After months of waffling, the United States Congress finally passed a military spending bill. It's been sent to the White House for the president's signature, but he's not likely to sign it. The bill provides $50 billion for four months' funding of the war, but only if President Bush begins immediately withdrawing troops from Iraq. It's similar to one the president vetoed earlier this year.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told reporters that funding for the Iraq war was conditional to force the president to begin withdrawing U.S. troops. The speaker threatened that if the president vetoed the bill, she would not allow another war spending bill to go before Congress for the rest of the year.
Pelosi later told reporters, "It's a war without end. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. We must reverse it." It was the 58th bill this year sponsored by the Democrats that has been tied to an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Once again, this proves that the liberals, most of whom are Democrats, don't comprehend that we are in a war – not of our choosing – against an enemy that is dedicated to our destruction. And these radical Muslims are willing to fight on for generations to achieve that goal. These religiously motivated fanatics must be deprived of their bases and destroyed. Otherwise, they will use suicide bombers to destroy our cities and our country.
Pelosi said that with the legislation, "We are restating the differentiation between us and the president of the United States. This gives voice to the desires of the American people."  
In essence, the Democrats' strategy is to force the U.S. to surrender by starving out our own troops! She noted that more U.S. soldiers have died this year in Iraq than in any year since the fall of Saddam.
It's interesting, though, that the speaker carefully avoided any mention of the fact that U.S. combat-related deaths have been falling steadily since the implementation of the new surge policy in June. Obviously, she and her liberal congressional colleagues are attempting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And they have the audacity to claim they're doing it for the troops.
I'm astonished by their reasoning. They plan to help the troops by depriving them of the necessary equipment with which to defend themselves. That, they say, will force the Pentagon to bring them home.
But according to a report from USA Today, most American troops in the field don't really want to come home – at least, not until the job is done. It appears that many of the troops would rather "make-do and improvise" with the equipment they have than leave the battlefield to an enemy they know would soon be at our doors.
Liberal Americans think we can just say to the Muslim terrorists, "We don't want to fight any more, so we are going home – and you can, too." They think that will cause them to leave us alone. History shows that simply encourages them to attack.
In an interesting development, the newspaper reported that U.S. forces have apparently been "cheating" on a test designed to spot traumatic brain injuries from the concussion of nearby explosions.
Administered by medics in the field, it's designed to uncover subtle signs of brain injury. Those who fail the test undergo more sophisticated exams for diagnosing brain injury. If symptoms persist, soldiers are pulled out of combat and sent home.
To prevent that from happening, USA Today reports that the troops have been cheating on the examination. They've memorized portions of the test used to gauge short-term memory in order to pass.
The tests are necessary and important. Undetected brain injury risks not only further damage, but could compromise safety or mission security. That said, these brave military professionals don't sound like victims. They don't sound like forces facing defeat in the face of a determined enemy. They don't even sound like they have a morale problem – unless it's how to prevent being sent home before their mission is accomplished.
Instead, what it sounds like is that self-serving politicians are cynically manipulating their bravery. They are willing to deprive them of weapons, vehicle maintenance, ammunition and even food to force them to surrender and leave as part of their election strategy for 2008.
In 2003, the left's protest mantra was "No blood for oil." Apparently, "blood for votes" is perfectly acceptable. Using this strategy may get them votes now, but the ultimate result will be much American blood spilled in America's streets.
Original Source