Originally Posted by aceventura3

Clinton suggested a vote for re-authorization of the war. Perhaps something can be put on the table to fund the troops fully until they are removed from Iraq based on funding and a vote to change the mission.

Thats precisely what was just placed on the table....the funding was there, and the mission was intact. The stipulation was a measuring stick put into the mix for success, rather than simply taking the executive/pentagon word that all is going as planned. To be honest I didn't even see an actual timetable or requirement for withdrawal anywhere in the documents (granted I just browsed it mostly)


In theory this assumes that the Legislative branch works cooperatively. However, they do not. The Executive branch currently controls the Republicans in the Legislature. Holding party lines is too easy. We need people to vote convictions and not party loyalty.

Yes....we do.

Again, in theory this seems correct. However, if the nation has lost confidence in its Executive Branch, then the Legislative Branch has to assume (or take) greater responsibility. I see no real alternative to supporting Bush's plan or supporting another plan. I don't understand how compromise works, and if there is no compromise, what is the Legislative Branch willing to do?