Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (56391)	3/23/2007 8:49:18 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

IBD Editorial Cartoon ibdeditorial.com

To: Sully- who wrote (56391)	3/23/2007 8:56:33 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

IBD Editorial Cartoon ibdeditorial.com

To: Sully- who wrote (56391)	3/23/2007 10:27:51 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 90947

A Vote Too Far Editorial By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Friday, March 23, 2007 Congress: In passing a bill that will force a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq, Democrats have again shown why they can't be trusted with our nation's security — or with spending money responsibly. How sad that Congress' new majority didn't have the guts to take a straight-up vote on withdrawing troops without linking it to all sorts of pork-barrel spending. This shows Democrats don't have the courage of their convictions — unless bribed. As far as party ideals go, using our troops as a bargaining chip for pork really descends to the basement. It also breaks two pre-election promises: Not to pursue a time-specific withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and to remain good stewards of the public fisc. If the bill were to pass in the Senate, U.S. troops would start returning from Iraq in just four months. All combat troops would be out by March 31, 2008 — no matter what's going on in Iraq then. Not surprisingly, the 218-212 vote was mostly along party lines. Of the 218 votes for the bill, only two came from Republicans. The 212 voting against it included just 14 Democrats. We keep reading Congress is "deeply divided" over the war. But that's true even for Democrats. Anti-war "Code Pink" Democrats didn't want to spend anything on the war, while other, more sensible Democrats rightly fretted over looking weak on the war on terror if they sought to pull the troops out. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bridged the gap by doing what any sensible — and unscrupulous — politician would: She bribed them. The bill ended up costing $124 billion, $22 billion more than President Bush requested. How's that for Democrats' pledge to be fiscally responsible? Consider it a 20% tip for services rendered by those in Congress who forgot their once-solid scruples and sold out. We hope the added billions spent — for things such as surplus peanut storage, aid to spinach growers, dairy subsidies and "asbestos abatement" in the U.S. Capitol — will assuage the guilty consciences of those who voted for it. (By the way, Pelosi & Co. also held some worthy things hostage as well, like disaster and drought relief. But those should have been voted on in separate bills.) The Democrats have lost whatever tenuous hold they might have had on the claim to be trustworthy on national security issues. They've become a party of political expediency. They voted for the war in 2002, but now that the war has lost popularity they want to cover their posteriors. The very picture of political cowardice. Pelosi said Friday's vote on war spending and withdrawal marked a "historic day." She's right, though not in the way she thinks. For on that day her party reached its nadir, showing that not even national security stands in the way of Democrats' lust for power and desire to punish those they despise and seek to ruin, even if it means America loses a war. "These Democrats," Bush said, "believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal and their pet spending project. This is not going to happen." Bush promises to veto the measure if it gets to his desk. He should, and let the battle for the future begin. ibdeditorials.com