The War Vote

Over the course of the last three days, the US House of Representatives voted to provide continued funding for the war in Iraq contigent upon a specific troop withdrawal date; the President vetoed the bill; and Congress sustained the veto.

Now that lines have been clearly drawn in the sand, the President is asking for, "goodwill on both sides that we can move beyond political statements and agree on a bill that gives our troops the funds and flexibility to do the job that we asked them to do." Well, that seems reasonable.

But, how do we arrive at "goodwill?" Democratic leaders fired back at the president by saying he has, "turned a tin ear to the wishes of the American people." (Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.) That sounds like goodwill to me, how about you?

This is just typical political-speak -- here's the part I really like. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (that's the head Democrat running the House of Representatives) said the Dems will have another war funding bill out soon. It will likely ask for $100 billion or more for troop funding, and some sort of gesture from the President that troops will be sent home in a reasonable time period. Oh, and Stoyer says the bill will also contain legislation for a minimum wage increase.

What??? A minimum wage increase?

Yep. That's pretty logical really ... anyone can see the correlation between funding for troops currently stationed in Baghdad and raising the federal minimum wage are issues, right?

This is how the game is played in our nation's capital -- if the President wants one thing, he has to ante up with something else. So, our troops get money if a high school dropout working at McDonalds gets another 50 cents an hour.

Strike you as ludicrous? And politicians wonder why the voting populace is a little skeptical?


-- Quotes taken from article by Charles Babington , Associated Press