House Republican moderates, in a remarkably blunt White House meeting, warned President Bush this week that his pursuit of the war in is risking the future of the Republican Party and that he cannot count on GOP support for many more months. Read the whole article here.

President Bush has been steadfast in his position on Iraq, we have seen some straying off course over the past 2 days as the President has agreed to establish benchmarks. “One message I have heard from people of both parties is that benchmarks make sense and I agree,” Bush said. The administatrion plans to set up meeting with the Presidents Chief of Staff and members of congress, in order to agree upon a series of benchmarks.

House Republicans are doing the right thing by telling the President their position, like most Americans they are equally tired of the war. As well GOP needs to consider what their actions today will do to impact their 2008 election prospects.

The Politico Reports:

On a largely party-line vote, 221 to 205, the House narrowly approved another $42.8 billion in defense spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – the first stage in a two-step, phased-in emergency spending package.

The vote followed President Bush’s earlier public concession that he would accept selective “benchmarks” in compromise legislation that would be linked to the performance of the Iraqi government in curtailing violence and stabilizing the war-torn country.

The President has also threatened to veto this bill, which I highly disagree with. I believe that the idea of benchmarks that Congress is requesting is something that in this scenario is warranted, however this could set a precedent for future wars, which could hurt our countries cause.

I commend the Democrats for being steadfast in their position to perform there oversight duties, however I think that this maybe going to far. The framers of the constitution worked hard to ensure that no one person has to much power, they did name the President, the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and therefore it is ultimately his decision.

What do you think?

House Democrats were unable to garner enough votes to override the Presidents veto, of Iraq Supplemental Bill. Hopefully we will see a cleaner bill the Congressmen Boehner has spoken about today.

Cong. John Boehner has a post on Red State today describing what the next Iraq funding bill should look like.

1. A clean  bill will not tie our troops to a surrender date.
2. A clean bill will not tie our troops to arbitrary conditions
3. A clean bill will not tie troop funding to excessive spending.

The bill which Cong. Boehner is looking to pass is exactly what needs to pass. The Democrats can’t buy enough vote to overturn the veto. Soon, Congress needs to take a vote on one simple thing, fund our troops or don’t. Choosing the former, would be political suicide. No matter how much you want our troops homes, it the responsibility of this government to provide adequate armor and equipment for its soldiers in a war.

What do you think? 

Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel and presidential hopeful said that any of the candidates who voted for the war, should not be President.

“I do not feel that a person who voted for the war — because that’s a judgment call — is qualified to be President of the United States,” Gravel told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “Fifty million Americans made an opposite decision.”

The information presented to those who voted for the war, caused them to believe that the war was the right thing to do. Holding one vote over the heads of candidates is uncalled for. This is just a political ploy of a tier three candidate.

Gravel also said that these candidate have said, “they have all made statements with respect to Iran that everything is on the table,” he said. “That’s code for nukes.”

The American public should look at the situation with Iran as a separate issue from Iraq. Meaning that all options should be on the table with Iran. Indeed “that’s code for nukes,” it means Iran is a serious issue and that mean all options are on the table.

What do you think? 

Rep. John Murtha appeared on Face the Nation this morning and said that he would consider impeachment as a way to handle the Presidents war in Iraq.

“What I’m saying, there’s four ways to influence a president. And one of them’s impeachment,” Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

This comes as the Presidents veto pen will be drawn from its holster this week, when he vetos the war supplemental bill that includes a timetable for withdrawal.

Murtha continued on to say that the Democratic controlled congress would pass another bill once the President vetos the current bill, this one will have series of benchmarks that must be meant and the issue would be looked again.

“If he vetoes this bill, he’s cut off the money. But obviously, we’re going to pass another bill,” Murtha said. “It’s going to have some stringent requirements. … I’d like to look at this again in two months.”

So basically the Democrats have passed a bill, they knew the President would veto–just to prove a point. Now they have another one ready to go that will send them the funding, with benchmarks, a bill which many Republicans support.

What do you think? 

Congressman Dan Burton, R-Indiana, sent a letter Thursday to President Bush asking him to address the public about his threat to veto any act that provides for a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq.

Rep. Burton, a conservative Republican from Indiana, expressed support for the president’s veto threat, but pressed him to explain the decision to the American public during a prime-time address.

“I believe that I speak for the vast majority of Republicans in Congress,” Burton wrote, “when we say that only you can make the American people understand as well.”

Burton continued by urging Bush to “have a frank and forceful heart-to-heart discussion with America,” about Iraq.

The American public needs to know why the President is going to veto the bill, however it will not impact his approval ratings. The President deserves credit for being steadfast on his position towards Iraq, many politicians would crumble to help the numbers but Bush is not. Maybe that is not the smart thing to do, however people don’t realize the magnitude the issue of setting a date for withdrawal would be. It would create a hiatus in violence in Iraq till we left and then an all out civil war would break out or worse violence would increase and more American soldiers would be lost.

What do you think? 

This week the U.S. Congress passed a bill, which the President has vowed to veto. The bill provides the funding for the war in Iraq, however it includes a timetable for withdrawal.

According to the piece of legislation, the withdrawal of U.S. troop would have to begin in October, 2007 and be completed by March, 2008.

The Democrats have pulled a slick political move here, next Tuesday is the anniversary of the “Mission Accomplished” speech President Bush gave about an Naval ship. They know he is going to veto the bill, and are hoping for it to be done on Tuesday.

The Democrats are playing a political game with the lives of our troops, and their families. It needs to STOP now, provide the funding in a patriotic way and figure out a plan to bring them home that does not starve them of the armor and ammunition they need.

What do you think?

In his official announcement speech, Sen. McCain separated himself from the Bush administration.

They won’t accept government’s failure to deliver bottled water to dehydrated babies or rescue the infirm from a hospital with no electricity. They won’t accept substandard care and indifference for wounded veterans. Read the entire speech here.

Sen. McCain needs to separate himself from the administration in order to appeal to the moderates in New Hampshire, who are permitted to vote in the primaries. McCain furthered his “anti-Bush” position in an interview wth Mike Allen at The Politico.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told The Politico that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign, becoming the most prominent Republican to desert the White House over the bungled firing of U.S. attorneys.

“Out of loyalty to the president, he should obviously step down,” McCain said. “He’s not serving the president well. I reached that conclusion a long time ago. I just haven’t been asked.” Read more here.

McCains, new “anti-Bush” stance is not a surprising one. Sen. McCain has been loyal to the President for a long time, but in order to win, he must begin to point out the flaws that we all know exist. His new stance on Iraq, is something that many Americans have been waiting for. He has been a proponent of the surge, but now he has come clean and recognized that America has made a mistake, and must never make that mistake again.

Sen. McCain again said in his official announcement speech:

But in the many mistakes we have made in this war, a few lessons have become clear. America should never undertake a war unless we are prepared to do everything necessary to succeed, unless we have a realistic and comprehensive plan for success, and unless all relevant agencies of government are committed to that success. We did not meet this responsibility initially. And we must never repeat that mistake again.

What do you think? 

Last week Harry Reid declared that the war in Iraq is lost. Several leading Democrats said this week that they did not agree with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s recent statement that “the war is lost” in Iraq, even while they support his broader message.

Saying “the war is lost,” sends a message to our troops to stop fighting it over, and leaves them vulnerable. The democrats need to learn how to support our troops. If my brother were in Iraq right now and I was told “the war is lost,” I would ask why isn’t he home. If American troops are still in combat, we have not lost the war.

Jim Manley, Reid’s spokesman, has said that the comment was not in Reids prepared remarks. What Reid meant was, the mission in Iraq is not working and must be changed.