I am dumbfounded...DAMNED DEMS!

[Eagle5US]

Honestly-I am unable to form coherant thought as to WTF Pelosi and her cult like democratic following is thinking....
"Tit for Tat" plan for complete withdrawl by (at latest) Sep '08 (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/03/08/D8NO3FNG0.html)
The gist of the "plan" as I read it, is that they are willing to not only give POTUS his requested funding for the war, but tag on over $1 BILLION (yes, with a "B") in extra money (that is absolutely needed) for OPNS in A-stan as well as cash for active duty veteran health care and services, and health care for low income kids....but ONLY if he agrees to have the troops pulled out in 18 months. SOONER if their "gates" aren't met satisfactorily by the IA.
Add to that their restrictions on deploying folks with what THEY say indicates adequate rest, training, and equipping.

I friggin HATE this. :mad:

I could chew the lip off my coffee cup right now.....18 months is the blink of an eye in a resistance movement.

[Ret10Echo]

So the bad guys kick back, regroup, rearm and are back in business in about 19 months.

[incommin]

And people will die or disappear like they did after the pull out in Southeast Asia.......... when looking towards the future, the left can not get past TODAY.

Jim

[Ret10Echo]

First ones to disappear are the intelligencia and the academics. Stupid people are easier to herd around....thus the Democratic Party platform.

[x SF med]

If the rer is an increase in the number of Psychiatric hospitals all of the sudden, I'm leaving. If they fence in Alaska, north of the Arctic Circle - we are all in trouble - oops won't do that, we might disturb the polar bears and elk, they're more in need of nurture than human minds.

[Monsoon65]

The Dems have no clue. Simple as that. And their resident war hero, Murtha, is standing behind Pelosi smirking. But, hey, they support the troops.

Yeah, right.

[Gypsy]

I am disgusted beyond words. Anyone who thinks these idiots "Support the Troops" needs their head examined.

[pegasus]

Well, this certainly won't make the headlines. I couldn't believe it when I heard it on the radio.....Janet said what???? Maybe there is hope.

http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2007/03/05/daily33.html

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano has been in Iraq this week visiting troops and surveying the situation in the war zone.
....

Napolitano -- in a conference call with reporters from Kuwait on Wednesday -- offered a different take on the Iraq War than many of her fellow Democrats. She did not call for a withdrawal of U.S. troops, saying it is no easy chore to withdraw or redeploy troops out of Baghdad and other hotspots.
...
Many Democrats support a U.S. troop withdrawal or moving troops into training bases and off the streets of Baghdad.

"That's easier said than done," said Napolitano of moving troops. "You just don't snap your fingers."

She stressed that it is too early to tell if the recent 21,500 addition to U.S. troops is paying dividends, but added that military personnel on the ground noted a decline in some attacks. The governor said U.S. forces need to restore stability to Baghdad and other violent regions and the U.S. should stabilize the country before leaving.

[Monsoon65]

Democrats link pet causes to troop plan


By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 5 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Democrats seeking votes for their Iraq-withdrawal plan have stuffed the bill it's in with billions of dollars for farms, flu preparedness, New Orleans levees, home heating and other causes.

Some critics say the Democrats are simply being opportunistic — using a must-pass measure for funding U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to carry items that can't advance as easily on their own.

At the same time, Democratic leaders are trying to increase support for setting deadlines for ending U.S. military combat in Iraq, which they've made part of the larger legislation.

It's plain that Democrats are unwilling to approve the bill's $100 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan without devoting considerable sums of money to the home front.

"The president wants to make sure we take care of Iraq, but I think we also have to make sure that we don't lose sight of what we have to do here at home," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel , D-Ill.

Already, money in the bill not directly related to the war exceeds $20 billion.

The funding — ranging from $3.5 billion for medical care for veterans and active duty troops to $500 million in "emergency" money for a Western fire season that has yet to start — has raised hackles with Republicans who say Democrats are using the measure to muscle federal dollars back home.

"Wartime funding should be not used as a gravy train," said Senate GOP conservative Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.

But Gregg said the White House would be hard-pressed to veto the bill over the add-ons, and White House aides have conspicuously failed to issue one — though a veto promise hangs over the bill because of its higher-profile provisions setting a deadline for ending the U.S. military role in Iraq.

All told, farmers would get $4.3 billion in disaster aid, aimed chiefly at the drought-stricken Great Plains and California farmers hurt by a hard freeze earlier this year.

The drought disaster aid package has been scaled back, in part to make room for $74 million for a peanut storage program that pays storage and handling fees as farmers market their crop. And Rep. Sam Farr (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., is pressing for $25 million for spinach farmers who pulled produce from market shelves after last year's E. coli outbreak.

Meanwhile, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., isn't waiting on the upcoming farm bill to extend income subsidies aimed at small dairy farms. Obey's 13-month extension would cost $283 million.

Those items and others, including $2.5 billion for homeland security projects such as additional cargo screening at ports and airports, $2.9 billion for levee improvements and other aid for the Gulf Coast, and $735 million to close shortfalls in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, offer virtually every lawmakers a reason to vote for the Iraq funding bill — regardless of their feelings on the war itself.

Democrats insist they aren't being bought off.

"Absolutely not," said Rep. Jim Costa, a Democrat representing a farm district in California's Central Valley. The California delegation is demanding help for citrus, avocado and other farmers facing $1.2 billion in losses from a devastating January freeze.

"I would support this one way or another," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., a driving force behind the drought aid package.

In some cases, such as drought aid for farmers, new money for veterans medical care and additional aid for the Gulf Coast, Democrats are fulfilling promises from last year's campaign.

Still, the need to maximize the vote count among Democrats makes it harder for party leaders to say "no" to lawmakers whose requests are, say, more parochial.

Republicans accused Democratic leaders of larding the bill with spending aimed at greasing its way through Congress.

"They've tried to appease every member of Congress, every coalition, every interest group, by loading this bill up," said Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill. He said the strategy risked having the bill collapse of its own weight.

"If this is a sweetener deal, then it makes me real sour on the whole bill," said Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn.

There are a few lawmakers — such as Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. — whose support for war funding is contingent on add-ons. In DeFazio's case, it's $400 million to extend payments to rural counties hurt by cutbacks in federal logging.

The billions of dollars not requested by Bush include $1 billion to prevent or prepare for a possible avian flu epidemic and $400 million in additional heating subsidies for the poor.