January 09, 2007
Jules Crittenden has more. Actually, I'm not all that worried about Democratic oversight. In fact, I welcome it. As long as oversight means what it has traditionally meant: not overseeing strategy, but rather spending. If any one wants to argue that various Defense appropriations (especially with private contractors) don't need some public exposure, then I really have nothing to say to you except that you are a partisan hack. Remember, partisanship works both ways.
During WWII a Democratic Congress exposed more than a few instances of malfeasance--and with a Democrat in the White House. This was not 'partisanship', it was Congress's duty. So, I'm sympathetic to a Congress which wants to make sure my money is being spent wisely.
If that is all the new powers-that-be were going to do, I'd welcome it. But, we'll see.
Posted by: Rusty at
11:15 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Dan at January 09, 2007 01:17 PM (ILHet)
The Democrats plan is to not feed any more young Americans into the civil war in Iraq unless the president comes up with a plan as to how to get them out and sets specific conditions upon which that will occur.
The Democrats will fund the present amount of troops already deployed but will not fund additional deployments of troops without specific assurances from George that he has a plan to remove them given benchmarks of progress or lack thereof. Otherwise a phased withdrawl will be implemented as per the wishes of close to 80% of the American public who already know this war has been lost due the many mistakes that have been made by Bush, Runsfield and gang.
Any questions?
Foolish Americans.
Posted by: civilbehavior at January 09, 2007 02:14 PM (aaS4R)
Last year: There isn't enough troops to stop the violence in Iraq, Rumsfeld is stopping the Generals requests for more troops and the troops are being killed because of it!
Now: You cannot have more troops, we won't fund it.
Posted by: davec at January 09, 2007 03:55 PM (yaQM4)
Posted by: Greyrooster at January 09, 2007 08:40 PM (w+w6p)
Even for a leftist you're reality challenged. Congress has nothing to do with commanding the military, and the dhimmies don't have enough votes to withhold funds or overturn a presidential veto. They'll just bitch from the sidelines and try to take credit for the President's success.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 09, 2007 11:09 PM (abVz3)
Posted by: Greyrooster at January 10, 2007 02:18 PM (w+w6p)
34 queries taking 0.0999 seconds, 161 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
