Supplemental Spending Bill

The Congress of the United States is acting like a mentally disabled child. I was going to say they were acting retarded, but I didn't want to offend anyone. Either way the House and Senate are not serving their country responsibly.

Both the Senate and the House have each passed bills for supplemental funding of the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Once these two seperate bills come out of conference they will become one bill and be sent to the President for his signature or veto. While President Bush has only vetoed one, yes you read right, ONE bill( that is a whole different topic) he will veto this bill and I will actually agree with him on this one.

The reason for the veto will be because of timelines for withdrawal of troops from Iraq that will be in the bill. One of the bills states a date of March 2008 and one calls for a date of September 2008. So lets assume in conference they set a middle ground of July 15th 2008. Is this a reasonable date to start withdrawing troops from Iraq?

Now I am far from a republican, and I believe President Bush 43 is the worst president since the do nothing presidents of the late 1800's. But when it comes to announcing future dates of withdrawal from Iraq, that is something idiotic that can not be tolerated. Here is why.

Lets say you rob houses for a living. Sure, not a very honorable profession, but it pays for your child's milk and your meth habit. Now let us assume that you have a house on your radar for a possible heist. You know there is a ton of valuable stuff inside, but have no idea when to break in. Then the owners of the house give you a call and tell you they are going on vacation next week. You would be quite ecstatic wouldn't you?

This is the problem of announcing a set date for withdrawal. Anyone that wants to cause trouble in the region can just lay low and then pounce on the country once soldiers and marines are in their rear view mirror. This goes for terrorists and the country ofIran as well.

The election of 2006 was a strong vote against the current situation in Iraq. Democrats won six seats in the Senate and over thirty in the house because of the American public's feelings over soldiers and marines paying the ultimate sacrifice on an almost daily basis in Iraq. So people all over the country want our troops out of harms way. I am one of those people. But to be frank, the United States will have troops in Iraq for atleast five to ten years. And those numbers are optimistic.

Iraq was a stable nation before the invasion. It wasn't a poster child for humanitarian rights, but it was not a breeding ground for Al Qaeda and other terrorists. Now the country is a lawless wreck, and has become a safe haven for ruthless killers and thugs. So until Iraqis can take full control of their borders and police their own streets, Americans will be inside Iraq.

My belief is American forces should not be involved in patrolling the streets of Baghdad and other chaotic cities in the country. Place troops on the border to prevent foreign fighters from entering Iraq. Have troops in heavily fortified bases to train Iraqi military and police forces. Also use troops to repair important infrastructure like power plants and public transportation. But anytime a car bomb goes off in a crowded market, no soldier or marine should be in that area.

Congress is aware that President Bush will veto the bill they are planning on sending him. So instead of trying to gain political points by saying that "I voted for withdrawal but Bush vetoed it," the men and women of Congress need to fund the troops without a date for withdrawal. The situation in Iraq is bad right now, but it could actually be worse. If the country does not improve, we may need to rename it. How does Afghanistan of 2001 sound?