They had their chance. Yet, there were too many Democrats who thought it irresponsible, either politically or in reality, to cut the funds off for Iraq. But (via ABC News)
Democrats may have lost the first round with President Bush on ending the war in Iraq since taking over Congress in January, but they say their fight has just begun.
In the months ahead, lawmakers will vote repeatedly on whether U.S. troops should stay and whether Bush has the authority to continue the war. The Democratic strategy is intended to ratchet up pressure on the president, as well as on moderate Republicans who have grown tired of defending Bush administration policy in a deeply unpopular war.
Playing political games with the lives of our troops in Iraq. If this is the road they want, why not have the gumption to just submit a bill calling for an immediate end to the war, rather then playing games? In my opinion, it is because they do not have the cajones to do that, so, instead, they will speachify and offer nonsensical rhetoric, such as "transition the mission," as well as offering up foolish legislation, in order to further erode the willpower of the American people. The fact that this harms the troops in the field and emboldens the enemy matters little to a good majority of Democrats.
Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama both voted against the bill.
"I fully support our troops" but the measure "fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq," said Clinton, D-N.Y.
"Enough is enough," Obama, an Illinois senator, declared, adding that Bush should not get "a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path."
Their votes continued a shift in position for the two presidential hopefuls, both of whom began the year shunning a deadline for a troop withdrawal.
This shows that neither really care about the troops, words to the contrary, and they are beholden to the far left surrender kooks. And they do this right before Memorial Day.
This entire kerfuffle proved a setback to the Democrats.
Bush vetoed their profoundly unreasonable bill. They would have done well to quietly revise and resubmit it, but instead they made a lot of noise, including the possible intention of using the veto to claim that Dubya was the party who refused to fund our troops.
This didn’t work, the only attention drawn being to the Democrats’ “knife to a gunfight” approach and, having to dine on crow, they went with the program.
Weak, dishonest mallarkey was handily defeated by strong, spot-on truth.
If only the GOP would take advantage of the Dems weakness and anti-American attitudes