Support The Troops?!

[tecelote]

The NY Times ran has this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/washington/politicsspecial/15troops.html

Here is a quote from it:
"Some say that Democrats won control of Congress with promises to force change and have a responsibility to do so; others warn that the party could incite accusations of undercutting the troops by limiting funds for them."

The war is wrong and needs to end. That is what the American people want. It is the moral and ethical thing to do. It is what Congress should be working toward.

Yet, if I read this right, some Democrats fear that by not funding this failure further that they will be looked upon as not supporting the troops?! That's a bunch of bull.

For PR, all the Democrats in Congress need to do is send a clear message that they are funding what needs to be funded to begin bringing our troops home. They can beat the rap of not supporting our troops by supporting them better than this administration has. Let's do a better job of supporting our troops on the ground and let's improve veteran's benefits.

Congress also needs to stop the waste by running a better war and investigate where the alleged billions of dollars lost to fraud went. Hold people accountable.

This war is wrong for America.

Congress needs to do what they know needs to be done.

[rodeodance]

1. lots of dems are fearful of that--being kicked for not supporting

the troops

[unhappycamper]

2. The VFP supports our troops.

[Slothrope]

3. There should be no "non-binding" resolutions

It's a worthless exercise. The Dems need to make all resolutions against the war BINDING and put their names on the line. Otherwise, the pubs can always claim the votes are strictly political and give aid and comfort to the enemy.