IF CONGRESS PASSES A "NO CONFIDENCE" VOTE FOR THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, CAN A "NO CONFIDENCE" VOTE FOR THE MILITARY BE FAR BEHIND?

For sure, all those great pontificating, governators up there on Capitol Hill would be the first to tell me that I have somehow misunderstood the intent of their non-binding resolution.

They've set aside four days for a marathon debate on our military presence in Iraq.

But since every poll I've seen about the approval rating for congress shows a huge disconnect between Capitol Hill and the people who actually live and breathe out here in the heartland -- and pay taxes, too, I might add.

Maybe Congress is showing some more connection by having this vote?! I guess bobble-heads like J. Reinheimer don't want to look at the new numbers of those who disagree with this war and how it is run. If the GOP doesn't wake up and see reality instead of living in Bush-World, we'll take an even bigger thumping in 08. Maybe it's time to actually start demanding answers from our President instead of soundbites and yes-men.

It's sad to see the type of poorly informed comment that Jane posted. The Democrats taking back control of congress was a pretty strong message from the people that Bush is headed in the wrong direction. I think this resolution is an expression of the majority (at least 68% by the latest polls) of the country who think that Bush is wrong, this war is wrong & sending more of our brave soldiers to die in an ill conceived & terribly executed war is wrong. Please Jane, although the Bible is a good book, you really need to read the news more.

There is a duty to support a mission that can be accomplished . There is no duty to support one that can't.

I have a good poll for all americans.Do you want to see us win this war?Yes or No.

so what if congress passes a No-Confidence bill. What does that mean?
It means absolutely nothing and it certainly changes nothing.
Just more talk from those talking talkers.

Jeff, who's to say what can and can't be accomplished? You?

S Dickerson, my answer is Yes.

A better poll question for americans would be- Do you want to spend the lives of american soldiers needlessly in a war all the experts say is unwinnable? Yes or No?

S Dickerson, I also vote yes.

Now tell me your plan, because Bush seems to talk a good game, but can't play it. Of course we want to win. Please don't question patriotism because others disagree. Don't be a "bobble-head".

Maybe we would have already won this war if Bush would have listened to two men who have fought in a war; led troops in a war; won a war: General Shinseki and Gen. Colin Powell (Ret.) instead of two men, who when American called on them to pick up a rifle, stand a watch and fight for their country took a handful of deferrments. The problem for this President is he listened to a bunch of CHICKEN-hawks like Cheney and Rumsfeld and fired all the good generals until he got a lackey to do his plan.

20,000 troops won't secure. How about 250,000. Hmmmmmm? Where have I heard that advice before? Oh, yes. THE GENERALS!

Bush should have been more worried about securing Baghdad, like Powell advised him to do, instead of making photo-ops.

So I throw it back to you S. Dickerson. This President and his inept leadership has made this war a disaster. Those of us with family in Iraq (GO LANCE!!! Camp Anaconda) and who have served our country want to win. Don't dare question our patriotism. I, however, have a right to question our leadership and their decisions after 3+ years in a war that seems to have no end. At this point in history, the tide had turned in WWII and America could see victory on the horizon.

Can you see victory coming in Iraq soon?

Since I threw down the gauntlet to S.D., my suggestion; I agree this war has turned to political tables. We need to talk to Syria and Iran and demand that Maliki get tough.

Pres. Bush, you are the commander-in-chief, but your cowboy-diplomacy and Texas-ego need to take a raincheck.

The argument that you must support the president in order to support the troops is a red herring. In fact the two are incompatible. In order to support the troops one must demand that which is best for them consistent with the self-interest of the nation. Surely what is best for them and the nation is not to have their lives squanderer refeering a civil war that was brought about by a president who showed utter contempt for the American public. Bush lied to us; he flasely conflated Iraq with al Qaueda, and then he ignored the advise of his generals in favor of those who had no military experience whatsoever. Surely the best interests of the troops and America lie in bringing them home and extracting ourselves from the quagmire of Bush's delusion and building up a military once again that has sufficient numbers that it need not rely on convicted felons to meet recruitment figures.

I also want to win. (S. Dickerson)

And I also have many family memebers and friends fighting in that $#@* right now. So I feel you, Robert.

The only problem with winning is I think we need a better leader to do so.
I certainly beleive he didn't have the right plans from the beginning, three years ago. And when he actually got the authority, I figured that it had to be only for show. You know to make a statement to Iraq.
Bush, I fill like you just threw us out there, similar to when a basketball coach calls time-out before the inbound but after he/she see's how the other team is going to line up. Only we lost way to much to see how they would line up (3yrs/3,100) I don't think 1 (one) was worth it.
MLK said, "talk it out."
I think that was idiotic and crule to those who didn't return to there families.
And if you weren't checkin' out the scheme then your more of an idiot than I thought.

MLK said, "talk it out."
Lets hope our next leader is a little more diplomatic and less of an idiot.

Since when does wanting to bring our troops home equate to not supporting them at all?

I fully support our troops. I also am respectful of the many people in Iraq who want peace in the homeland. This has been a huge mess for the US. Too much blood shed on both sides. I say no to more troops because it just isn't worth more blood on our hands. The Bush administration has made a decision that will haunt the US for a very long time. Let's bring our troops home and regroup with a better policy of helping the Iraqis.

This 'dust the Dems are throwing up once again, as the obstructionists they truly are, is only happening as a result of their hatred of THIS President. Once again, these Lefties, are true to form, in trying to influence a war, and using the MSM
as their partners in crime. They want to lose this war, so it will reflect badly on Bush-they have smeared this man from day one, and don't care if we walk away from the WOT, just the same way they used the MSM during VietNam and that is their same objective here with the WOT. If the Clinton
Co-Presidency(Hillary was his partner in crime)treated Terrorism
as a "Police Matter", rather than what it was-War On Terror", then we wouldn't have been faced with the "Big Bang on 9/11". The two Clintons have tried to rewrite history, and even stop the tv film
"Path to 9/11" because it showed their ineptness on Terrorism, and as a result, Bush inherited the problems they left behind. That is what is so laughable, hearing Hillary now claim, that the in coming president should not have to inherit these problems, as the war should be done with. What a Hypocrit-"Isn't THIS exactly what they left behind for the President
after them, to deal with"? YOU BET

In their 'rewrite of history' they have Sandy Berger stealing papers from the National Archives,
that apparently would have been VERY incriminating to them and their Administration. I want to know WHY this theif got away with a slap on the wrist and some mere fine as a result of this theft. It would have put anyone else in jail bigtime, but he is only to get suspended for a few years. And then what? He can go back to steal even MORE incriminating papers that belong to the People of America?

If you want to know how low the Clinton Machine would stoop to,
to return to power/money and the Whitehouse, then I suggest you read: "Hell To Pay", by Barbara Olson, available at Amazon. It will open you eyes to what these two self serving people are REALLY
all about, whether you are Dem, GOP or otherwise. Americans owe it to themselves to read this book....that is quite scary.