 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
REID: AMERICA CANNOT AFFORD BUSH STRATEGY ANY LONGERGiven the $40 billion in pork projects the House and Senate have tacked on to this bill, I think the "afford" issue is the wrong attack.Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, released the following statement today after comments made by President Bush at the White House:
The President today asked the American people to trust him as he continues to follow the same failed strategy that has drawn our troops further into an intractable civil war. The President's policies have failed and his escalation endangers our troops and hurts our national security. Neither our troops nor the American people can afford this strategy any longer.
Democrats will send President Bush a bill that gives our troops the resources they need and a strategy in Iraq worthy of their sacrifices. If the President vetoes this bill he will have delayed funding for troops and kept in place his strategy for failure.
Unless, of course, you are absolutely unconcerned about how the press will cover the story.
By the way, can anyone, pro- or con- the war, explain why spending an extra $100 billion then leaving is a good idea? (I'm really more interested in the anti-war response.)
Finally, here's how "the Pentagon" will respond if funds aren't made available in time. Because I already know there's no answer to my question above, I'll repeat here that the pork-laden bill to stop the surge and withdraw troops from Iraq is not the supplemental Iraq and Afghanistan funding bill that will ultimately (and hopefully soon) have to be debated in congress - it's a political ploy, and a dangerous one to be conducted in time of war.
