Are some democrates waking up?

I just read an article about Senator Joe Biden one democratic candidates. It seems that he voted for the funding for our troops. But the other democratic presidential candidates (all senators) Hillary Clinton of New York, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Barack Obama voted against the measure all voted against it.

As Joe Biden said "As long as there are troops who are in a position where, if we don't fund them they are going to be hurt, I'm not going to cut off funding," Biden also said during a meeting with Des Moines Register editors and reporters "That's what the other candidates said too, but they changed their mind." Biden was referring to last week's vote on a supplemental bill to finance the war in Iraq. The measure passed with bipartisan support after language calling for a timetable for troop withdrawal was removed.

Looks like Hillary and Obama’s campaign strategy most likely includes the need to oust Biden by making him look “un-democratic” or “not with the party”. I can see them hatching this plot now, “hmm how can we make Biden look bad?”

Amazing how Hillary and gang still think they can win the election only if we make it look like we are losing the war in Iraq. Hillary and company also still disagree with the need for the War on Terror. A war that once in office no matter who it is they will have to keep troops in Iraq and other places, or the problem and threat to the USA will mushroom ten fold in only a couple years.

Democrats talk about how much Bush has hurt the opinion the World has of the USA. But what will happen if the democrats win the election and do pull out. The USA will be despised by even more nations and citizens of the world, for not fixing mistakes and not supporting those brave souls (Iraqi and Afghans) who have helped us try to bring peace and democracy. Democracy is hard earned and is not an easy transition for the people of Iraq or Afghanistan who are so influenced by clerics and other public or military figures. Look at our early days as a nation. It was a brutal time. Much like Iraq regional fighting and ethic tensions became a deadly affair.

Democrats to fund Iraq war with no pullout date

By Richard Cowan and Susan Cornwell
Tue May 22, 8:16 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush won a battle over nearly $100 billion to fund the Iraq war as Democratic leaders in Congress on Tuesday abandoned efforts to withdraw troops for now but pledged to try again in July.

Instead of setting schedules for pulling U.S. troops, it appeared the Democratic-run Congress and the Republican White House agreed for the first time to include conditions prodding Baghdad to make better progress toward quelling violence or risk losing around $1.3 billion in U.S. reconstruction aid.

Bush could waive the provision, however.

Congress wants to deliver by week's end the $100 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and

Afghanistan

SEARCH
News | News Photos | Images | Web

Afghanistan through September.

With the Iraq funding deal, Democrats said the first minimum wage increase in a decade, a high priority for them, would be included. Congress already has approved tax breaks for small businesses to go along with the wage hike.

Democrats also will try to attach about $20 billion in domestic initiatives -- from farm aid and better health care for veterans, to health insurance for poor children and money to continue rebuilding states hit by hurricanes in 2005.

Negotiations between the White House and Congress were continuing on details, however.

House liberals were disappointed by the emerging deal, and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), a California Democrat who signed off on the plan, said she opposed the Iraq portion of it.

(full article click here)

Clinton won't commit on Iraq deadline

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer Wed May 16, 8:21 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Sen.

Hillary Rodham Clinton voted Wednesday to advance legislation cutting off money for the Iraq war, then refused to pledge to support the measure if it came to a vote, then said she would.

At lunchtime, the New York senator and presidential candidate was asked repeatedly by reporters whether she favored the troop withdrawal legislation that had just come up for a procedural vote on the Senate floor.

Her answer: "I'm not going to speculate on what I'm going to be voting on in the future. I voted in favor of cloture to have a debate."

By supper time, she had a different answer.

"I support the underlying bill," she said. "That's what this vote on cloture was all about."

A rival Democratic camp quickly criticized Clinton's evolving — and possibly revolving — statements.

"We're as confused as anyone on Senator Clinton's position," said Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd (news, bio, voting record)'s campaign spokeswoman, Christy Setzer.

"Frankly, it's hard to know whether it's indecision, miscommunication or simple word games and political gamesmanship we're dealing with. Our troops in Iraq don't have time for poll-tested word games," Setzer said.

http://www.stophillarypac.com/

No safe way for U.S. to leave Iraq, experts warn

Story Highlights

• Experts paint bleak picture of Iraq if U.S. troops fully withdraw
• Among potential scenarios: al Qaeda terror hub and larger regional conflict
• CNN analyst: "Saudi Arabia will not allow increasing Iranian dominance"
• U.S. general says early pullout would cause "huge vacuum"

Adjust font size:

(CNN) -- Pulling U.S. forces from Iraq could trigger catastrophe, CNN analysts and other observers warn, affecting not just Iraq but its neighbors in the Middle East, with far-reaching global implications.

Sectarian violence could erupt on a scale never seen before in Iraq if coalition troops leave before Iraq's security forces are ready. Supporters of al Qaeda could develop an international hub of terror from which to threaten the West. And the likely civil war could draw countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran into a broader conflict.

President Bush vetoed a war spending bill Tuesday precisely because the Democrat-led Congress required the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn by October 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

Bush said such a deadline would be irresponsible and both sides are now working on new proposals -- which may have no pullout dates.

A rapid withdrawal of all U.S. troops would hurt America's image and hand al Qaeda and other terror groups a propaganda victory that the United States is only a "paper tiger," CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen said. (Send us your reaction)

"It would also play into their strategy, which is to create a mini-state somewhere in the Middle East where they can reorganize along the lines of what they did in Afghanistan in the late '90s," Bergen told CNN.com.

It was in Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda allied with the Taliban, and were allowed to run terror bases and plan the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States.

Bergen says it is imperative that the United States not let that happen in Iraq.

"What we must prevent is central/western Iraq [from] becoming a Sunni militant state that threatens our interests directly as an international terror hub," he said.

Don Shepperd, a retired Air Force major-general and military analyst for CNN, agreed that Sunni Muslim fighters who support al Qaeda would seek an enclave inside a lawless Iraq likely riven along sectarian lines into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions.

There would be "increasing attempts by terrorists to establish a training sanctuary in Iraq," Shepperd said.

That's one of the reasons why a fast withdrawal will not happen, whatever the politicians say, the analysts predict. (Watch why a radical Shiite cleric wants U.S. troops out )

"Everyone wants the troops home -- the Iraqis, the U.S., the world -- but no one wants a precipitous withdrawal that produces a civil war, a bloodbath, nor a wider war in an unstable Mideast," Shepperd said, adding that the image of the United States was important too.

Full Article - click here

For Dollars or for Jihad?

Dollars or Jihad?
Iraqis are getting paid between $100 and $200 (250,000 Iraqi dollars) each attack weather lobbing a grenade in the green zone (IZ), killing an Iraqi police officer, or Iraqi civilians.

Here is a portion of an insurgent being interogated:

Officer: were you doing these killings for Jihad?
Criminal: yes Sir.
Officer: for Jihad or for money?
Criminal: for both Sir.
Officer: how could Jihad be paid for!!
Criminal: (no answer)
Officer: you're Muslim?
Criminal: yes
Officer: on ID card, huh?
Criminal: yes
Officer: do you pray or go to the mosque?
Criminal: no
Officer: do you drink?
Criminal: yes Sir.
Officer: so you don't pray and you don't go to the mosque and you drink and you kill for money and after all this you call your evil doings Jihad?!!! And you call your group the "Islamic Army"!!
Criminal: (no answer again)
Officer: so, tell me about those 9 policemen. Where were they coming from and where were they heading?
Criminal: coming from 'Msayab and heading to Hilla
Officer: so they weren't coming from Tel Aviv? (from the officer's tone, obviously mocking the conspiracy theorists).
Criminal: no Sir, they were Iraqis.
Officer: THEN WHY DID YOU KILL THEM!!?