Don’t Like the War, Rename It
by Big Dog on Apr 4, 2007 at 08:04 Political
The Global War on Terror (GWOT) is a phrase that George Bush used shortly after 9/11 and it has become part of our everyday language. The word terror has been all but eliminated in certain parts of the world for fear of upsetting, well the terrorists. The MSM in America routinely refers to terrorists as insurgents or freedom fighters and Tokyo Rosie O’Donnell reminds us that these people are mothers and fathers too (who actually teach their children how to wear bomb vests to be martyrs).
This political correctness has now hit the United States Congress. There will no longer be references to the GWOT. The 2008 defense budget has that wording removed and staffers have been told not to use “Bush administration’s catch phrases” and instead will refer to the exact operation. One interesting item from the article points out that the Democrats are not concerned about long deployments and their real goal is to get out of Iraq, with as much shame as possible.
House Democratic leaders who have been pushing for an Iraq withdrawal timetable have talked about the need to get combat troops out of Iraq so they can be deployed against terrorists in other parts of the world…Military Times
All during last year’s campaign we heard countless Democrats talk about how they cared for the troops and that these repeated and long deployments were not right (interestingly, no one asked the troops, many of whom want to get the job done and done right). Murtha and the rest of his cowardly cut and run partners have told us how the military is strained and can not sustain and that we need to bring them home. Now it appears that the Democrats do not care if the troops get home so long as they get out of Iraq. The Democrats want them out so they can be deployed elsewhere around the world, which last time I checked was not home.
This whole idea is nothing more than the Democrat’s attempt to soften America. To the Democrats we were attacked on 9/11 because we deserved it and the people who attacked us had a reason. We must have done something to make them angry and if we would only talk to them we could work it out. The Democrats do not care about fighting our enemies because they were not really affected by 9/11. Sure, Congress was a target (and they would be taking this whole thing more seriously if they had been hit) but they are not really concerned because now they are better protected. There are all kinds of safeguards in place so that every time a threat comes in they all huddle in safe bunkers someplace. Screw the rest of us.
The Democrats are usurping the authority of the President and they are trying to involve themselves in areas that the Constitution does not allow. Getting out of Iraq has been a slower process than they planned and they are worried that the voters, who Democrats erroneously believe elected them to surrender, will send them packing in the next election. The Democrats always put their desire for power ahead of the security of this nation and my only hope is that if we are forced out of Iraq and are attacked again (which I pray never happens) the people who voted to cut and run are the ones hit. Why should everyone else pay for their cowardice?
I have a few pointers, in keeping with the desire to remove catch phrases. That is what the Democrats have said here. They want to be more specific and not use Bush’s catch phrases. So let us eliminate a few other catch phrases that were designed by Democrats to mislead the public:
- Republican Culture of Corruption. Given the Democrats like Jefferson, Reid, Murtha, and Feinstein (who I still demand resign) it is hard to pin corruption on one party. There is corruption on both sides of the aisle.
- Redploy our Troops. Stop using this deceptive phrase when what you mean is surrender. You want us to cut and run and you want it yesterday so just call it what it is.
- Progressives. There is nothing progressive about the Democratic Party and the reason you changed from Liberal is that the word has been associated with all your failures. You are all liberals, no matter what name you use, so stop playing mind games because you are anything but progressive.
- Revenue Enhancements. Stop using this word when you mean tax increases. Tax and spend has been associated with Liberals and that tag hurts you. Changing from tax to revenue enhancement fools those who should not be allowed to reproduce but the fact is it is still a tax.
- George Bush’s War. This is America’s war. George Bush was not attacked on 9/11, America was. Additionally, Congress authorized the war. Stop changing focus in order to make people believe you have no responsibility for this. I wonder, if we have a dramatic turn around and the approval goes through the roof, how many of you cowards will claim you were for it all along?
Those are the Democratic catch phrases we can get rid of, while we are cleaning the catch phrase house out. The Democrats are surrender monkeys and they will not stop until they have ruined this country and emboldened our enemies. If this country is ever attacked again I can only hope that those members of Congress who brought it here are taken out before they get to their bunker. I personally am tired of paying the price for their ineptitude and think it is high time they are held accountable for their acts. They should pay the price for their decisions.
For those of my brothers and sisters in the armed forces who received either the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal
or the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, keep calling them just what they are. If Congress does not like that tell them to take a hike. You earned the medals and Congress can make you call them something else when they demonstrate the courage you did in earning them.
Tags: Political
[…] [Discuss this post over at the Big Dog’s…] […]
Hi Big Dog,
A quick question for you…
The number of Jihadi attacks worldwide have skyrocketed since we invaded Iraq (see the graph at the link below):
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/08/america-iraq-war-7x-more-worldwide-terror/
The last time I saw figures, there were approximately 150 attacks on US troops in Iraq, every day. The President refers to these attackers as terrorists. Arguably, we’re attacked by terrorists more in Iraq everyday (or at least every week) than we have been in any previous era in American history.
A reasonable person would assume that if we were winning Global War on Terror there would be fewer attacks, not substantially more attacks.
Seeing as how the # of attacks has skyrocketed, does this not mean we’re losing the GWOT by definition and that Bush is failing in his quest to fight terrorism?
Your response, with supporting data/evidence, would be appreciated.
Billy Joe,
I don’t know who conducted the study and I do not know if the numbers are accurate. To say there are more terrorist attacks world wide is an interesting observation sine prior to the GWOT there were plenty of attacks. All the time in Israel, throughout England and in Ireland. Admittedly, some of these were not by Muslim terrorist groups committing jihad.
I know that in the past 25 years we have been attacked time and again. We were attacked at our embassies, we were attacked in our own country (first WTC) our troops have been attacked by terrorists such as in Beirut, and on the USS Cole. Fact is, our military has been attacked quite a bit over the years as Muslims tried to draw us into a war. That is what they wanted. America kept hitting the snooze button because it was only a bunch of troops.
Then 9/11 came along and people realized that years of complacency had come home to roost. Are terror attacks increasing?
They might be. Several countries were hit after they pulled their troops out of Iraq (the price for cowardice in the eye of Muslims). I believe that the terrorists might be escalating attacks elsewhere because they are frustrated and they want us to leave Iraq. They believe that they can make others mad enough to get them against us, might be so. I can say this much and this is all that matters to me, we have not been attacked since 9/11.
Besides our soldiers in battle, no American interest has been hit. We have not been bombed in our country or out of it. And this is because we have taken the battle there. An increase in attacks does not mean we are losing. The terrorists are losing and they escalate to try to force us out because they know the left is weak and will eventually run. Bin Laden said it in Somalia when Clinton ran after 18 soldiers were killed. He said America is a Paper Tiger and its people will not stand for bloodshed. He was partly right.
The Vietnamese increased their attacks in that war and they lost every battle. We won that war until our government pulled troops out and the north took over. The axis powers increased their attacks at the end of WWII because they were losing. Are you telling me that a reasonable person would assume that we lost WWII because the axis increased its attacks?
The increase in attacks is not a win/loss thing here. The end result will tell but we can not leave until the war is won handily or we will be attacked here. When that happens I will not say it to you but in your head you will hear I told you so.
We have captured or killed more of them and as long as they keep coming we should keep killing them.
Hi Big Dog,
I appreciate your stab at this. I think some actual evidence/data would bolster your case substantially. If you can such data, that is. As it is, you make a lot of unfounded assertions and for someone who claims to “always be right” there are some glaring oversights in your argument.
For example:
– we *were* attacked after 9/11. Remember the still-unsolved Anthrax attacks?
– American troops are attacked EVERY SINGLE DAY in Iraq. More troops have been killed in Iraq than in Beirut, Somalia, the Cole bombing, the embassy bombings, etc. combined. 20,000+ have been injured.
You call this success? If this is success by your logic, we’ll be even more successful when more Americans are killed and injured.
You can read about the numbers of attacks on US troops in Iraq here:
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/262/New_DoD_Iraq_Report_Undercounts_Attacks
You assert that the rise in the # of terrorist attacks is evidence that we’re winning. By that logic, you could say that we will have won the GWOT when the whole world is fighting us. But I think you would admit, that would hardly be a “success”.
Come on, Big Dog. You can do better than this. Part of the reason the Republicans got their heads handed to them in ’06 was because the majority of Americans feel like they’re being asked to believe something that the *evidence* doesn’t support.
I’ve been trying to find someone (anyone!) who can present a logical, persuasive case that we’re succeeding in the GWOT and I have yet to see anyone who can explain the numbers in a way that is consistent with an actual success (fewer terrorist attacks).
I have other questions ie. where will we find the troops to supply our undermanned military or how much money are we planning to spend on the GWOT but frankly, I’m just interested in finding someone whose argument doesn’t collapse like a house of cards when confronted with readily available facts & data.
Here is more evidence that you’re free to dispute. it’s from page 10 of the Iraq Study Group report:
First of all, we have not been attacked since 9/11 but if you desire to use the anthrax attacks (which immediately followed 9/11) you would do well to realize that these were probably from an inside source and not the Muslim jihadists. If you paid attention you would know that is to whom I was referring, not an inside job.
American troops are supposed to be attacked, they are at war. Have you served? Do you understand the concept of fighting? People attack and defend. As for the number of troops killed, they are soldiers and their job involves possibly dying. The same can not be said for those who died on 9/11.
I did not assert that the rise in attacks is evidence that we are winning. What I asserted was that the attacks are increasing because of the pressure we are putting on them. You continue to say we are losing but there is no evidence to support that. You claim we have not had success, there is no evidence to support that. What I asserted is that the increase in attacks by the terrorists is not an indicator that we are losing (not necessarily one that we are winning).
The reason the Republicans lost (the loss was in line with historical averages so if this is getting heads handed, no wonder you don’t understand the concept of war) is that they became what the Democrats were when we took over. They lacked leadership and supported special interests., They stopped being conservatives and that is why they lost.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to look up a bunch of statistics and some that I get I could not publish any way so if you want to know keep reading. If not, keep on believing what you want.
When we are attacked the terrorists are not the only ones who get shot. Those who enabled them will go as well.
As for the military. We have 1.2 million serving now. How about we take them out of Germany and Korea and let those folks fend for themselves?
That is usually how wars are fought. The Iraq Study Group had a bunch of things wrong. You can read many reports over the last 5 years that paint different stories. I talk to soldiers every day and many of my troops are returning, they say very different things.
But it is war, that is how war goes. Good thing you guys were not running things during WWII. You all would have pulled out when the Germans were handing our asses to us.
Something we agree on: removing our troops from Germany & Korea. I’d add Japan, too. They are all big countries now and don’t need us to babysit them – or spend our money on their defense.
Further to our debate, I’m saying that we’re losing the GWOT *by definition*. If we’re involved in a war on terror and the # of terrorist attacks is skyrocketing steadily as a result of it, that means we’re losing because after 5 years of basically free rein and unlimited funding for the Bush Administration, you’d think the # of attacks would trend downward. Instead we’re attacked multiple times a day in Iraq and Jihadi attacks are up substantially globally, as well.
If you think an increase in the # of terror attacks both on Americans and worldwide is a sign of the terrorists getting desperate because of the “pressure” we’re putting on them (which you seem to be implying is an example of a success), then you have quite a bit in common with Osama bin Laden. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
In summary, you basically fail to present any evidence whatsoever that we’re actually succeeding in the war and you fail to refute the assertion that we’re losing the Global War on Terror by defintion because the # of Jihadi attacks have skyrocketed. Then you turn around and basically tell me you’re too busy to prove you’re “right”. All common debate techniques of “conservative” blowhards.
You then throw in a menacing threat:
Well, Big Dog, I’m not the one who views increased attacks on US troops as a sign we’ve got our enemy on the run. You’re the one who is supporting a policy that has resulted in terrorists attacking our troops, not me.
Using your flawed logic, we should have our troops all over the place acting as targets so that we can say the enemy is getting desperate when they attack us and that is therefore a sign of our success in the War on Terror. Oops, that’s what Bush & his admnistration have done for the past 6 years. Mission Accomplished! What were you saying about those who enable terrorists?
Why don’t you go join your intellectual soulmate, Osama Bin Laden? Your views are amazingly similar.
Otherwise, it might be worthwhile for you to do some actual research. Here’s one… I’ve made it easy – it’s a photo:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
Who was enabling terrorism again, Big Dog?
I do quite a bit of research and reading. As far as research on things like anthrax or any other chem/bio attacks, I can only say that I know more about those topics then you could ever hope to.
There are many ways to look at things such as your picture. We have had relationships with many people who later became enemies. Saudia Arabia, as far as i am concerned, is an enemy but we treat them like friends.
I have one thing in common with OBL, I want my enemies dead. I just don’t teach children to strap on bombs to do it. You can claim empty rhetoric and call me names as much as you would like. The fact is, there are increased attacks on our military. They are in a war and there are many enemies. You assertion that more attacks defines losing is an opinion but that fact bolsters the theory that if we keep fighting them there we will not have to fight them here.
Once again, America has not been attacked since 9/11 (regardless of what you think about anthrax).
I would like it if they would apply your idea that more of a bad thing indicates failure. If they would do that for taxes, welfare, and illegal immigration I would be ecstatic. More taxes brings inflation and stifles the economy, welfare encourages people to be non productive and more illegals results in increased crime and increased strains on services. Using your theory, we should do something to stop all that so call Congress and help them out.
You are using one indicator to show the war is lost.
There are counter opinions:
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200504270759.asp
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03202007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/why_its_working_____opedcolumnists_gordon_cucullu.htm?page=0
Insurgencies (as this is called) take time and the sectarian fighting causes problems. We need an adequate number of forces and we need to stop having wimpy rules of engagement. If they shoot or act aggressively, we should be able to kill them without worrying about being court martialed.
BTW, our troops are target. In war, your enemy considers you a target. We are fighting a war and if we leave we will embolden them. Just think about what Somalia did to give us 9/11. If we had gone back in there and leveled the place we likely would not have been attacked again. However, we have been attacked for decades and we have failed to respond and that has caused the enemy to escalate. Bin Laden wanted to draw us out and if we had not done something after 9/11 there would have been more attacks. He as muh as indicated that the goal was to attack until he could draw the great Satan into a battle.
You can debate whether or not we should have gone to Iraq. There are good points on both sides of that debate. But the fact is we are there now and you can not unring a bell. Now that we are there we must win.
Now we’re getting somewhere. How would you win the war in Iraq? You referred to flattening Somalia. Wouldy you flatten Iraq, too? How would you do so?
How much money and how much time do you think we should be bogged down in the middle east?
If you think Saudi Arabia is an enemy, then what do you think if the incredibly close relationship between the entire Bush family and the Saudis, who are funding terrorists in Iraq? You may remember that Cheney was summoned to Saudi Arabia just a couple of months ago by the King who just said our occupation of Iraq was illegal.
Does the Saudi King tell the Bush administration what to do?
I can never find the anger in the right blogsophere aimed at the Bush Admin cuddling up to Saudi Arabia that I found about, say, Nancy Pelosi visiting Syria.
If we followed my plan to begin with we would not need to flatten Iraq. We should have gone in with at least a half a million troops.
You are espousing the Micheal Moore wing of lunacy with the Bush family Saudi relationship. Is there anything that shows this besides the laments of a few twisted lefties?
Cheney visited Saudi Arabia, did they call him or did he go? Let me guess, it was an evil Halliburton plot.
Pelosi is screwing things up enough with her lack of diplomatic skills. You see, in case you were unaware, diplomacy is an Executive Branch function, not a Legislative Branch one. You folks carp about Bush usurping legislative authority and then applaud Pelosi for usurping Executive authority.
Diplomacy is why we have a State Department. Pelosi has screwed up several times which shows why diplomacy is best left to diplomats.
So you’re admitting the Bush messed up the Iraq invasion from the get-go by not going in with nearly enough troops. Thank you.
The question now is, where do we go from here? There are no plans to increase troop levels to anything near that level and the conditions on the ground are far less favorable than they were 4 years ago so we’ve actually moved backwards, which is what I’ve been saying all along as you’ve been defending the Iraq boondoggle.
FWIW, Congress does have oversight responsiblities and that includes oversight of the Executive Branch and it’s functions (foreign policy, etc.)
If bush is overstepping his constitutional boundaries, then what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right? This is the problem with right-wingers… what are you going to do if Hillary is the President and does what Bush has been doing? Will you just lay down like a doormats then? It’ll be a bit late to whine about it when she can just turn around and say “I’m doing what my predecessor did”.
Finally, regarding the Bush family connections to the Saudi royals (and bin Laden family) it’s well documented. Read the book by Kevin Philips, senior advisor to Nixon’s 68 campaign and author of The Emerging Republican Majority. The book documenting the close Bush family ties to the Saudi’s is:
American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush (2004)
Philips is not a “moonbat.” Are you denying that they have close ties or are you just sticking your fingers in your ears and going “lalalalala” so that you don’t have to confront the ugly truth?
I understand your reluctance to look at facts (it’s a common affliction among authoritarians), but I can’t understand why you guys are so passive about being lied to – about very big issues, no less – day in and day out, right to your faces.
You make a lot of assumptions about me and you know nothing about me. Your surprise at me saying we did not have enough troops as if I was hiding it. If you want research, read this blog and see what I have to say on the subject, then discuss it. I have taken him to task on many things and do not blindly follow. He was the best choice, in my mind, out of Gore and then Kerry.
Congress has oversight as does the executive and judicial. They are co-equal branches. I never said that Bush over stepped his boundaries because I do not believe he has. What I stated was that the left cries about their perception that he over stepped his boundaries but does the same thing. Maybe I was not as clear as I could have been on that.
As far as ties to the Saudis, might have. Don’t care, they don’t dictate foreign policy here. The Clintons had their ties with China.
I look at the facts, I just want to know what lies? Are you talking WMD? Based on intelligence from every credible intelligence agency in the world. The WMD were there and were moved. Hussein had them and used them. I have worked long enough in this field to know he used them and that they were there. I also believe Iraqi Air Force Generals who say they were moved and describe how it was done.
You all act like Bush has told a lie about all this. Basing decisions on intelligence that is available is not a lie. Might I remind you that Both Clintons and many other Dems said the very same things about Hussein and believed that force was necessary to remove him, but that was the truth I guess because Clinton was in office.
I see things based on my experiences and what I know to be true. It does not matter to me if you think we are winning or losing or any thing else. The absolute fact is we are in Iraq and since you can not unring the bell, the only way out is to win.
Clinton may have thought Saddam was dangerous, but he didn’t invade, they boxed him in. Bush Sr. didn’t invade either.
You say Bush doesn’t lie, but he lies all the time. For example, he says that he expects the Democrats to not withhold money from the troops, but they’ve already given him a bill that funds them and HE’S the one withholding money. he’s basically holding them hostage.
He said in ’04 that to spy on Americans requires going to the FISA court to get approval and that he does so, but in fact, he was bypassing it and spying on them directly. Another lie.
I could literally write hundreds of examples. And all of them a lot more serious than whether or not Condi is blowing him in their daily workouts.
I understand we’re in Iraq now. My question to you is, in the face of staggering incompetence with which this President has fought the war, what do we do now? Don’t just say we need “to win”. That’s not a strategy, that’s a bumper sticker. Tell me specifically what we need to do and why it will work. You seem to be an expert on military affairs. What would you do?
Clinton was busy invading Bosnia, without UN approval I might add (not that I think we need it). Clinton said Hussein had the WMD and that military action should be used to remove him. It was OK then.
The law allows wire tapping without a FISA warrant under certain conditions according to the United States Code and the courts have ruled time and again that it is inherent in the president’s authority (another post you will find here)
Bush is not with holding money. Democrats loaded the bill with non war related PORK and a timeline which usurps the authority of the President per Article II section 2 of the Constitution. The Dems are withholding. They said they would laden the bill in order to get us out of Iraq.
It is easy to sit here now and say what would or would not happen but on that day we had no idea how many planes were being used or what all the targets were. That is why they grounded all aircraft.
Congress explodes the debt, not the President. They make the bills and add the pork. The President is guilty of not vetoing it. They are all to blame. The military is not broken. It is a bit battle weary but that is because we don’t have as many as we used to. Clinton cut 13 divisions out of the active Army and eliminated some and put some in the guard to save money. Then, everyone cries when we have to use the guard as much as we do. With the 26 divisions we had, fewer guardsmen would be deployed. Thank Bill for breaking the military.
Our traditional allies have always been wishy washy in their allegiance. They vote against us all the time in the UN. Look at how many of them have dirty hands from the oil for food scam.
Spying on Americans indicates that he was targeting them. The targets were communications out fo this country, especially to known or suspected terrorists. The USC allows for this and the FISA as well as other courts have rendered decisions indicating that this was allowed and part of the inherent authority of the President. Newsflash, Clinton and Carter did it too..
Compare the last administration and this one and see which one had more criminality. Some of what has been alleged is partisan BS. Plame was not undercover and her own husband outed her years before. Libby is charged for lying when records show many people had differing events each time they talked including Russert.
My upside down world involves protecting Americans and making sure my country and my family are secure. It includes making sure that every American sleeps well at night because the sheepdogs are guarding the flock. My upside down world believes that America is the greatest nation on this Earth and that we have provided more hope and assistance than any other country in the world. My upside down world believes that when there is a threat you eliminate it.
If all that is upside down to you then I feel sorry for you. In any event, I don’t plan on changing my mind. I would walk through the gates of hell and back to ensure my country is safe. And I stand behind my Commander in Chief and my troops 100% just like I did when Clinton was the CinC. That is how you win a war.
Anything less and you have Vietnam.
Why don’t you go over to Iraq as a contractor? With all of your military experience, you could make money hand-over-fist AND fight terrorists in Iraq.
I’ll continue serving by shopping, as the President asks us (no one will ever criticize him for asking for too much from the American public, that’s for sure). Maybe I could pur another “support our troops” magnet to good use, too. Whew… all this patriotism is really tiring 😉
Let me just respond to one of your earlier comments. I look forward to your hopefully factual response (evidence and data rather than just assertions is always appreciated – and it bolsters your case).
All of the Iraq funding bills have been loaded with pork! Do you pay any attention whatsoever or do you just accept Bush’s word as the truth? See link below from the *non-partisan* Taxpayers for Common Sense about past Iraq funding bills…
http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/PressReleases/2005/03-03defensedatabase.htm
again, Bush is lying right to your face about his reasons for rejecting the Iraq funding bill (pork) and you buy it hook, like and sinker. No wonder he thinks he can get away with playing the American people for suckers. many are completely passive in the face of his “bearing false witness” and you seem to be one of them.
Let me say I admire your attempts to answer my questions. It’s a great change from the typical cutting and running that is characteristic of the right-wing blogosphere. Again, supporting your assertions with demonstrable facts would be a vast improvement to just repeating talking points like an authoritarian automaton.
I would be happy to go to Iraq but as a soldier. I make plenty of money now so changing jobs for the sake of money would be worthless (though in my current job I could end up there as have many of my fellow employees). You assume that making money hand over fist is important as if since I am a Conservative that is all I care about. Small minded thinkers suckling on the Kool-Aid teat. Your sarcasm fits, go shop til you drop, but don’t break a nail.
What would you have us give up. We are the wealthiest nation on Earth. This is not WWII where they had to have copper and rubber drives.
If only Bill Clinton or Kimmy Carter were in office to rescue us. Oh wait, their inaction gave us the war on terror.
Well Big Dog, I see you have run into the head moonbat, I imagine he is either French or Pelosi’s spokesman…..A waste of time debating issues with folks like this bud, they are fed B.S. and are taught to surrender or quit when things get tough.
the thing that no one takes into consideration is the attacks that haven’t happened because we are in Iraq. As soon as the cut and runners get there way we will see those first hand.
BTW, Billy Joe sounds like a troll I dealt with a while ago. He argues to argue nothing more.. Funny thing about this war on terror, the guys Billy Joe is defending would be the first to hang his ass for his opinions.
Billy Joe, I am getting tired of your assertions and condescending attitude. You sit over there in Japan and act like you are an expert and you do the same thing the trolls like meathead do and that is, you make claims without having facts. You have been commenting on about a half dozen Conservative blogs and we all agree you are obnoxious.
You say that I blindly follow because all the war bills have had pork in them and Bush can speak and I listen. Well let me make this clear because obviously you did not take my advice last time, READ MY BLOG. Quit making assertions that are not based in fact. I know all the bills had pork in them and if you would read you would see that I called for those to be vetoed as well. The major difference between this bill and the others is the time line and that is why it will be vetoed.
I have no doubt in my military mind that if the bill did not have the time line he would sign it. I also know that a war bill should have only war items in it and this crap is why I have called for a line item veto for years. Get your head out of the warm dark place you keep it and smell some fresh air.