Heller on the Democrat’s handling of the war funding bill and withdrawal dates.
“What Congress should not do is try to manage this war by setting arbitrary timelines and reckless dates for withdrawal that accomplish nothing but enhance and empower the enemy. What our soldiers do not need are 535 generals who were boldly for the war before they were boldly against it."
To correct Mr. Heller’s assumptions, it is, according to the U.S. Constitution, the job of the U.S. Congress to declare and fund war. They can also end wars they wage, usually by cutting funding. Therefore, it is a fair compromise for the Democrats to set a possible deadline. I am sure President Bush and his colleagues would be even less satisfied with zero funding. It seems as if Heller would rather have all of the power concentrated in the executive branch of the U.S. Government. But of course that does not make any sense, seeing as he would be out of a job. The funny thing in all of this is that Dean Heller agrees with me that it is perfectly fine for Democrats to manage the war and have an alternate plan.
"If the Democrats would give a plan instead of not being there — that's not a plan. That's not in the best interest of the safety and the security of the American people. Give us a plan. Give us an option. There is no option on the table today."
The Democrats have a plan, and they included it in the current war funding bill. The plan includes ‘being there’ for an allotted amount of time. It also gives us plenty of time to decide whether or not the war in
Heller’s Intelligent Quote of the Month:
(About the State of the Union 2007)
“I told my 16 year old son, this is probably the most dangerous place on Earth to be right now, at the same time it’s probably the most safe place to be right now”
Does that quote even deserve an intelligent reaction?