Bush’s Speech Tomorrow, Those Against, For

Hey folks,

Tomorrow President Bush will be giving a speech to us that says what his plans are for Iraq. More troops? New direction? ETC. Before he even says ANYTHING, the LWL are coming out against him. The arrogant, condescending, and sorry, but ignorant tones are ridiculous.

Speaker Pelosi said,

"We will always support the troops who are there," Pelosi said on CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday. But, Pelosi added, "If the president wants to expand the mission, that's a conversation he has to have with the Congress of the United States.But that's not ... a blank check to him to do whatever he wishes there."

No he doesn’t. He is the Commander and Chief. He does NOT have to talk to you. He will, but he does not have to. As for cutting funding? He could STILL send as many troops as he chooses. If they cut funding and short change the troops, putting them in harms way, it’s THEIR FAULT. Not the President's. We are in a WAR.

I do not get their problem in understanding this. I really don’t. OK, the violence is rising. We want out. The troops that are there are having a difficult time. SEND MORE. Get rid of the problem, THEN bring them all home. Rush said yesterday on his radio show, it’s like fighting a fire that gets out of control. You do not put the fire out by leaving, nor by continuing to do what you were doing, you send in MORE firefighters.

Some know that this is a problem for the Democrats. As Speaker Pelosi was saying,

"The president now knows that he does not have a blank check from Congress without any justification.He also knows that we will do what we must do to support our troops. Democrats have removed all doubt about that."

Others were being more cautious

When asked if Congress would consider cutting off the funds, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said "We're going take a look at it, of course."

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said his "office is now investigating what tools are available to us to condition or constrain appropriations" for the surge in troops. Although he cautioned he doesn't want troops already in Iraq to be "shortchanged."

"So it creates a difficult situation for Democrats," he said.

Aware of this concern, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California told reporters at a Capitol news conference Monday, "Democrat's will not cut off funding for our troops."

But, an aide later explained, the speaker is open to restricting money for the escalation, after hearings on the president's new plan.

Wait to hear what he actually says? What a novel idea.

But not all are against this,

The strategy is supported by two prominent senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman. Along with anyone else intelligent enough to understand it.

"This war is still winnable," says Senator Lieberman

They seem to be in agreement with Frederick Kagan, a military historian at Washington's American Enterprise Institute (AEI) who said,

"We must not low-ball this," says Frederick Kagan, a military historian at Washington's American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and a prominent proponent of a "large and long" US military increase. Insisting Iraq will be costly and bloody for the United States no matter what policy is chosen, he adds, "We can pay the price and win, or pay a similar price and lose."

But that’s the only thing that makes sense. The LWL KNOW that if we send more troops in, we have a great chance of winning. No more troops in? Right now, not so good. We cannot possibly do anything to WIN this war. That would be BAD for them. They have invested so much time in America’s defeat, more troops would risk all that hard work. We can’t have that.
Peter

Sources;
CNN-Democrats considering ways to block escalation of war
CNN-Pelosi: No blank check for troop surge
USA Today-A big speech is a first step; follow-up key
CS Monitor- Plan for troop 'surge' in Iraq gathers force