-boggling. If Republican Senators are going to filibuster bills with timelines in them, let's make them actually filibuster. Having to stand on the floor and explain to the American people for hours why we are continuing the occupation of Iraq will not play with the American people and Republicans know that. Use the bully pulpit and step up, or let's send some people to Congress who will.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:14 pm |
  57. JK

    The Democrats bring new meaning to the term "spineless." They are trying to get the "best of both nworlds" by funding the war to appease the centrist Democrats 9and republicans) while assuming that the more left-leaning Democrats will vote for them no matter what they do because any they think any Democrat is better than any Republican.

    They are plaything with fire. As one of those left-leaning Democrats, I see no difference between the parties and I may either vote for some 3rd party candidate or just stay home.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:14 pm |
  58. Lila Richman

    Yes, of course the Democrats should not have "fallen on their sword" AGAIN! by allowing the funding bill to go through with no timelines. And of course, once again, they'll say they could not get their version of the bill through because of the Republican votes. This is why I will not support the Democratic Party with my hard earned funds unless and until they nominate a candidate who will bring our troops home immediately. And that'll be a cold day in hell when that happens. What a disaster our government has become.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:14 pm |
  59. Pat Fleming

    Yes, they should have refused passing the funding. The Democrats new tagline "we don't have the votes" is a bunch of bull. They might not have the votes to override a veto, but they don't have to pass bills. They are weak and spineless and I give the President credit for knowing that if he bullies them long enough, they'll eventually fold like a cheap suit.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:15 pm |
  60. Scott

    Consider this Jack, if they stood up to the president, then no money would have been sent to the government, so they wouldn't be able to do anything. So the only change is we might actually like them for trying.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:15 pm |
  61. Stacy, TX

    Yes. There is no reason why Congress should be giving Bush all the money that he wants for this war just because he makes a few comments to make them feel guilty and feel as though they aren't supporting the troops. The Democrats are supposed to support our troops enough to BRING THEM HOME!!

    December 19, 2007 at 4:15 pm |
  62. Ken Calloway

    Why not? King Bush could alway declare at the signing that a timeline would infringes upon his executive powers and decline to enforce it.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:15 pm |
  63. maria a sayers

    Of course they should have. I'm tired of them whining about the President doing whatever he feels like doing, when in fact they are the ones who could stop him, as in this instance. Meanwhile he keeps receiving endless funds for the war, and cutting out funds for domestic programs that actually need help.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:15 pm |
  64. ed

    Obviously the Dems should have lived up to their word and not provided Bush with yet another blank check for the debacle. The US is part of the problem in Iraq, not the solution. The only reason that violence is down is because the US has taken the Sunni insurgency temporarily out by funding and arming them so that as we inevitibly pull troops out – a real bloody civil war can commence. Just in time for Bush leaving office and the Republicans to blame the Dems for losing yet another war.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:15 pm |
  65. Jerry Chandler

    Those Demowimps have to grow a backbone before it's to late. It may already
    be to late

    December 19, 2007 at 4:16 pm |
  66. Dane Warner

    Congress should have most definitely refused to pass founding this country is supposed to have a system of checks and balances, and in the last 7 years it seems that system has become non existent making this country very close to the dictatorships that we find out duty to eradicate.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:16 pm |
  67. Brad Cobb

    I'm a Democrat; And as sad as it is to ever see my controling party buckle at the knees to White house pressure, I don't know that it is that bad. This isn't world war 2 and it isn't Vietnam. Our casualties are minor for the time we have been on the ground in Iraq. I don't think the Democrats think it is all that important to end the war. I don't think we should have ever went there. But we are and we should make the best of it.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:16 pm |
  68. John

    What in the dickens is this U.S. Congress thinking? ABSOLUTELY there should have been a DEADLINE on concluding this disgracing mess in IRAG. How many congressmen or congresswomen have had their sons or daughters killed in Irag?

    December 19, 2007 at 4:17 pm |
  69. Davina in Thornhill, Ontario

    Yes Jack. They should have attached timelines to the bill. It is disgraceful and disappointing as to how this President does his job. Mr. Bush was given the privilege to hold the office of the United States but he has used and abused it to his own end. He should be given the same treatment as Saddam was given and then hung for his war crimes against the American people not to mention the Iraqies. This war should have ended when they found no WMD.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:17 pm |
  70. Larry Dorman

    Yes, the wimpy democrate congress should have insisted upon a time line for withdrawal. We should not have put the lying Democrates into office because they are cowards. I am sure Liberman is laughing so hard he might forget to vote republican today.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:17 pm |
  71. Chrissy V

    I want the troops out of Iraq as much as the next person, probably more since my husband is about to do his 3rd, 12 month + tour. I am a Democrat but I do not see how setting a timeline for withdrawal helps the situation in Iraq. If you know anything about military strategy, you can not let the enemy know what you are doing all the time, much less when you plan on leaving the battlefield. All we would be saying is "Insurgents, you can take over in this amount of time because we will be gone". The politicians should not be the ones working to get us out, it should be the military commanders on the ground in the war zone. We should not of even gone there in the first place. What about Afganistan? People seem to forget that we are there too.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:17 pm |
  72. Ron Az

    Absolutly, We need to start takiing care of our own country before we take care of others. We are fighting a war they won't let us win.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:17 pm |
  73. Ann Macdonald

    I'm appalled that the Democrats did not back their threat to withhold Iraq war funding without a timetable on withdrawal. I hate to think that they will cave as the Republicans did on withdrawal from a country we have decimated for little reason. I am a Democrat and counted on them to do the right thing

    December 19, 2007 at 4:17 pm |
  74. Bob in Vegas

    The Democrats have tried but face a president willing to veto and point a "don't support the troops finger". What we need, and what my fellow Democrats don't appear to understand, is a stand like President Clinton did when he called the Republican Congress on "shutting down the government".

    Go for it like he did and America will back you. We don't back gutless wonders!

    December 19, 2007 at 4:17 pm |
  75. Fred Munoz

    Of course there should be a timetable for the troops withdrawal but it's becoming more and more of a fantasy as republicans and now even some democrats are asserting that our presence there will endure well past 2010. It makes me sick to think that American lives and money are needlessly being wasted while the game of politics is played by our childish, greedy, and cowardly leaders. Thanks Jack, Happy Holidays.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:18 pm |
  76. Bob in Seattle

    The Iraq war is a disaster now 4 plus years running. The military will NEVER solve the problem there. All we are doing is shipping billions of dollars into a huge sink hole while that money could have been spent here at home improving OUR lives. Our infrastructure is crumbling, bridges fall, and just recently Oklahoma has been without power from an ice storm that comes yearly. (Bury the power lines) American's, regardless of their political persuasions need to WAKE UP and demand some common sense.
    Bob/Seattle

    December 19, 2007 at 4:18 pm |
  77. Lynn

    Jack,

    Again, you request a simple answer to a complex question. If, the Iroq war funds could be seperate from the General Defense spending funds your question would be valid. Bush's planned response to no funding was to shut down domestic and other batant military spending, not withdraw from Iraq.

    His war would continue through 2008 and only then can there be change with the right vote.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:18 pm |
  78. Le

    Jack

    I think its unfair when you said the Democrats have no backboned to stand up to the President. It's the 49 Republican Senates who voted against all things Democrats stand for, which include the continue to fund the endless war in Irag. I wondered why you did not mentioned them when issues not to your liking were passed?

    December 19, 2007 at 4:18 pm |
  79. John

    There is a reason that the President is the Commander-in Cheif of American Armed Forces.

    This reason is that wars are tough to fight. And if you've ever attempted to make a decision with a group you know it is an obscenely difficult task. It would be easier to clean the Augean Stables. Only in our circumstance there is a lot more to clean.

    So what are we going to do?

    Will we have our troops march to the ends of the earth, and then refuse to pay them?

    No, We should let our armed forces do the Job they are supposed to do. When the Job is done, they come home. And unless we want our own bad press to be right, we should let them finish the Job.

    So, we will fight until the Job is done, and THEN we will bring the troops home. To do so otherwise is to spit in the faces of all of the now dead soldiers.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:18 pm |
  80. Roland Boughton

    Of course they should have. They are so afraid that they will be painted as the party that cut off the funding for our brave soldiers but as I see it if Bush vetoes a bill that has the spending he is the one who cut off funding

    December 19, 2007 at 4:19 pm |
  81. Rich, McKinney Texas

    Jack how do you think we got into this war in the first place? In a word, CONGRESS.
    We would not be in Iraq now if Congress had voted NO in the first place.
    How can you count on the same CONGRESS now to do the right thing.
    Just say NO to CONGRESS. Should be on a bumpersticker on every Americans car.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:20 pm |
  82. Ruth

    If Mr. Bush vetos the buget with time lines on the war, does that mean that congress won't get their paychecks come January 1 of next year. I'm a democrat and I expected change with the 2006 elections. I guess I was wrong.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:20 pm |
  83. Tina

    The Democrats don't have enough votes to overturn a Presidential veto.
    Also the funding bill that was passed contained a lot more than funding for the war. What do you want..... the government to grind to a stop?
    It will take a regime change in Washington to bring about massive changes in foreign policy. You think the Republicans are going to bring about those massive changes? Shoot, no ! That's why I plan to vote Democratic in 2008.
    Also I thought your comment about the French was nasty and narrow-minded.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:20 pm |
  84. Bill Donovan

    Yes. this Democratically led Congress has sadly been a showcase of puffing and posturing. I'm a Dem who has supported the war from the beginning. It has been painful and sad watching my party's leadership sell out the troops for what they thought would be their personal poltiical gain. It was obvious from the get-go that Pelosi, Reid et al never believed in anything except bashing Bush. They have failed because they deserved to fail.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:20 pm |
  85. Doc Rosceaux

    NOOOO !!! Because the Democrats don't believe in timelines themselves. A good percieved sound bite as tough, but if they were in the White House and majority in both houses, they wouldn't change a thing ... All bliuster and talk .no substance !!!

    December 19, 2007 at 4:20 pm |
  86. Mark Knight

    Jack, I am a democract and this democratic congress has failed us all. If I could ask this democratic congress one question it would be, If Gas needed to be passed, Can you guys at least Pass Gas? Stop disappointing us democrates that elected you and grow a backbone. Stop giving Bush his way.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:21 pm |
  87. Patricia

    As the saying goes: 1 Man's Pork is Another Man's Bridge Repair. Is there pork in this spending bill, hell yes!! But, it's not as much as when the Republicans were in the majority. And I didn't notice BushCo demanding the Republicans take their PORK out when signing those spending bills in the 1st 7 years of his administration, did you??? If it weren't for all the Republican PORK during the last 7 years of BushCo thia country wouldn't be in debt to Communist China some $2TTTTTTRILLION DOLLARS, when you factor in the trade deficit. You Republicans have only yourselves to blame!!!

    December 19, 2007 at 4:21 pm |
  88. Patrick Roberts

    Jack, the answer is ABSOLUTELY! This is the very reason so many of us voted for the Democrats to have a majority. So, they would stand up to the Bush Administration and fight to end this miserable war, restore the Constitution, have accountability for the Executive Branch. However, in every instance, this congress has behaved like the Rubber Stamping Republican Congress! I guess we need to boot them out as well.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:21 pm |
  89. John Ulman

    I believe Congress should not have passed a bill to fund the war without a timeline of some sort for the withdrawl of troops. However, how the democrats can be blamed for not doing so is beyond me.

    Bush is so stubborn that it is obvious that he would veto any such legislation regardless of the consequences and his veto would undoubtedly be upheld because the Democrats do not have the votes to override it, even if they all voted to override it. This mess was created and continues to get worse by a Republican President and a Republican Congress. I wish people would stop blaming the Democrats- they have done everything they could to keep their promise to end the war- it would be completely irresponsible to continue to send funding bills that they are certain to be vetoed.
    John Ulman
    Bakersfield, California

    December 19, 2007 at 4:21 pm |
  90. Bob Timleten

    Yes-Yes-Yes
    I heard the same thing over and over while in the Air Force fighting in Vietnam.
    It is a meaningless threat that means NOTHING.
    We always had enough money no matter what the threat is.
    Do the Americans honestly think that we the military fighting and not fighting will be left standing without?
    Please, give me a break. That's nonsense.
    P.S.
    Also when we got one of these threats in Vietnam another plane landed as we offloaded more Steaks. Fillet-“T” Bone Fresh Eggs Ect.
    Never sacrificed anything in 20 years.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:21 pm |
  91. Joseph Rogers

    YES, because continuing to fund the war is condoning it! The time schedule
    can be summed up in one word-NOW! There should be an IMMEDIATE
    troop withdrawal to include every single service man or woman now there.
    This so called "war" is the dirtiest blot in the history of our Nation. It was
    conceived in falsity and conducted with unimaginable stupidity. When, in the
    name of common sense, will it be announced that this "war" should never have happened ??? Enough is enough!!

    December 19, 2007 at 4:21 pm |
  92. Albert

    No. Bush will be gone soon enough. Let whoever is elected deal with it. Messing with it now, when the congress does not have a veto-proof majority just stops up all the other business too.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:22 pm |
  93. john

    Yes, without an acceptable timeline for troop withdrawal, the Congress should have refused to pass the funding bill. Maybe we the people should demand the bill’s earmarks be linked to a troop withdrawal. Would it not be fair to link earmarks to hazards our troops endure if the earmarks are passed and timeline withdrawal not. Perhaps a congressman earmarking a pet project can explain how valuable the project is versus the soldiers that died or were maimed since the bill was passed.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:22 pm |
  94. George Yelton

    If that is the only way they can get Bush's attention, yes, congress should refuse to provide any additonal funds for Iraq. Let Bush veto the funding bill and shut down the government, we would probably be better off, anyway. Most of us are fed up with the gutless democrats in congress.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:22 pm |
  95. Mack McCallon

    I just retired from the military after 30+ years and am saddened by the spineless Democrats and Republicans for adding so much pork to the bill and not sticking to there guns about the time line. There should be one in place or we will never leave. This will mean Hilliary will have to bring our troops home, that will most likely hurt her chanses for a reelection bid. These guys have not accomplished to much before the break because they are worried more about the CIA tapes and any other dirt they can stir up instead of working for the people that elected them.

    Thanx
    Mack

    December 19, 2007 at 4:22 pm |
  96. Earl Weis

    I am an ashamed life long democrat that is also living under spiteful republicans in the congress and white house, where oh where is my america. Everything is going to hell in a handbasket carried by Bush and the republicans and greatly assisted by the spineless whiney democrats. All seems lost unless we the people take to the streets and take our country back from BOTH parties

    December 19, 2007 at 4:23 pm |
  97. Bill

    Jack,

    If we are going to keep a two party system in this country it appears it will have to be the RepubliCrats and the Independents. After all it looks like the Democrats are no more than Republicans, They no longer have a backbone.

    Bill

    December 19, 2007 at 4:23 pm |
  98. Mic

    Yes. No funding, even if they have to shut down.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:23 pm |
  99. Michael Shea

    Absolutely, positively there should have been timelines or no money. President
    Bush has turned the Democrats into a bunch of whimps again. It is
    almost 2008 and the Democrats have whimped out on Iraq and all that
    accountability and everything else they promised to fix. Shame on them.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:24 pm |
  100. Patrick J Cronin

    How can you expect the democrates to suceed with anything with leaders like Pelosie and Ried.. They are both absolutely worthless. They should keep sending bills with timelines to withdraw as soon as Bush's term is up. I do not understand why they are wasting everyones time with CIA tape destruction as nothing will be done. The entire Bush administration should be impeached, including Pelosie and Ried as they would be absolutely worthless in Bush's position.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:24 pm |
  101. garry

    yes

    December 19, 2007 at 4:24 pm |
  102. JON WINDY

    Every death in Iraq, American and others, is on Bushman for vetoeing the time- limit. These obscene and unnecessary deaths are George W's Legacy. Own it, Bushie!

    December 19, 2007 at 4:25 pm |
  103. JL

    They better fund the troops, in case you along with most Americans haven't figured it out we will be in Iraq forever! Afganastan too! If we leave, the bad guys come back, kill way more people than we have and rebuild their terror organizations and we have another 9/11 on our hands. Get your heads out of your hidey holes and take a look at reality!!!
    JL

    December 19, 2007 at 4:26 pm |
  104. Corinne

    Of course congress should refused to pass funding for the war in Iraq without a timetable to get out. The thing that really gets to me is that people in this country are saying that the war isn't their first priority anymore. We send our solders to die for Bush's war, we ignore them when they come home and need help, and now we don't think it's a priority? God help us all.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:26 pm |
  105. Gerald McClurg

    The answer to a spineless congress is to vote against ANYONE currently in office. No matter what new unknown then gets elected, it has to be better than the dunderheads who don't seem to to remember why we voted democratic in the last election.

    Course I live in Florida so my vote doesn't count. We don't get a primary this time around and in the general election the republicans will count votes however they want. I'll have to go live and vote in a third world country to get my vote to matter.

    Oh wait, The U.S. is a third world country in terms of health care, infant mortality, literacy rate and after W gets through, we will be third world in terms of average income. And once the foreigh banks buy up everything, we will be owned by third world countries. Let the good times roll.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:27 pm |
  106. Fubara David-West

    The Democrats cannot be expected to refuse to approve more funds for the military operation in Iraq, before the public, whom they represent moves to a position that is close enough to a desire to end the American mission in Iraq. The fact that the Democrats were not given a veto-proof majority in the Senate during the last election is one of the indicators of the fact that the public is not ready politically, to countenance a swift cut off of funds for the Iraq operation.

    Fubara David-West

    December 19, 2007 at 4:27 pm |
  107. Tim K.

    Seems to me that incumbent congressional democrats just committed political suicide. Much to the disappointment of of everyone who voted for change last year – the will of the decider has prevailed time and again. No way that another nickel yet to be earned by our grandkids should go to that war.

    Tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed or maimed – a nation's infrastructure, economy and political structure still lies in tatters because of our aggression, a few thousand American soldiers have been needlessly murdered by their leadership – but hey, the news now is that our troops are not dying as frequently.

    So now the focus moves to our ever-empty wallets.

    Tim K.
    Indianapolis

    December 19, 2007 at 4:27 pm |
  108. Pam J

    I think the real question is "WHY did they pass it without a timeline?" and the answer is that they really passed it so they could get all the OTHER provisions in the bill passed that were payoffs to different special interest groups. The war is only temporary, although we don't know how many years that entails, but the rest of the provisions to spend OUR tax money are much more permanent and will be increased regularly to buy more votes.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:29 pm |
  109. Mike M. Santa Barbara

    Jack, I'm a moderate with pro right views! I'm amazed when I hear a Republican debates, when every candidate prases Ronald Regan in regards to government spending, but at the same time Iraq war spending has reached a mark of over $415 billions dollars. I would love to ask those presidencial canditates about fiscal responsibility. So, the answear is no!

    December 19, 2007 at 4:29 pm |
  110. Del

    They could only try. They could not override Bush's promised veto. What is imperative for voters to know, is that Bush and his fellow Republican supporters are to blame for the failure in Iraq and its far-reaching effects (and, of course, other failures too numerous to mention).

    December 19, 2007 at 4:31 pm |
  111. Rod Martin

    YES! This congress was elected to do the work of the majority of the people. They best get on with it! We have to get "the village idiot of Crawford Texas" out of Washington ! Isn`t it time for the people to realize that you can`t get Presidential Timber from a Bush!

    December 19, 2007 at 4:31 pm |
  112. Amanda Gill

    My comment about this situation is very difficult to discribe mainly becuase My fiancee is over in Iraq and i don't get to talk to him very often except when he can call, he says that he wants to come home, I myself am Active Duty in the military and I am scheduled to go to Hawaii for my active Duty station in January, and it's rumored that i will be going to Iraq as well. The war is stopping my fiancee and I to get married, and we still have to continue to put the date off, im worried about other couples and families that are going through the same thing. Does the government care at all what its citizens are going through and what the families have gone through who have lost loved lones from Iraq. Do they care! They may care about the Economy but the only reason they care about the econony is becouse it's hurting right now in our country, wouldn't it be better to bring the troops home and use the money that is going for the war in Iraq to help the Economy. Terrorism is one of the main focus issues in the military right now, but haven't we been over there long enough isn't it time to start thinking about our nations security in other ways such as Economy and financial security. Then battling a war that I thought we had taken care of.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:32 pm |
  113. Brenda

    YES,

    This is a fundamental question for the American People, who in Congress represents me and my concerns.
    I am sick and fed up with the war. It was started on LIES and is being funding on the backs of the AMERICAN PEOPLE. Our congressional folks do not or choose not to represent what we want.

    We want OUT OF THERE YESTERDAY. Powell warned the people BEFORE WE GOT into this MESS. IT YOU BREAK IT, YOU FIX IT. Let the congress and the President pay for the mess with their fat pensions and the money they STEAL DAILY FROM THEIR DISTRICTS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

    We need to elect a brand new congress (folks who enter politics without experience) and a PRESIDENT (without experience). The only criteria will be
    1. COMMON SENSE (crucial)
    2. INTEGRITY, HONESTY, TRUTHFUL AND A BELIEF, YOU REEP WHAT YOU SOW
    3. POOR TO MODERATE INCOME BRACKET
    4.CARES ABOUT THE NEXT GENERATION. AND THE PLANET WE SHARE WITH OTHERS

    December 19, 2007 at 4:32 pm |
  114. Larry Dorman

    Larry from Sarasota–

    Is anyone listening to the people? We voted you in to get us out of this war. You are either stupid or you are a coward. You don't have the brains or the guts to understand that Lieberman is sharing all of your strategy with the republicans.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:32 pm |
  115. Bruno Amato

    Jack, A bunch of cowards, that have unloaded trillions on a failed war, and continue to do so. Our country is broke, we are not only hated by the rest of the world but a laughing stock. We need change Badly!!!!!....Where's Ron Paul!!!!

    December 19, 2007 at 4:33 pm |
  116. Mwalimu

    The democrats are worse than the Republicans. The Republican party and it's cheif ,President Chaney (ooops I meant Bush) are out in the open with their contempt and lack of concern for the Constition. The Democrats lack any courage in opposing the Republicans leaderships subversion of our constitution. They are complicent and by refusing to stop this illegal war are complicant in subverting our constitution.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:33 pm |
  117. George Montalvan

    The issue with funding the continuation of the Iraq War isn't so much IF it should be tied to withdrawal of our troops. Rather, the issue is that there is MASSIVE corruption, by both Iraqis and Americans, with this funding. Why should we taxpayers provide funding when these people literally "urinate" it away? Also, how much is being spent on "Information Operations" which is nothing less than PR (also known as propaganda) about the so-called "surge"?

    See the website http://www.luiscarlosmontalvan.com for more on this.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:33 pm |
  118. Doug

    Jack,
    Yes the congress should have told the president the only money your getting from We the People (that is the American people ! remember us the folks on the other side of the TV screen that voted you into Congress to represent us ) will give you Mr. president as much funding you need to bring are troops home period and far as a time line Mr. president how about a week from last tuesday.

    Doug
    Chicago Illinois

    December 19, 2007 at 4:33 pm |
  119. Wayne Blake

    I had my dog neutered last week. When I went to pick him up the next day, I thought the crowd was quite large. When they opened the door to lead him from the kennel area, I saw the Democrats from Congress looking out. Now I know why.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:35 pm |
  120. Ken

    People get the type of government they deserve and much of the credit for the mess in Iraq lies with the American public. We sit on the sidelines and allow our representatives to give their votes and support to the Bush administration while ignoring the wishes of their constituents.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:35 pm |
  121. C.M

    Yes. One would think that our elected officials would notice how the popularity of McCain dropped after embracing the Bush Iraq policy. My memory is long so being an independent voter who was going to vote for McCain but watched him flop to bush my vote just might change for senate, congress, etc..

    December 19, 2007 at 4:37 pm |
  122. jim grant

    how many body bags can you buy for a billions of dollars.?

    December 19, 2007 at 4:38 pm |
  123. mickey najor

    Republicans have a Mantra, We dont want to raise your taxes'. but We do want to stay in Iraq and borrow the $$$$$ from China to fund the war and to all you complainers , Who says we have to pay the Chinese back we could declare bankruptcy .. or pass the debt on to YOUR children , or the middle class if there are any left.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:38 pm |
  124. Mike M. Santa Barbara

    Jack, I’m a moderate with pro right views! I’m amazed when I hear a Republican debates, when every candidate prases Ronald Regan in regards to government spending, but at the same time Iraq war spending has reached a mark of over $415 billions dollars. I would love to ask those presidencial canditates about fiscal responsibility. So, the answear is yes!(correction)

    December 19, 2007 at 4:38 pm |
  125. Bob Corkery

    Jack, the only thing congress can pass is, hang on now, GAS! Gas of the smelly kind. If this hypothisis holds true, then congress should NOT pas anything.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:39 pm |
  126. Roy Birdzell

    You know Jack, I cannot believe that you continue to beat this "dead horse" to death! I want YOU to answer me how cutting off funds is going to get our troops out of Iraq as long as the President will not come to comprise with the Democratic Congress. All this country needs at his junction of time is another fight over who (the President or Congress) are endangering our troops because they do not have the equipment, arms, amunitions, and support to either continue to fight or EVEN to withdraw. And for all the ones that are "whining" over the Democratic Congress's failure to cut off funds, they need to get real – either understand how the Congress and the Executive branch's operate when a veto cannot be overturned, or deludge the Congress and White House with their calls of outrage and force the Republican congress members to join in with the Democrats in representing the majority will of this country and overide the President's veto.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:39 pm |
  127. Rod Martin

    Yes they should have attached a timeline to the Bill! Congress has got to do the will of the majority. I and most of the folks that I know have no trust in this administration! You can`t get presidential Timber from a Bush!

    December 19, 2007 at 4:39 pm |
  128. Carmelo, NJ

    Congress should have refused funding the war period!! Unfortunately the Democrat congress sang same tune as Bush in going to war mainly they were towed by special interest group like AIPAC and other pro Israel group in order to maintain Israel the only super power in the ME so that they continue the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their land

    December 19, 2007 at 4:41 pm |
  129. DAK

    Yes Jack,
    It's all about promises made and promises NOT kept. Democrats promised their constituents that they would NOT fund the war without restrictions-they didn't.
    The massive Omnibus Bill also broke other promises too Jack and I hope the media spreads the word. Namely earmarking to the tone of 16.4B dollars(OMB) , the Secure Fence Act was gutted, stricter ID standards were stalled, no ban on federal aid for sanctuary cities, but believe it or not, taxpayer money WAS funded for lawyers of illegal immigrants.
    Unfortunately, we really don't know how much more there is to find out in this 3,500 page bill containing 700 pages of earmarks.
    What I don't want to hear is any more claims from these candidates that they are the BEST Presidential candidate for the Economy or National Security. Where were they when this vote was cast??

    December 19, 2007 at 4:41 pm |
  130. Randy

    As Bill Maher put it...."I'm Swiss". I am so dismayed by the political machine in this country that I can't hardly stand it. The Democrats are spineless and the Republicans are without conscience. They keep insisting the best thing we can do for our troops is to fund them and keep them in harm's way. For the life of me I can understand the logic in that position. It's high time we outlaw party affiliation in this country and have our representatives vote there conscience and not their affiliation.

    Randy
    Sonora CA

    December 19, 2007 at 4:42 pm |
  131. Michael Byrd

    Hi Jack,

    Having just completed reading your book, here's the most pertinent reason why Congress should not have passed the Legislation!

    First of all, in the Mid-term elections, we the American Public, in no un-certain terms voted to replace almost half the republican pundits that supported the governments postion. We said, I'm tired of this...... and I'm not taking it anymore.

    For a few weeks, the Feinstien led coalition, acted as if this was important, and now, they have returned to status quo. We are not winning this war, we are only alienating the Muslim Nations around the world. We have a simple Neo-Con agenda which supports the Oil Industry, and Big business in their Global Economy efforts. We are not so simple that we can't recognize the blatant lies that present themselves as political end-runs around the will of the people.

    I can't wait until all the Soldiers who supposedly are winning the war in Iraq, return as skilled killers disenchanted with the abuse of this government. There will be hell to pay, for all those empty promises.

    You probably will not read this on air, because the media is part of this endless exploitation of the American Public. But I'm sure I've made you look, and believe me these Kids are made as hell!

    December 19, 2007 at 4:43 pm |
  132. Jay

    Get real, the Dems stance on removing troops was a vote getting ploy. They know the right thing for our troops is to stay and get the job done. The took a stance got the votes to get elected and never gave the people what they promised. How smart are they, make a promise dont keep it and blame the other party. Jay

    December 19, 2007 at 4:45 pm |
  133. Rick Studdard

    No Jack .
    " United We Stand " no matter how politically correct everyone tries to be!! thanks,
    Rick in Rome,Ga

    December 19, 2007 at 4:48 pm |
  134. G.M.(Destiny)Sweet

    I do not understand why the option of funding the troops only up until the time of George Bush's inevitable departure from office (with a grace period figured in to allow for the resettling process) and then take another look at what's needed at that point and act accordingly has not been considered a valid one. Certainly we have minds who are trained in this field,couldn't be too difficult to count the cost.Of course ti would have been better to have done this beforehand! Trying to wrap my mind around these stiffnecked bully tactics of holding the democratic process hostage in order to get your way,gets my head spinning. Isn't that a form of extortion? I thought only bad guys resorted to these underhanded measures. It puts everyone at a disadvantage and is unworthy of true leadership.I do not see any wisdom in folding when you have the winning hand,Congress..I would have called his bluff and if he pulled an ace out of his sleeve ,as happens with folks who like to change the rules so they appear to be the winner...well ,I'd of exposed him and laid down my royal flush.

    December 19, 2007 at 4:53 pm |
  135. pete

    they should refuse any funding not directly used in an orderly pull out

    December 19, 2007 at 4:55 pm |
  136. Patricia

    Would we Democrats really stand for a government shut-down?? I would, but, I don't know about the rest of us. However, I AM GOING TO TOOT THE HORN OF 1 DEMOCRAT: CHRIS DODD!!! He stopped the re-authorization of the warrantless wire-taps by threatening a filibuster to Harry Reid!!! That Took Real Guts!!!!
    AND THAT MAKES ME PROUD TO BE A DEMOCRAT!!!!

    December 19, 2007 at 4:59 pm |
  137. john

    Should Congress have refused to pass funding for the war in Iraq without some timeline for troop withdrawals?

    Hell's yes they should have refused.
    I'm amazed at how powerful this lame duck president has become under the democratic controlled congress. At core approval ratings of 30% _w_ is still able to strong-arm the congress.

    From the disgracefully corrupt rubber-stamp congress of Dennis Hastert to the roll-over and obey rubber-stamp congress of Nancy Pelosi, we Americans are at a loss for representation.

    What a disgrace!

    December 19, 2007 at 5:01 pm |
  138. tony

    Fund the thing already without strings because if the policy is sound, then maybe it will further the 'objective', and support the troops. If not sound, then it sounds like extortion to me.

    December 19, 2007 at 5:02 pm |
  139. Nancy

    Yes we should cut off every dime to this illegal,immoral war, I have Bush Fatigue. I'm fed up past the point of full with their immoral and vulgar behavior, Bring the troops home now.

    December 19, 2007 at 5:03 pm |
  140. Margaret Budd

    Shame on George W. Bush for starting an immoral, unecessary war, squandering our troops, our resources and thousands of Iraqi civilians.
    AND, shame on all of the Democrats who voted to support the effort.
    There is enough money in the pipeline to bring the troops home safely.
    Dennis Kucinich who has consistently voted against the war and the funding has pointed that out repeatedly. The voters in 2006 sent Democrats to the House and Congress to end the death and destruction. They have failed in their attempts. We are all the losers.

    December 19, 2007 at 5:06 pm |
  141. mByron

    Jack,
    Why is it that nobody realizes why the Democrats have not gotten us out of the war in Irag or carried out any other promises. We are the culprits because we did not give the Democrats enough power to override vetoes. So BUSH IS STILL IN CHARGE.

    December 19, 2007 at 5:08 pm |
  142. Jeff Lyerly

    Why is Russ Feingold and other Democrats still running around talking as if we have lost the WAR? Are they blind or just ignorant? It is clear that after years of failed policy in IRAQ the surge is now working. John McCain was right all along. By every measure, things have improved measurably and many Democrats are still pretending the situation is as bad as it ever was. It we had listened to the Democrats and pulled all of our troops out then McCain would be right one more time as the Radical Islamist would be running around correctly saying that they defeated America and they would now own IRAQ. Wise Up People!

    December 19, 2007 at 5:09 pm |
  143. C. Muller

    It really irritates me to hear the Democrats being blamed for not getting the changes they promised to do if elected. The public failed by not giving the democrats enough votes to override the presidents veto// Give the democrats a chance with enough votes that they can get things passed. Some bills have gone as many as 3 times to the president and he vetoed it all 3 times. Why can't the media and public see this???

    December 19, 2007 at 5:11 pm |
  144. Ian Minton

    Jack at this point I really don't think it matters, the politicians that we have in office are soooo crooked that one way or another either the current administration's going to TAKE what it wants and get away with doing it- or congress is going to GIVE it to it, Republican controlled, or Democratically controlled- they're all on the same side: MONEY!

    December 19, 2007 at 5:15 pm |
  145. Ray Crawford

    No Jack it takes a super majority to override the certain Bush Veto. Most of the country would screem bloody murder (including you I bet) is the Dems shut down the Government. Iraq is big and should never have happened; however, the Democrats are trying to investigate some of the times Bush has ignored the Constitution. let'd hgive them credit for something.

    December 19, 2007 at 5:17 pm |
  146. Doug

    It means that Bush has about succeeded in destroying our currency in order to change us over to the Amero. The media has been eerily quite on this subject.

    December 19, 2007 at 5:22 pm |
  147. Don

    Jack:

    It seems to me that the Democratic Congress didn't get the "mandate" that they think that they received, and that the Clinton News Network (CNN) seems to keep pushing. Get real, our troops need and have the support of the American People. You and the Dems can rant, rave and point fingers all you want but all you are doing is blowing hot air!

    Get a life, perhaps if you gave the troops the same level of support that you give the efforts to undermine them and our President, this war might be over by now!

    As I've said before, Loony Tunes!

    December 19, 2007 at 5:23 pm |
  148. Jason D

    Funny how little they fight for something we voted them in power to handle. apparantly fixing Iraq is higher priority than the gulf coast, unemployment, trade, and the housing market. Brad Pitt has done more for the American People than our current executive and legislative branches combined.

    December 19, 2007 at 5:24 pm |
  149. Mark Niedringhaus

    If 73 year old George Koger knew how things work in Congress he wouldn't be so harsh on them. With the presidents veto pen ever looming at the end of everything Congress tries to accomplish, they virtually have thier hands tied until we have a Democratic President in office. Wait til then to judge them.

    December 19, 2007 at 5:25 pm |
  150. willie

    jack the democrats aren't the only ones in congress let's see if you will give the republicans in congress some of the blame, who have marched locked step with this tyrant from day one. yesteerday trent lott jumped of the ship there will be more jumping before we throw them of in nov. 08

    December 19, 2007 at 5:29 pm |
  151. E Potter

    It seems to me Congress only response to special interest groups be they democrats or republicans. So the question should be asked of the Lobbyist. Their opinions really matter to the administration and the congress. It is only our sons and daughters, husbands and wives or other relatives that are fighting and dying in these wars.
    I'm sure even if the congress would stand up to this president and say no more funding and mean it the troops would still have ammunitions, and the equipment they need to fight the war. After all we have submitted over One Trillion dollars for the war effort. So, I'm not convinced they need any more funds to support the troops. Where has the money gone to date.
    The war is over and we need to bring the troops home. Saddam is dead and his army dismantled what else is there for us to destroy.
    I'm sure the Iraqi people can finish destroying their country themselves without any more help from the good old USA.

    December 19, 2007 at 5:33 pm |
  152. Ajay Jain, Garland, Texas

    Yes the Congress is a sissy when it comes to war funding. As Kunnich says we should halt all funding until the Bush White house agrees to a definite time table of withdrawal.

    What did we give the democrats the Congress for in 2006. For committee chair nominations??

    December 19, 2007 at 5:37 pm |
  153. Ken

    Jack, I would have wished that they would have insisted on a general timeline or no money for Bush for his Holy War in Iraq! However, Democrats cannot risk not funding the troops with the Presidential election forthcoming. If Americans want change, vote the Neocon Republican Nazis out of office once and for all time! Bush and Cheney are ignorant, arrogant and incompetent. The are War Criminals and should be treated as such by the American people. Bush-Cheney view the U.S. Military and Military familites as expendable pawns in their view of their new world order!

    December 19, 2007 at 5:47 pm |
  154. Michael Byrd

    Now the vote is in, and the pundits have won again. Fear of loss, has motivated the Congress to agree with the Senate and put through a failed policy. The public has been abused again. If this war is such a success, then bring our troops home!

    Oh, that's right the Iraqi people cannot police themselves! They need our support(troops live's) to maintain the freedom they abundantly have now that we have invaded their soveriegn soil. Divide and Conquer, the Shiite, Sunni and Kurd, three separate, but equal secular societies, that have been warring factions since the beginning of history.

    Oil leases have been sold, and we must protect the rights of BP, Shell, Amoco and Cheveron. Damn the loss of life, just protect the quasi, policies of OPEC. Our leadership has sold out to the Prince of Dubai, (rhymes with Wbya II), and we the American Public continue to squeeze out our existence, with run-away inflation, bankruptcy and a mortgage and insurance crisis of unheard of proportions.

    Fight back America, these elitist pompous blowhards, have scared you into believing that you are fools to disagree. Speak up, put the truth out, you are tired of being left out of the big picture. You are not the slaves of the ruling elite, 1% of the population does not make up a quorum.

    Get our Kid's home, and stay out of the Mid-East secular debate. Israel will survive, they possess the technology to nuke the entire middle east 10 times over. We should know, we provided them the means to do so!

    Think of this way, here you are struggling to pay your rent, make it through the holidays, etc.. And people like Rubenstein spends millions of dollars for the Magna Carta. What could you and many others have done with that money in your bank account! The war is at home, coming soon to your neighborhoods. Everyday people fighting to survive the abuse of Geo-Corporate Elite.

    December 19, 2007 at 5:52 pm |
  155. jim miller

    Dear Jack, Once again, the dems. have demonstrated that they are just another wing of the same bird. We voted for them for change and we got zip. They give thieves and prostitutes a bad name, as they prostitue themselves to big business and steal from the American public. thanks Jim – Florida

    December 19, 2007 at 5:52 pm |
  156. Jim A

    Congress doesn't really want a timeline, Jack. If they get a short timeline they will have to be responsible for the outcome caused by the "early" pullout. Hillary is about the only Democrat with the guts to say we can't just cut and run and it will take time to get out. I don't care for this war but understand we have to think past what would happen if we just pulled out January 20th, 2009, and a more unstable region or Iranian-controlled Iraq will haunt us for decades.

    December 19, 2007 at 5:56 pm |
  157. Chris

    This isn't a War! It's a spending spree...boy is the next president going to get stuck with a big bill!

    The people of Iraq need to stand up and fight for there own freedom, we can'nt keep codeling them forever.

    December 19, 2007 at 5:57 pm |
  158. Todd

    I think everyone who wanted to get out of Iraq immediately and voted for Democrats in 2006 hoping that would happen, forgets that just because Democrats became the majority doesn't mean that they fully control the direction of the country. You need to have more than just the majority, you need to have enough seats that agree to override a presidential veto and they haven't had that. If they did we would have been pulling troops out for the past year and Iraq would look the same, or worse, than it did before the surge. Bush bashers think the world looks unfavorably on us now, what do they think the world's opinion of us would be if we went into Iraq and turned it upside down, for the right or wrong reasons depending on your point of view, and then just left it to burn because it got too violent for us to stomach? I bet If there were embedded videographers and reporters, as well as 24 hour cable news channels in the 40's we would have probably lost WWII and we would all be speaking either German or Japanese right now. What about the millions of Iraqis that actually want democracy, peace, the freedom every human being deserves, and nothing more than to raise a family and pursue a better life? We should just leave them to die in a vacuum of hate and anti-Americanism? That wouldn't be good for anybody, including our own national security.

    They also forget that most Democrats in Congress agreed they would give General Petraeus, and the surge, the six months until his September 2007 update before taking the next step. And even though politics were of course still being played all throughout the summer and even during his September appearance in front of Congress, the simple fact is, his counterinsurgency strategy IS working. And with violence way down hopefully political progress can and will be made in a reasonable amount of time. Look at how hard it is for our own government to agree and get things done in the interest of the American people, and we have the nerve to expect them to start agreeing overnight (kind of like when we were bad mouthing their Parliament for taking a vacation when things needed to get done, how dare we). We have ben turning over provinces to the Iraqi military little by little for quite a while now and continue to do so. The plan all along was, once they have enough troops trained to defend their own country, we would start to remove our troops. I strongly believe that day is quickly approaching. Once the whole country is turned over to their own military and we start to bring most of our troops home, what happens to the future of Iraq is up to the people of Iraq, and if they as a country decide they want a dark and violent future, then it's out of our hands. But at least we finished what we started and nobody would be able to say we didn't give them a fighting chance for freedom.

    This is way late for the question but I like to try and make sure it comes across as thought out and not just say something like, "W is a moron and we need to get out of Iraq" like some people who probably only watch the news for like 10 minutes a day and don't have a real clue about everything that's been going on.

    Thanks for reading if you had the patience to make it the whole way through this.

    December 19, 2007 at 6:02 pm |
  159. George Strutz

    No. We should bring troops home from Iraq only when the conditions for withdrawl exist. Our adversaries already have the idea that all they have to do is stick it out for the long haul and America will give up. We need to reverse this perception that other countries have of us.

    December 19, 2007 at 6:06 pm |
  160. Ron Peete

    Jack, The gutless spineless Congress should and must stop lying to the American People and they should and must STOP ALL MONEY for Bush's immoral war of greed, empire and genocide of the people of Iraq!! Bush on the other hand must be not only impeached he must stand trial for treason, war crimes and crimes against humanity!!! The Congress is simply the most useless branch of government at this time, no guts, no brains and no idea of what the truth is about!!! I would love to see a movement all over the country to VOTE OUT ALL, AND I MEAN ALL, INCUMBENTS AND JUST START OVER!!

    December 19, 2007 at 6:07 pm |
  161. John

    Yes! Even with the overwhelming disapproval of the President's policies, the democratic congress refuse to stand firm for their constituents. They are either ignorant of their power to change or unwillingly to do what is necessary to force the hand of the president. Both are inexcusable. The President's assertion that Congress can't 'force his hand' his repulsive. Dictators speak in such a manner about the democratically elected legislative body who distributes funds and writes our countries laws. The presidency is a functionary of the legislature, whose role is to carry out the will of the legislature, not a functional authoritarian. If the House and Senate forced a vote everyday and refused funds for the war, the republicans will be forced to hear the will of the people.

    December 19, 2007 at 6:29 pm |
  162. Paul

    This latest development is BEYOND disgusting! I guess I was one of those die-hard optimists - thinking the Democrats actually had finally found the strength to stand up to Bush. NOW, not only do they cave on the war funding, but they throw in a few tax breaks for Bush's oil cronies. Add in a few (thousand) earmarks and everyone in DC is happy.

    Now that these arrogant elitists have taken care of their own, I think the next priorities should be to pass legislation regulating or abolishing lobbying activities, establish public financing of elections (as in, no more business contributions) - and to pass term limits – 1 term for Senate, 2 terms for House. These changes would allow for the culture change necessary in DC to take the country in the new direction necessary. As long as pompous multi-term incumbents like Kennedy, Kyl, Pelosi and scores of others remain in office, we'll never move the country in the right direction. Clearly new blood in the halls of power is necessary.

    December 19, 2007 at 6:44 pm |
  163. Ken KS

    Jack,
    You, everyone else and yours truly know the answer to this question. Talk about a real Catch 22: "W" threatens to veto, Madam Pelosi and Timid Harry buckle. If the Dems keep allowing Bully Boy Bush to spend, spend, and spend on a war for which he has no plan in getting us out, then the voters are mad that they (Dems) aren't keeping their promises of getting us out. However, if we're mad enough, we'll vote for a Republican congress, which will just keep us in the war and back to their spend, spend, spend, pork barrel projects of the 2002 to 2006 era. Bully Boy Bush and Slick Dick, probably with the advice of Karl "Political Genius, Moral Moron" Rove really knew what they were doing setting this up. Don't look now but why do I see 2009 being no different than before.

    December 19, 2007 at 6:47 pm |
  164. Dale Legan

    They are supporting continuing the war and are therefore are no different that George Bush. I can be sure my congressman, Dr. Paul, didn't vote for the funding. Who is really anti-war and who is just all talk?

    Their should be no more funding of the war period.

    December 19, 2007 at 7:06 pm |
  165. Jewell Chapman

    I do not believe the senate should have approved the money for Iraq without a timeline. I think it was extremely irresponsible for them to do so. They talk real big about what they are going to do and they are still giving Adolf a blank check. What has this USA come to? We shouldn't have gone to Iraq to begin with and we certainly don't have any business staying there for another microsecond. Bush bankrupted the ball team he had and he went AWOL from the National Guard. Why are we letting him morally, ethically and financially bankrupt this country? It all reeks of sheep being led to slaughter. It is reminiscent of what happened to the Jews during WWII. And how many people who have already protested against the many atrocities approved and more that are condoned by this president are in jail or have had their careers adversely effected (Dixie Chicks, etc.)?

    Come on Senators!! The democrats have the majority. Stop Bush from all of his destruction now. That is why you are there. If you don't get tough then maybe the Independents will have to be given a chance!!!!!!

    December 19, 2007 at 7:13 pm |
  166. Dave

    How could the Democrats refuse? The war is suddenly turning positive and we are succeeding. General Petreus (not betray us) has acheived success with the surge, while Nancy Pelosi announced it as a failure the first month it was lost and Harry Reid announced that war lost almost a year ago. The Dems are looking foolish and they will look even worse in 2008.

    December 19, 2007 at 7:17 pm |
  167. Donnald, Butte Montana

    The Democrats are no better than the Republicans at 'rubber'stamping' George Bush's corrupt administration and policies.

    They were elected tot he MAJORITY to take care of this country and do business in the best interests of the American people - not the oil barons, medical conglomerates, lobbyists, etc.

    They preach lobbyish refund, but look what little they did pass.
    They preach eliminating pork barrel earmarks, but look how many BOTH parties includes in recent appropriations bills passed.
    They preach standing up to George Bush but don't have the moral fortitude or backbone of jelly-fish.
    They preach how much they're done this year – BULL!!! They've done nothing but give Bush and the Republicans everything they demand.
    They preach ending the war, but give Bush billions upon billions more that we dont' have.

    I say let both Houses adjourn for their much deserved Christmas break, and STAY HOME!!! They're done nothing - will do nothing, so why waste the expense of bringing them back to Washington to hear their repetitive soundbites on any news network that will given them a microphone.

    As far as Clinton, Biden, and Obama are concerned - screw you!!! You didn't have the leadership or morale decency to return to Washington to lend Senator Dodd a helping hand in defeating the retroactive immunity voted out of the Intelligence Cmte. None of you deserve to be President, much less a US Senator. All of you need to resign and continue your quest on your own time - not at the disservice of the people of New York, Illinois, or Delaware.

    All of you took a solem oath which none of you have the decency to live up to. Maybe instead of placing your hands on a Bible to be administered the oath it should be a briefcase of money!!!

    I'm voting INDEPENDENT!!

    December 19, 2007 at 7:29 pm |
  168. Kathy hardigan

    YES- B Y NOW, THEY KNOW HOW IT WORKS-- GIVE MONEY REQUEST TIMELINE... THEY DO IT FOR PAPER CLIPS, THEY SHOULD KNOW TO DO IT FOR WARS.

    December 19, 2007 at 7:33 pm |
  169. Douglas

    Our Congress is totally worthless. They have absolutely no backbone. They only care about the money in their bank accounts, big cars, and fancy clothes. Further more, they're a bunch of liars. Our presents in Iraq isn't going to end for decades. Too many companies like Harris Corp and DRS are making tons of money from the war, and it's likely the Congress is earning kickbacks from those. They have a good thing going for the rich, and it's not going to end any time soon.

    December 19, 2007 at 7:51 pm |
  170. JAK

    I had worked 12 years in the middle east and spent time in Iraq on the Pipeline developement. From my involvement with those people, I do not see us ever winning in Iraq. They look at life and family differently than us, and we will never change their mindset. You can see it in their eye when they speek, that they mean what they say.

    They do not hate American's, what they detest Bush's policies. They also detest Kuwat's impact on their country, in that Iranian's Shiite's have been allowed to migrate into southern Iraq through Kuwat. Those Shiite's have disrupting southern Iraq's communities similar to what the kurds have done in northern Iraq.

    The kurds are not Iraqi's, want to take control of the Tikrit oil fields and northern Iraq. The kurds have been called as the theives by the Iraqi's.

    The Museum in Baddad, the power plants, sewer plants and water systems plants were all looted by these people. They pulled all the copper wire, pipping,
    stoolen electric motors, insturmentation and computer system used that uses to control these systems and facilities.

    To split up Iraq into 3 sections is a rediculus recommentation. Each small village in had a small Stiite and Sunnit Mosk in different areas of each city. To split up Iraq into the south area for the shiite's, the central area to the Sunnit's and the north to the Kurd;s is a recipy for desaster.

    Th Kurds have Kurdistan and do not dominate the north of Iraq. They should go back to Kurdistan.

    December 19, 2007 at 8:14 pm |
  171. Jan Villarreal

    There should be no deals until a time line has been agreed to for our troops to come home. I come from centuries of Liberals but I am very disallusioned with our Democrats in Congress and Senate. They are spineless! I thought Pelosi would have more backbone!

    December 19, 2007 at 8:22 pm |
  172. Don Switzer

    Jack,
    It is enormously frustrating to see again and again that so few Americans understand the "nuts and bolts" of how a representative democracy with "checks and balances" actually works. This comes up most often now in outrage focused upon the so-called "failure" of the new Democratic-Controlled Congress to stop the war, or to set a time table for troop withdrawal or something to that effect. Frankly, it also pains me that no one in the Media seems to grasp the reason such complaints are naive'.
    The point is that the power of the veto held by the President can only be overcome by a two-thirds vote of each House–as spelled out in Article I, Sec. 7 of the Constitution. Thus, the practical effect of holding a majority in Congress is the ability to stop new Bush initiatives that might be "beyond the pall", but without the two-thirds majority of each house–or at least the ability to build up a bi-partisan consensus to that extent, there is simply no possible way to overcome a Presidential veto–and to bring reason to the Iraqi morass.
    To my thinking, then, the Democratic leaders have determined to try to hold the President from causing as little damage as possible, but they know better than to try to pass bills such as time tables, mandated troop withdrawals, etc., for that would simply make them appear stupid and give the Republicans much political fodder. If they were to try to take such steps it would be ignorant and self-defeating.
    Don Switzer

    December 19, 2007 at 8:23 pm |
  173. Elizabeth

    Ok, I read most of these blogs and we all agree things are still not getting done the way we wanted, How do affect change then? I don't think it matters who we vote in, I have lost all belief in our "democratic" way. You do realise individual voted still don'ty count because the the electoral college. I want to know how the people can abolish the electoral college, punish the people in government who take deals undert he table and don't do waht we want them to. I want this war over and frankly I just don't care if the country falls apart. Spend the rest of the money on reconstruction, fix the infrastructur we ruined and pull the hell out. We are quickly moving towards the boiling point and we will see a rise in US deaths again. I want to know what we can do. I ahve considered an email letter that just gets sent around but I don't think it will make it's way towards anyone who can do something about it. And besides, I don't think it would make it very far. So what do we do to fix this mess. I want change, I just don't think the answer is as easy is who we vote in next. After all, senators and congressmen are in it for the long haul which means individually they need to make their constiuents happy by having earmarks, they need big business to pay for the next election so they can start all over again with the ear marks and in the mantime they all live the life o'reilly with great healthcare and wages for life. The whole process needs changed and i wish it would start with the electoral college.

    December 19, 2007 at 8:24 pm |
  174. Liz

    Funding will be cut off if you do not meet benchmarks established by the administration; personnel will be fired from their jobs. Oh, sorry, that legislation was passed to "improve" our public school system....
    The administration is unwilling to set benchmarks, cut off funding when no measureable progress has been made, or fire personnel who are not doing their jobs only when it concerns the unpopular, unprovoked and out of control war in Iraq. However, it is no problem for them to establish unreasonable requirements of school children and public school teachers, and withhold federal funding from our school system. Let's change "No Child Left Behind" to "No Soldier Left Behind", and bring our troops home!

    December 19, 2007 at 9:04 pm |
  175. H R CATON

    I am not encourged by the way they are still giving Bush support just like the Republican party did the last few yrs . There does not seems to be any difference
    between the parties . There should be term limitsso we get new people in there .
    Give more people a chance to change the way they work in the both houses .
    As we have it now the same people keep doing the same thing over and over agin .They are just selfserving and fogot they are to serve the people .

    December 19, 2007 at 9:19 pm |
  176. Art

    I think the Dems are playing the American public as stupid. Weeks ago they said they would not approve the $70B and would withhold the funds. Suddenly they decide to go along with the President. How spineless can you get? Why should I support a government that doesn't support me?

    December 19, 2007 at 9:22 pm |
  177. Bob Lipsett Sr. North Attleboro, MA. 02760

    Everyone seems to think that Iraq did us harm. It was 19 Saudia National on those planes that hit the World Trade Center, not any Iraqi on board. But this was the stepping stone into the middle east and the weakest, poorest, defenseless nation in the middle east was Iraq which was under UN sanctions and with two no-fly zones. This administration has used "FEAR" to intimidate many people in our country and has used it as a whipping stickand is still using it. First it was the Patriotic Act, (remember Max Cleland from GA.) then it was the NYTimes Judy Miller (12 year pet of the Pentagon) who broadcast the lies of the Pentagon and Ahmad Chalibi about WMD stockpiles that Saddam Hussein had. Colin Powell should have resigned rather than lie to the UN.

    The war took the minds off the Sept. 11, 2001 debacle which should and could have been avoided if Bush and Rice had picked up the phone and alerted the FAA, NORAD, Civil Aviation Agency and all the military on Jul. 10 and Aug.6,2001 to bring it to full alert and they should have alerted the Airlines to increase security. They didn't. And we know "WHY". It was the stepping stone into Iraq as Cheney had wanted since his Sec.of Defense in the Bush #41 administration. Our military was used to "BUILD A EMPIRE IN IRAQ", (but, I'm not a Nation Builder he said in 2000), on the backs of 3,892 military dead just so this band of corrupt maggets could could control the "OIL and Defend ISREAL", that is what this is all about. Rep. John Boehner R-OH said "it was a small price to pay with 3,700 military dead for this position in Iraq". That tells you where this stinking Republicans stand with our military, just targets so they could control "FEAR". Tell that to the children, mothers, fathers husbands and wives that they gave their all just for a position in the Arabian desert. Get off your asses Americans before this corrupt administration turns its military on those who oppose this nonsence.

    But 80% 0f this country doesn't have the guts to challenge this "DICTATOR". We are in the Military, Industrial complex and as long as the defense industry produces more weapon, while this gutless wonder chastizes the rest of the world to scale down their weapons. This will never end as too many people are making money off our "ALL VOLUNTEER MILITARY AND OUR BACK DOOR DRAFT CITIZEN SOLDIERS" They volunteered to serve and protect AMERICA and didn't join to be agressors and empire builders. This madness will continue as long as the majority stays silent and this country goes into bankruptcy. Bush and Allen Greenspan promoted the easy money to avoid a recession in 2003 saying "Everyone should own their own home and or business" but what he they didn't say was if it fails it your fault and not the governments. This country fell for it hook line and sinker and now we have a "Credit Crunch and Mortage Metdown as a result.

    When is this administration ever going to stop cooking the books and stop making up lies to protect their asses. Valerie Plame was the excuse to take the minds off the Sept. 11, 2001 disaster. Lie after LIE and Joe Libermann supports these crooks. I never in my entire 72 years have been as negitive about this congress and senate since 1994 when Newt Ginrich started this ball rolling down this slimmy hill to depress the middle class and to let "MEDICARE" weither on the vine. Rep. D-TX Henry B. Gonzalas of San Antonio, Texas said while he was alive and chairman of the House Banking Committe "that the Glass/Segal Act should not be repealed as it would open the flood gates to corruption in the banking and investment industry." They repealed it and look at what you have. (WIDE SCALE CORRUPTION) When will it ever end?
    Bob. Lipsett Sr
    North Attleboro, MA
    02760-4388

    December 19, 2007 at 11:11 pm |
  178. Ken Sirmons

    Mr. Cafferty,

    Jack I need you to share a kick in the teeth with me. I recieved an e-mail from our FRG (Family Readiness Group) Leader yesterday that I found to be quite disturbing.
    My Son is a Machine Gunner in the Infantry at FOB Rustamiyah in Iraq. He can write, or call if he has a phone card. I've all-ready taken care of the phone card. My problem is this.
    I was informed by the FRG that there is an internet cafe he can use in his room for a fee of $70.00 a month. Does that seem out of line to you or am I smokin' crack?
    Congress just passed a budget saturated in pork for everything from Bee Research to Rodent Removal, but they can't figure out a way for the Troops in a Hostile Fire Zone to communicate with their families at little to no cost.
    I understand and agree that the Troops which are home should pay for internet service, but in a Combat Zone?
    With this said, I'm damn well fed up with Politicians who profess to support the Troops only to find out this is nothing more than lip service, then they wonder why people harbor feelings just short of out right hatred for them. Hell of a thing, isn't it?
    Now that I've framed the question for you my question is this. "Should Troops in a "Combat Zone" be charged a fee for communicating with their families in writting, on the phone, or the internet? Yes, or No.
    Oh Jack you might let Mr. Dobbs know I do in fact admire him as a voice for the working class which I'm a member of, but I can't register as an Independent. I'm all-ready a Caffertarian.

    December 19, 2007 at 11:13 pm |
  179. Jim

    This Democrat Congress is perhaps the most spineless and hypocritical in history. They are letting Bush call the shots on Iraq, instead of presenting him with a take it or leave it bill with a troops withdrawal schedule attached. They should have let him take his own flack for vetoing a timeline-based appropriation bill. The Democrats promised to change the pork barrel bill amending process dominated by special interests, but instead bill tagging has become worse. Congress also is sticking it to Americans by passing an energy bill mandating increased corn-based ethanol use when that already has driven up food prices. Now that situation can only get worse. Special interests are doing a successful end-around run with this House's ballyhooed ethics "reforms."

    With their utter failure to do much of anything constructive the Demos may well alienate a critical part of their voter base and hand the 2008 congressional and presidential elections to the Republicans. If so, that may work for the best by resulting in some badly needed internal reform in the Democrat party or in the formation of an effective and meaningful third party.

    December 19, 2007 at 11:41 pm |
  180. John

    you dems are nothing. you disgust me

    December 20, 2007 at 12:49 am |
  181. Maggie

    How do we the people expect to see the changes we desire if our elected representatives don't stand up and fight for them? If they can't pick their heads up and stand firm they have no business participating in what was once a prosperous system of checks and balances.

    December 20, 2007 at 2:31 am |
  182. ServingOverseas

    Stop spending monies on overseas projects.... JUST COME HOME.

    December 20, 2007 at 3:07 am |
  183. Shaun

    Yes,

    But our government is so entangled with corporations and lobbyists that there is little true representation of the American people. The politicians are happy with being labeled as out of touch because that hides the reality they are representing special interest groups not the voters.

    December 20, 2007 at 3:16 am |
  184. steve

    The reason the troops should be home is because we are going to need them to defend American soil. A lot sooner then any of us can imagine.

    December 20, 2007 at 3:28 am |
  185. Len Albuq New Mexico

    I think they don't want to stop the war and bring the troops home right away. Politicians know that WAR is good for the economy. They also don't want to look like the idiots that they are to the rest of the world, which they already do but its still that GWB mentality you know Try to shove a square peg into a round hole i'm the decider mentality. I hate to tell you but your looking as bad as South Korea politicians at least they actually fight. Next, if the war end, what are these soldiers going to do for jobs. There is'nt any! Then they would have to get down to business and that is imigration , healthcare, and the economy. I think that all of you politicians ought to be fired and lose you pension and benefits for failing America and letting things get this bad. You all are a disgrace! You brought so much shame to America.and your to prideful to do the right thing.

    December 20, 2007 at 3:36 am |
  186. Christian Maier

    Its not a easy decision. When the congress attaches a timetable for withdrawal then king George will veto it which means in the end that the funds for Iraq will be stalled. And I doubt that stalled funding will convince Bush to withdraw troops so the result will be underfunded and thus more vulnerable soldiers in Iraq and likely more deaths. The exact thing which everyone wants to prevent.
    In addition the republicans can again play their "Democrats don't support their troops" and "Democrats help terrorists" cards which so far had a strong effect on fanatics, sorry I mean patriots, and military families.

    The other possibility is accept the funding without Timetable like they did and anger the voters for not stopping the war. Te troops will be properly equipped but staying longer.

    Its a loose/loose situation for the democrats.

    December 20, 2007 at 5:21 am |
  187. J.

    No(because i said so)!

    December 20, 2007 at 7:28 am |
  188. Ranger7

    OUR democracy seems to be turning into a money maker for the
    politicans! .. who use our people for money and cannon fodder!

    We voice our majority views ..over and over ..about the FAILED...
    BUSH administration and nothing continues to happen! WHY…?
    Is this a democracy? Letting a Dumb President RUIN our country!

    We put him in..office....>......LET'S GET HIM OUT!

    Disgusted army vet! ..who wants America's jobs / respect back!

    December 20, 2007 at 8:44 am |
  189. Angel

    I find it sad that in all the comments Congress(the senate)is blamed for NOT stopping Bush's mad policy on war. Let's not forget that Bush said clearly that he would veto any bill that includes a timeline....no matter what other useful items were included in the bill...like money to keep "civilian" employees of the pentagon working. He was ready to furlough them at christmas and blame congress for it.

    Yes, I'm mad as hell about it, and I personally would attache the withdrawal timetable to every piece of legislation they send to him, but I understand the futility of that. Send more Dems and Independents to congress and replace Reid with Dodd.

    December 20, 2007 at 8:49 am |
  190. Rob Martin, CPA Wisconsin

    Any real American patriot who claims to support our troops and their families would demand the Iraqi government complete their resolution and defend themselves. Not having a timeline to accomplish a mission is absurd. In American business, we function by setting goals and timelines to complete them. We hold people accountable for not accomplishing those goals and reward them for success – it’s called Management and Leadership. That’s how you get the job done! A timeline for withdrawal would refocus a stagnant Iraqi government and motivate them to produce. Accomplish the task or be ousted. A definite timeline for withdrawal is the catalyst for the raise of true an effective leadership in the Iraq government. Until then we are simple fostering and promoting ineptitude at the cost of American blood. But that seems to be to standard for this administration.

    I am tired of our reporters failing to hold our leaders and presidential candidates accountable. The Iraq situation is not getting better. Yes, the violence is down but that’s not the goal!! The goal is for the Iraqi people to govern and defend themselves. Has that become any better? No! Stop letting these politicians say we are winning because the violence is down! Of course the violence is down; we are flooding the street with American soldiers. What people fail to realize is that we are ripping the American military family and fabric apart. Who do you think is suffering? My family and my fellow military families are. What will American’s gain from continuing this war but broken families and damaged children. You want to build a nation on this? I think not. How can Republicans support this war when they claim to own the rights on “Family Values”? Hypocrites!

    Rob Martin, CPA – Wisconsin

    December 20, 2007 at 8:50 am |
  191. Roberta Garfield

    Funding for Iraq? NO, we have ruined that country. I am outraged at congress funding the TERRORIST arm of the Indonesian govt. the KOPASSUS. They kill the people trying to demonstrate against the govt. in Jakarta. After all we did fund the Taliban, and look what happened there, history will repeat itself. We trained the leaders of KOPASSUS in Ft. Bragg, last week they voted as to send millions of more aid to the KOPASSUS, why not aid our own veterans. How many people even are aware of our supporting that terrorist group????? We have a terrible history with foreign relations, anytime a govt.doesn't want to play ball with our "intrests" we have them killed or overturned. Check our history starting with Hawaii in 1898, all the way through the Phillipines, then Central America, finally Cuba???? Can you tell me why China is "most favoured nation?" and we can't buy one grain fo sugar from Cuba???? I mean Ronald Regan was a stupid fool when he said we "defeated communism", duh isn't China communist and they own our manufacturing.

    December 20, 2007 at 9:10 am |
  192. Tim

    Jack, Pelosi & Harry and this (Dem lead Congress) are like prize fighters at the weigh in, they flex their musles talk about what they are going to do or not going to do and as soon as they step into the ring at the sound of the bell they belly up and won't leave their coner, and their opponet (Pres. Bush) all he does is stare then down and watch them fold, each and every time, and OMG this pork spending 1.2 million dollars for vests for a police department that serves and protects a town of 13,000. What do they think that we the american people will just buy whatever they are selling??? Well I'm sure interested in a nice piece of land in the middle of the pacific ocean.

    Tim
    Fortuna, Cali.

    December 20, 2007 at 9:14 am |
  193. Anita

    Yes the Congress should have stopped .That is why they were elected.

    December 20, 2007 at 10:08 am |
  194. Rodney

    To answer a question with a question: what does it say about a group of people who have niether the backbone to fight this so called "war" nor the backbone to end it? Enough said.

    December 20, 2007 at 10:40 am |
  195. John

    Now that the Republicans and the Democrats have refused to listen to the people they are suppose to represent, our only option is to throw them all out of office and start over.
    I suggest we develop a strong third party determined to do the following:
    Create term limits and a forty hour work week for Congress.
    Abolish lobbyists. Establish a prison term for buying votes.
    Eliminate pork, every dollar to be debated and voted on separately.
    Restore monies stolen from Social Security.
    Require election funding only with government election funds.
    Provide national health care.
    Replace income tax and loopholes with flat tax on gross income.
    Outlaw corporate mergers, promote small business.
    Renew our manufacturing industry.

    December 20, 2007 at 3:33 pm |
  196. Thomas

    Lets see what experience in politics has given our country the USA the past 40 years, Open borders, 20 million illegal aliens. Wealth re-distribution policies and Free trade policies of Clinton & Bush, Kafta and nafta, nearly all manufacturing business shipped to China. Ignorance of the Present Pres. Bush, Irac war for big oil and revenge against Saddam threatening Bush senior. Bush senoir sending weapons of mass distribution to Saddam Hussain to fight Iran as Prisident and Top CIA leader, Weapons to Osama Bin laden in Afghanistan to fight Russia in the 90's now being used against American soldiers. The USA could be oil free if we took the lessons of the 70's oil crisis seriously, instead business as usuall for the greediest politicians of the modern times being paid for by big oil and big business. And you want me to vote for experience in Politics??? To be a politician means to be a CROOK! All these politicians past and present should be sent to the gallows for treason!

    December 21, 2007 at 5:25 pm |
  197. Larry

    Since the Democrats and the Republicans eat out of the same corporate feed trough – and the corporate controlled media keeps the voices that call this (and most other important issues) to the attention of the people at bay – what do you expect? (And I don't mean just FOX and 'Z'NN.)

    We essentially have a fascist controlled empire hiding behind a mask of democracy that most of us don't even care to recognize.

    Note that the top 10 news stories included Anna Nicole and the bloody VA tech massacre – recall how much coverage they got compared to real issues that just get a controlled and usually inane sound-bite or two.

    How often is Bill Krystal on network shows compared to Noam Chomsky? Why is the media consolidation so overlooked on corporate media? Why not restore the "fairness doctrine" which Ronald Reagan abolished in '88? And so on . . .

    December 21, 2007 at 8:53 pm |
  198. Frank Carr

    Jack,Jack,Jack, you rant and rave about the failure of the congress to bring home the troops. The problem as you well know , if you have even a slight acquaintance
    with how the senate works can be summed up in four words. Too damn many republicans.

    December 22, 2007 at 12:46 pm |
  199. Ed Early

    Will someone in the press have the guts to pose this
    question to President Bush:

    Mr. President, if you had known that Iraq had no weapons
    of mass destruction, would you nevertheless have ordered
    an invasion of that country?

    Ed Early
    Stamford, CT

    December 22, 2007 at 8:01 pm |
  200. Larry Martin

    Jack,

    Have you ever looked into the claim by
    major oilmen that say the North Slope would
    provide enough enregy to drive the US needs
    for 200 years?

    And that we have not heard because of the
    Kissenger accords that had the Arab Oil nations
    buying our national debt in trade in return to buy their
    oil? And if we did not need their oil any longer, our
    currency would collapse?

    And that Iraq and Iran were the only dissenters
    that would not join the oil for debt excchenge, making the
    two countries our enemies having to be eleminated or
    conquered?

    This no longer makes US Politics worth while for me,
    as I see that we are enslaved on purpose for the NWO
    and have to be kept in the dark, working to keep the
    cash flow moving. No Politicians that I see on the horizon
    can tackle the Fed and the Worl Bank and the IMF, to
    get control back where it belongs .... In the Congress and
    with the people.

    Regards,
    Larry Martin

    December 22, 2007 at 10:56 pm |
  201. John @ Yokota AB, Japan

    I say shut it all down. Until the Republican party and President Bush come to terms with what the American people really want, and quite honestly many of us in the military, it is time to come home and spend all that hard earned tax money on the people who really matter...the citizens of the United States. When he vetoes legislation to fund medical care for childeren because it would be too expensive and that a few individuals who it was never meant for might be able to use it, and then in the same breath asks for a absurdly large sum of cash to protect the Iraqi's from the terrorists that we gave a foot-hold to by going there, something is wrong there.

    What everyone is forgetting is that it would be better to let everything shut down than to push foward the legislation that President Bush wants because we'll end up saving money, saving lives, and in the end get the results that are wanted. I am not worried, I'll still get my military pay check because they have to pay us or face some interesting moral arguments in court. Yeah, we may not be able to buy bullets for a month or so, but we have stockpiles for a reason...this being one of them. Additionally, many of the contracts we have also have within them clauses for situations such as this and considering how much money Haliburton and it subsidaries have got for "providing a service to their country in its time of need", they may have a bit of a heart and provide service for a bit when the military can't afford to pay them.

    Stick it to him and the Republicans and let it all shut down until he is willing to compromise!!!

    December 23, 2007 at 6:31 pm |
  202. Ron Ballard

    The Democrats were given a mandate from the voters to reign in President Bush, particularly where his failed Iraq war policy was concerned. Instead, it was business as usual, with the Democrats genuflecting to King George once again. However, Nancy Pelosi told the people not to fear the Democrats were able to get an energy bill passed that would require "The Big Three" US car manufactures to produce cars that would get 35 mpg by 2020, Hip Hip Hoorah! Toyota is already manufacturing a car that gets 55mpg today. Someone please explain to me why we are cheering for our out of touch leadership that keeps America playing catchup in the World community.

    December 24, 2007 at 8:40 am |
  203. Eric G

    Jack: I just read your book – it's terrific reading – informative and very much to the point. As we get closer to the '08 election, when you and/or one of your colleagues lands each of the candidates for interviews, please hammer them if they do not adequately answer the questions. There's too much at stake here – this country needs intelligent, well thought-out answers, not inane promises and platitudes. And please give them each a copy of your book if they have trouble expressing themselves clearly, in plain down-to-earth tEnglish.

    Eric
    Flemington, NJ

    December 24, 2007 at 3:28 pm |
  204. Russell Buote

    Yes the gutless congress should not have passed the bill without a timeline. I am a registered republican and I voted democrat in the last election to help get rid of the war monger neocons only to be conned by the communist democrats. I have had it with all the criminals on both sides of the aisle. they have either been bribed or blackmailed into doing the will of the bush gang. the entire world knows that they are criminals. If any of these so called top tier candidates gets elected we will have more of the same if not worse and I believe I will find myself another country because I will not live under the fascism that is becoming prevelant in this country. They remind me of an old movie called "The Flim Flam Man" starring George C. Scott. They ain't nothin but a con artist.

    December 24, 2007 at 7:28 pm |
  205. Lovell Sewell

    We can get on here and spit venom on Democrates and say what they should do. I was one of the people that did this. Until I start reading and watching CNN. I bought this book by Mark Green, Losing our Democracy. Man some of the people that writing on here need to get that book. Also, I just bought Lou Dobbs book. Democrates can not do anything as long as they do not have a backing in the senate nor any other house. Yes, they can say what they want do but just let them not give money for this war. Then everyone will start saying they not supporting the Military. Bush, know what he doing he stand behind the lie about making Iraq a Democracy country. But what he do not know this country was fighting each other when Jesus was on the earth. What make him and any other person thank they can change these people. Bin Laden just waiting on us to leave and then he will be striking again. What we need to do is gear up for next year and vote a Democrate in office that will stand for the people and not for big business, lobbyist, and right wing religion. Which religion should not have anything to do with politics.

    December 25, 2007 at 10:41 am |
  206. Lovell Sewell

    Hi, Jack

    Honestly, can they bring military personnel home. I doubt it. Do you think the can cut of funds. I doubt it. We can say what the Democrates can do but as long as the President got majority of Republican following him Democrates will always back down. If they cut off Funds CNN will blast that on their news and every military person would think Democrates or not patroit. Yeah they can stop but this will not still be a win when you have people saying that you stop supporting the military.

    So I ask, what you think they way they should do it without backlash?

    December 25, 2007 at 10:49 am |
  207. Roberta Gallant

    Hello Jack,

    The United States Senate and House of Representatives should fund
    more and better community-based services and supports for other citizens,
    my sister Jocelyn Gallant, and me mewith disabilities, not war fares.
    Wars are no good. They do not solve problems but create more of them.
    Why waste money on wars? Wasting money on them is ridiculous!

    Roberta Gallant
    Concord, New Hampshire

    December 26, 2007 at 1:44 pm |
  208. Gary Wilson

    The troops there don't know what the mission is or when they will be done or what the target is. Why do we keep borrowing money for a failed, undefined mess? Our kids and grandkids will be burdened with many trillions of debt. Congress is broken. It doesn't provide "checks and balances" to the executive branch. Congress is bought off by big corporations. We are screwed.

    December 26, 2007 at 1:55 pm |
  209. THELMA

    wake up jack , have you ever tried to do anything with someone that don't have common sense? you know (bush) will not listen to anyone. the DEMOCRATS are trying to help the TROOPS and the people here at home. we sit at home and listen to the media give the DEMORATS a hard time but you guys are trying to put the old crooks in again.(REPUBLICANS). i can't beleive you boys think we can't see whats going on. you don't want CLINTON to be anominated because you know she can beat any of the republicans. she don't get half the airtime as obama and edwards.....I HOPE THE PEOPLE REMEMBER HOW GOOD EVERYONE WAS LIVING DURING THE CLINTON YEARS IN THE WHITE HOUSE............. VOTE CLINTON 08........

    December 28, 2007 at 1:36 pm |
  210. Bill

    I object to continuing to call it "funding the troops". They do not get a raise. The no-bid contractors get a bonanza. So do the "Black Waters". And so do the oil companies that the president insists must be included. Billions that the CEO's told Congress they do not need because they are reaping riduculous profits just "because they can". Until that stops, who can fault the people's representatives for including money for some much needed and neglected local infrastructure?

    December 28, 2007 at 6:40 pm |
  211. RJ Thayer

    In the general tone of 'what's wrong with America', the President's pocket veto of the defense bill because of a provision to allow suing of the current Iraqi government for the activities of a fifteen year old dictatorship stands out. The provision was introduced into an otherwise reasonable defense bill by a New Jersey Democrat who had trial lawyer lobby associations that would have tied up 20 billion dollars of Iraqi aid (actually US taxpayer dollars). The President then pocket vetoed the entire measure, causing it to go back through another legislative round thereby tying up the Congress for another six weeks. What is really 'wrong with America' is that according to Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution (powers of the Congress), " No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed", so this congressman from New Jersey might not have even had the constituted authority to create a law that penalizes 'ex post facto' a current entity for crimes committed by a 15 year old totalitarian regime that no longer exists. Is perpetual waste of effort a direction, road, path, way or destiny for America?

    December 29, 2007 at 10:18 am |
  212. John U. TEXAS

    Hey Jack,
    Forget about solving the mess in Iraq.......G.W. has already decided the "intel" in Iran is wrong and he has his 6 shooter aimed at the Iranians. If he keeps on as he has, we'll have every country in the world after us for real and we can thank Cowboy George for undoing 231 years of U.S history in under 8 years......I guess you get what the special interest groups pay for.

    December 30, 2007 at 7:41 am |
  213. Michael Torchia

    Mr Cafferty

    My comment is simple. Can anyone name three things the federal government has been successful in doing?

    December 30, 2007 at 6:51 pm |
  214. Chris

    Antia, Rodney, John, Thomas,

    I agree w/ all your posts. To make matters worse, watch & see if we don't let large numbers of Iraqi expatriates into the US when the war has failed, just like the one in Vietnam did. Ron Paul is the only candidate who gets what a huge mi$take the war has been, and that it has hurt so many of our soldiers.

    December 31, 2007 at 2:40 am |