Mr. President, Veto This Bill
By Congressman John Boehner Posted in Congress | Congressional Contributors — Comments (59) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Can someone please explain why a quarter-billion dollars for the Milk Income Loss Contract Program belongs in a funding bill for troops under fire in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Democratic leaders are so brazen—or callous?—as to brag about their vote buying on national television. When asked by NBC’s Meet the Press host Tim Russert why his party piled billions in pork projects on such a serious bill, Way & Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) last Sunday said, “Because we needed the votes.”
Please do keep reading . . .
In return for billions in pork, Democratic backbenchers supported a scheme authored by John Murtha (D-PA) to tie the hands of U.S. generals and slap a withdrawal date on troops actively fighting insurgents and terrorists. Does anyone really doubt that the terrorists won’t simply mark their calendars and wait us out?
Even the leader of the bipartisan American Legion criticized the goals and tactics the House majority has employed. “I don’t understand what is so hard about passing a clean bill for the good of our troops,” National Commander Paul A. Morin said. “What’s good for the troops is NOT setting timelines. What’s good for the troops is giving them the funding they need immediately. What’s good for the troops is supporting our troops through action not words. What’s good for the troops is letting the real generals run the war. Like the House, the Senate has filled this emergency supplemental with non-emergency pet pork projects.”
President Bush has promised to veto this pork-laden spending bill that sets the table for retreat and defeat. And House Republicans will sustain that veto.
In a letter to the President, I joined 153 of my House colleagues in sending a strong message that Republicans will continue to fight for a clean funding bill, without arbitrary restrictions or billions for pork-barrel projects. We sincerely believe American troops deserve a clean bill without extraneous and unnecessary spending and free of strings that undermine their mission.
Speaker Pelosi pledged to bring-up a clean funding bill if their ‘pork and retreat’ strategy failed. Together with the President’s veto pledge, the GOP letter should make it obvious that the Democrat strategy has, indeed, failed. The path Democrats have chosen is clearly a dead end – an exercise in partisan futility that puts both American troops and their mission in jeopardy.
Members of Congress have a duty to stand and fight against those who seek our destruction. Our troops are committed to fighting and winning this global war. We owe them our unfailing support, not a half-cooked scheme to mandate failure. Weakness or withdrawal in Iraq will embolden a fanatical enemy and could lead directly to chaos or genocide.
We fight an enemy—Radical Islam—with which there will be no Treaty of Paris or battleship surrender ceremonies. But that is not to say there will not be peace. There will be peace and an end to bloodshed, but only if we remain committed to winning and don’t lose our will to fight.
Do Democrats have the will? They continue to deny the fact that America is battling terrorism on a global scale, desperately trying to force a retreat from Iraq and going so far as to propose banning Congressmen from using the phrase “Global War on Terror.” How do Democrats expect America to fight and win a war they deny is even taking place?
It is unacceptable that Democratic leaders would put America’s national security on such thin ice by playing politics with troop funding. But it’s not too late for them to do the right thing. They should scrap their pork-laden retreat bill and start over. Let’s drop the pork, untie the hands of the generals, and support the troops.
I agree it must be fought on every front until it is purged.
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
in the political arena. They have placed all their chips on top of the box marked "defeat" and are now using the House's statistical advantage to make sure they secure this defeat.
Make no mistake about it the Democrats are not defeatists, they are just fighting a different war than the rest of the nation.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
the Democrats have no other plan for America than defeat.
Defeat is unacceptable to America. Every single voter needs to hear that message every day forever or until the Democrats start voting for America, not for whoever is against America.
I argue with a lot of liberal moonbats online and they continue to say things like "Congress provided all the funding Bush asked for, so a veto means *he* is defunding the troops". You can see the kind of illogic I fight against, but hopefully some clear reasoning and examples will set them straight (or at least shut them up). To that end, could you please post some examples of the billions in pork in the bill with dollar figures attached?
in addition to the $250 million you already mentioned. As a strict fiscal conservative, I find even $250 million to be unacceptably high for a useless milk-related program, but Taxandspendocrats need a lot higher dollar figure to even wake them up, let alone convince them of anything.
Of course it is inappropriate to put in pork in a bill of this nature. Of course it was just as inappropriate when the Republicans did it when they were in power. I also believe that four years into a war it is inappropriate to fund it as an emergency appropriation. This should have been done in the overall budget, which should have been done before the democrats took over.
I guess the problem I have with politicians of both stripes is that they are all shameless hypocrites who believe (or hope) that everyone in the country has a really short memory. To behave as if the other side has no morals when it has been clearly demonstrated to me that neither side has morals is pathetic.
If only the Rs had used their time in power well, I might be more disposed to believe their protestations of righteousness now. As it is, I think they're all a bunch of hypocrites, just like the Ds. Neither side has my support.
...that you can sit on the fence and watch while the greater of two nessasary evils(metaphorically speaking of course) attempt to undermine the troops in the field and place the fault at the feet of the sitting President.
How nice of you to pass judgement on our political system,while not perfect is the best there is on the planet,and lend your support to neither party when it's abundantly clear that the Republicans are more interested in winning a war against a determined enemy than funding spinach growers(I like mine with vinager).
I am a life long Republican but if R's weren't interested in fighting the Islamics because the President was from the other Party,I'd vote for the other party because NOTHING else is as important as waging war against Islamic Extremists,Nothing.
Once we beat them into the ground,we can go back to petty partisan politics and business as usual.
This war is too important not to take sides and make a stand with those that want whatever victory in this war will look like.
"You never need a firearm,until you need it BADLY!"
haven't acted accordingly. the war is the most important thing, but many GOP leaders have not made explaining and promoting it their top priority.
but i'm with you: i'd vote democrat if i thought the democrats were going to prosecute the war better, deal with iran and syria better, etc.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
then I would have not reached the conclusion that they were all hypocrites and they would not have been voted out of power. It's one thing to say you stand for something and quite another to actually practice it when you have the opportunity. The fact that I am an independent doesn't mean that I don't make choices, it just means that I have come to the reasoned conclusion that neither party represents my interests very well and that I really can't believe anything either of them say. You as an established partisan may actually believe what you say, but can you actually say that the elected members of your party are not hypocrites? And that they had a tremendous opportunity to do good things for this country but failed? The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
While it's true that R's acted too much like D's in spending, R's also passed some good legislation in President Bush's tax cuts which helped bring about some of this prosperity that we're enjoying. Perhaps you missed this as the Media never seems to mention anything that reflects well on the President or the Republican party.
I'm one of those R's that is a firm believer that all politicians are crooks and it's simply a matter of choosing the less crooked to do the nations business.
The D's have been pushing that the war in Iraq was/is a huge mistake that is doomed to failure but I believe that history will show that President Bush's "war of choice" was the right thing to do at that time in history.
The D's big mistake will be that they fought against everything that this administration tried to do to combat the spread of Islamic Extremism.
Perhaps we'll only know how big that mistake was after the next 9/11 style attack.
President Bush is doing something,The D's are for doing nothing but surrendering,That's not a party I can get in line with.
Winning the war is ALL that matters,everthing else is just window dressing.
Even if the D's win in '08 the real reality will be that they will find that they have a war to fight,whether they want to or not.
Just because D's don't want to fight,doesn't mean that the enemy doesn't want to kill us anymore.
"You never need a firearm,until you need it BADLY!"
was that instead of using their majority to build a consensus on issues (which would have appealed to independents like me, but would have required compromise on their part) they used it to bludgeon the opposition, polarize the country, and characterize the issues that face us as right or wrong, black or white, patriot or not. By addressing major issues as simplistic choices without a hint of nuance, they may have played to their base, but they lost the respect of people like me.
That said, I have to say that the reason I read RedState and participate (occasionally) here is not that I necessarily agree with all or most of the opinions stated, as you can see. But it is a great place to find out what intelligent (and overwhelmingly civil) Rs have to say about things. And sir, I really do respect your opinion and thank you for your replies. I appreciate the time and thought you have put into your posts.
Too bad they have nothing to do with reality. Yes, great stuff like NCLB, out of control spending, and Medicare Part D are the result of ideologically driven right-wing extremists that refused to compromise with anybody on anything. You figured it out.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
....I always find myself saying "I wish."
I wish that GWB had been the president that his detractors cast him as. I wish that he'd been uncompromisingly ideological, etc. etc.
His chief problem, IMO, is that he hasn't been. Yes, the country is polarized -- but mostly in regards to the war....not about things like his three major domestic legacies (NCLB, the tax cut, and Medicare Part D).
Ironically enough, I tend to look at the least controversial portions of his presidency as his biggest failures -- and the most controversial and contested (his foreign policy) as his biggest success.
But I'm contrarian like that. ;)
as more liberal and less libertarian than I am, but I agree with you about NCLB, the tax cut, and Medicare Part D. I would personally have preferred that NCLB not be passed, the tax cut be smaller, and that the drug benefit not happen until we could afford it. So if you accept that I don't consider those policies to be successes, then you will see that I have precious little to be happy about lately.
who said they are no different than the Democrats while ignoring that it was the Democrats who used parlimentary tactics to prevent them from achieving their agenda. Had people like you actually made decisions to support conservative Republicans and put them in control of the legislative agenda as opposed to giving them a nominal majority but no control. Are there members who were hypocritical. Sure, but I doubt many of them were more hypocritical than you, who are unwilling to admit to the consequences of your choices.
I'm from Kansas. States don't come much redder than Kansas. The real problem the Rs have out here are that the urban areas of the state prefer moderate Rs to ultra-conservative Rs. So the party here is split, with the Ds being the beneficiaries.
Thank you Congressman Boehner for visiting RedState and for encouraging President Bush to veto this bill. I have a couple of suggestions I hope that you will consider.
1. Have the written opinion of the father of our country, George Washington, concerning the competence of Congress to manage a war be inserted into the Congressional Record. A letter that Washington wrote to a friend about these matters can be found here .
2. Remind fellow Congressmen that the US Navy pilots are no longer practicing bombing runs in Puerto Rico. In other words the US military does not stubbornly remain in locales where the local authority does not want them. The US military is not an illegal occupational force in Iraq. The US is an ally of the newly established sovereign government in Iraq. We leave when the Iraqi government thanks us for our help and says they can take it from here.
No retreat No surrender
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
If Republicans in Congress refuse to fight with all they have, and I mean ALL Republicans, and I mean ALL that they have, they should not expect the troops or rank and file conservatives to do so on their behalf.
I appreciate your comments Congressman, and I agree. Please remember the outrage over this pork when republicans regain power in 2008 or 2010. I'm sure you realize that one of the reasons republicans were voted out of office was because they became too much like democrats and were doing this exact same thing (as far as the pork, not the total disregard for our troops). Never forget that this is the party of Reagan. Thank you for your work and please continue to fight this nonsense bill with all you have knowing that the people stand with you.
I'm impressed. A Redstate poster is calling for the President to veto a spending bill.
My only question is...Why start calling for veto's now? Where were you when No child left behind was passed? Where were you when the "bridge to no-where" was signed? Where were you when the Hurricaine Katrina spending (and more spending) was signed? Where? Where? Where?
We have gone in 20years from believing.."The 10 most dangerous words in the English language is..Hi I'm from the Government and I'm hear to help." To Bush saying "When someone hurts, Government most move". Is a sad, sad, state of affairs.
I hated kool aid in Kindergarden, and I detest it even more so now.
We really appreciate it so much when people miss the current crisies by whining about past slights...
...at least do us the courtesy of reading through the site first.
Moe
PS: Goes for you too, eisenreich.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Umm, I have posted on here before. I was banned because someone thought I was anti-semtic because of a comment I made about Israel,(not my jewish friends)but the country itself. Granted I know to most of you, saying something bad about Israel equals Anti-Semetism.Which it's not.
So I have read this sight for a while.It's Sean Hannity show in writing.
And to the Good Rep. who wrote this post, I'm sorry but this is the biggest joke I have ever read. You're no different than Tom Delay.
nope. "am banned."
If you feel like you've been wronged, use the "contact" feature at the masthead and explain why you'd like to be reinstated. Don't just re-register and return
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
You know very well that it was me. Alas, somebody got to you first this go-round. I have been shamed before my Zionist masters...
Now shoo. And it's anti-Semitism, boychik.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
in passing emergency spending bills laden with pork... As several people have already pointed out, where were the veto calls and outrage when a Republican congress did the same:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=2391
I will speak slowly to better help you understand this.
When...Congress...pulled...that...kind...of...garbage,...
we...here...at...Redstate...called...them...
on...the...carpet...as...well.
Seriously, you are upset because someone is saying to knock it off with the pork? Obey and Pelosi were making no bones about it-they openly said that they couldn't get the votes normally and were stuffing pork into the supplemental left and right to round up the votes for our surrender redeployment.
I know that it's hard, but please do look at Redstate's history before you bring your 3-day old butt in here and crap on our rug.
Fides non in bonus intentions , tamen in bonus factum
For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.
...this diary was not posted by "we here at Redstate," but by one of the very same people most responsible for all that pork being in the prior supplementals. It's quite fair to raise the issue.
was to buy sufficient aquiescence from Dems so that the Reps could get things done.
Nope, I'm not buying the broadbrush.
However... What's that old saying...? "Looks good on paper"?
With all due respect, sir, while I found myself inspired by your words I could not stop the recurring thought, which loop-tapes through my head quite frequently these days...
Why aren't you guys making these words more public.
It was wonderful to read your words here. But, let's face it. "Here", you are preaching to the proverbial choir. We agree, for the most part and we understand what is really going on behind the facades of "support the troops but not the war", "culture of corruption", and the pork-barrel insult...
Why aren't you out in the American face saying this? Why are you not standing behind our president more visibly and vocally?
Why aren't you as angry as we are about the Democrats risking the lives of our Soldiers and the security of our country to exercise the revenge they've been stewing over when George Dubya kicked their backsides at the polls?
Why aren't you all out there shoving the lies and hypocrisy back in the Democrat's faces... Why aren't you calling them on the carpet... pointing out the realities (of the pork bill and other such nonsense) and forcing them to explain themselves... "Support the Troops but not the war..." ASK them... point blank... ASK them, "What in God's name have you DONE... Tell us ONE THING you have actually DONE to DEMONSTRATE that you support our troops!"
Why aren't you out there telling the American people the truth? Why aren't you out there challenging the Democrats to explain what they are doing and why they say some of these degrading things they say about our country and the soldiers out there fighting to defend us from those who want to kill us. Ask them about their flip-flops and inconsistencies regarding nearly every position they take regarding the (shhhh) “Global War on Terror”?. ASK them why they can't even admit there IS a war? Ask them why they want to LOSE! And don’t let them squirm away! Don't let them give the song and dance and change the subject… MAKE THEM GIVE US A STRAIGHT ANSWER!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JEEEZE this drives me nuts!
Okay… I feel better... for now
Thank you for letting me vent.
"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."
Where are the GOP/RNC ads castigating the liberals for their craven policies and actions?! I see basically no response from anyone in Washington calling them to account. Where are the rallies being sponsored, the groups being formed of military veterans? Why is the GOP so weak when we still have the Executive Branch and 49 Senators?!!
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MefVXl4AWO4
It was produced by the NRCC and is linked on the front page of their website (NRCC.org).
One nation, in the courtrooms, with litigiousness and judicial activism for all.
The GOP needs to start running ads that remind/educate people on what happened in Cambodia after the US pullout from S. Vietnam.
Iran takes hostages right after Congress votes to withdraw. My, what a coincidence!
... and one more thing...
Would someone please grow some Kahunas and publicly come right out and tell these idiot Democrats... "YES, damn it... now that you mention it, WE ARE questioning your patriotism!!!!"
"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."
since you're a Patty, and you likely have no reason to care, it's "cajones" not "kahunas".
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
It's "Patricia"... not "Patty"... and what does my name have to do with anything?
Odd though... you' would ignore the substance of what I posted and focus on something as trivial as the misspelling of one word.
"becker"...
I wonder how I could misspell that to make a point?
Hmmmm
"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."
but I wouldn't if I was you...
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
First of all, I agree with the thrust (no pun intended jdub) of your post.
Second, look up the word.
Third, I've been called worse. Although usually by someone who was armed.
/snark>
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
freaking laugh Becker....
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
No... confused.
You ignore a point and focus on trivialities.
My grandmother taught me... "We attack only those things that make us feel threatened." so... somehow... out of all that has been posted here regarding what is supposed to be the point of this discussion (which you avoided) I must have touched a nerve in you somewhere and made you look at a truth you didn't want to see.
Still, the only response you could come up with was... "cajones"?
And you accuse someone else of being unarmed?
At least I show up to play tennis with a racquet… not bat.
"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
First of all, I apologize for referring to you as Patty. I should have referred to you as Patricia.
Second, and attempting to be "family friendly", the word "cajones" is a Spanish (actually, it's probably Spanglish) slang term referring to "testicles".
Third, I, and likely none of the rest of the testosterone community here, have a clue what a "kahauna" might be. I'm passing on a snark opportunity here.
My original comment to you was intended only to indicate that since you are a woman (Patricia?) you wouldn't necessarily have any reason to know "cajones" hence "kahaunas".
When I referred to being called worse by someone who was armed, I wasn't thinking of a bat or a tennis racquet, I was thinking more in terms of a gun or a knife.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
My spell checker doesn't do Spanish. Thanks.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Call the office in the Capitol that's in charge of enrolling bills. Talk to Janet or Roy or whoever is the chief enroller. Ask them when the bill should be enrolled - as in date and time. At the appointed time, having confirmed that the bill is ready to be sent to him, inform Janet or Roy that it will be unnecessary to send him the bill as he will be right over.
Take the motorcade to the Capitol. Take the veto pen. Go through regular security, being sure to give the pen to capitol police so that it won't set off the metal detector. Do not slap capitol police. Do not bring weapons not registered to you. Inform that you'll need the pen back though, because you intend to use it.
Go to Janet or Roy's office. Ask for the bill. Veto the bill on THEIR desk. After thanking Janet/Roy, hold a very brief press conference outside their office where you explain that given the imminent threat of cutting off funds to our troops and their families you believed it appropriate to get the ball rolling on a real supplemental funding bill as soon as possible. Hence you didn't wait for the bill to be delivered to you. (And you didn't allow the bill to even escape the capitol building itself). Then urge Congress to get you a real supplemental funding bill you can sign and promptly head back to the White House.
There was once a George Bush with this kind of chutzpah. Is he still around?
Thank you Congressman Boehner and Redstate for this post on a very emotional, controversial and important issue that this country is dealing with.
I've read in depth from many blogs, opinion pages, and editorials, both conservative and liberal. I can relate to arguments on both sides. This post states "Democratic leaders would put America’s national security on such thin ice by playing politics with troop funding". I'm assuming this is akin to the statement "fight them there instead of fighting them here". I've heard that statement many time but I've yet to see or hear someone elaborate on it's meaning. With all due respect, it seems to be used more as a "filler" than anything else. I'm scratching my head as to how our national security is at stake. I don't anticipate that the civil war there would simply board a transatlantic flight here to the USA. Iraq has no army or navy. Seriously, there isn't a country in the Middle East that's a credible military threat to the USA. I understand that oil rich thugs in the mountains of Afghanistan can plot out schemes against us but I don't understand that our presence in Iraq or lack of is a factor. If we were to leave, wouldn't Turkey, Syria, Jordon, and Saudi Arabia be able to withstand any overspill of the Iraq civil war? Wouldn't we still defend Kuwait or even Qatar if needed?
The goal of the insurgents seem to be to kill Americans at any cost. With us gone, the Shia would no longer tolerate Al Qaeda . Unless Al Qaeda formed an army and navy and promptly decided to conquer the USA, they'd be basically rooted out or destroyed.
I'm open minded enough to consider any realistic discussion as to how our national security is relevant to us being in Iraq. I just simply haven't encountered any.
"I'm open minded enough to consider any realistic discussion as to how our national security is relevant to us being in Iraq."...?
Try this link.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqq...
An excerpt of the article reads:
"We know about this relationship not from Bush administration assertions but from internal Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) documents recovered in Iraq after the war--documents that have been authenticated by a U.S. intelligence community long hostile to the very idea that any such relationship exists.
We know from these IIS documents that beginning in 1992 the former Iraqi regime regarded bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset. We know from IIS documents that the former Iraqi regime provided safe haven and financial support to an Iraqi who has admitted to mixing the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. We know from IIS documents that Saddam Hussein agreed to Osama bin Laden's request to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state-run television. We know from IIS documents that a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden stayed for more than two weeks at a posh Baghdad hotel as the guest of the Iraqi Intelligence Service."
"I just simply haven't encountered any."
Go here:
http://www.september11news.com/
"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."
Thank you Patricia for your response and links. The Weekly Standard article suggests vague associations between AQ/OBL and Saddam but not enough to say that our involvement is contingent on the safely of the USA. I have no doubt that there was contact between the two. Although they equally hated us, the two were not compatible enough to devise an attack on us. I'm also sure that Saddam was overly and ecstaticly elated when our towers fell. I understand how American citizens were outraged and in support of his demise. If I were given a chance, I would have gladly killed Saddam myself. If I could today, I'd kill OBL in an instant even if it cost me my life. This brings up the disappointment in your link to September11news. I'm asking the meaning of "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here". You send me to a site of our country under attack, our towers coming down, and of B Ladin sitting back. Does this make my blood boil in revenge? Does it make me want fight for this country? Support our troops with all I have? YES, YES, and YES. But it does not connect Iraq with 9/11. It does not explain how if we stay in Iraq, this cannot happen again. Quite honestly, it insults my intelligence. Patricia, I'd like for you to think back just prior to the Nov 7, 06 elections when President Bush was campaigning. He was asked point blank, "what does Iraq have to do with 9/11". His verbatim one word response was "nothing". I can support many aspects of this war but I cannot support the assumption that we will fight them here if we withdraw. You seem like a very articulate and intelligent person Patricia and I'm assuming that you simply were busy or just tired of responding to closed minded defeatist so you just sloshed down a few links and an excerpt and went on your way. It certainly fell short of "realistic discussion" so as of yet, "I haven't encountered any".
Like it or not we need it economically and without that we can't defend ourselves or our friends. Most don't want to admit it but the interruption of oil from the region would cause an economic collapse globally.
If we leave with our tail between our legs do you think we would ever be able to defend Kuwait and Qatar? Nope, a few road side bombs and we are out of there too. If we don't make a stand there do we then leave South Korea and anywhere else we are in the world? No you are right our honor and our word has nothing to do with our national security. No, we come home, dig a hole and pull it in behind us.
Most don't want to admit it but the interruption of oil from the region would cause an economic collapse globally.
Many of those who maintain, "No War For Oil", are against drilling in ANWR, off shore in CA and FL, etc.
Oh wait, it doesn't. I guess you missed the fact that we've been at war with fanatics who are mostly based out of the ME for the past three decades. That war would still need to be fought even if there wasn't a drop of oil in the ME.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
it's politics and it's geographic location. AQ lead us into Afghanistan and Saddam into Iraq. They just happen to be on Iraq's borders who btw are the problem in the whole region. We need to deal with Iran before they nuke up. Bush understands this but the Dems don't. If you want to talk about oil look at that little narrow strait that it passes through.
So how, exactly did AQ lead us into Afghanistan? By threatening our oil supply? No. By carrying out an attack on NYC and DC. We need to deal with Afghanistan and Iraq (and yes, Iran) for the same reason we need to deal with the problems in the rest of the middle east, and that isn't oil. These people want to kill us and we can't just continue to ignore that as we did throughout the 80s and 90s. They've proven they have what it takes to strike at us anywhere in the world, including on our own soil.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
What strategy do you have for getting a clean funding bill after President Bush vetos this pork fest?
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.