Harry Reid has proven himself to be a liar again

Quoted November 30, 2006:

Now he's the commander in chief, and we're not going to do anything to limit funding or cut off funds, even though there are some on the outside who suggest that,'' House leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said. "I think we want to make sure that the troops have everything that they need.''

April 20, 2007:

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino called the Democrats' stance "disturbing" and all but dared Reid to cut off funding for the war.

"If this is his true feeling, then it makes one wonder if he has the courage of his convictions and therefore will decide to de-fund the war," she said.

Reid has left that possibility open. The majority leader supports separate legislation that would cut off funding for combat missions after March 2008. The proposal would allow money to be spent on such efforts as counterterrorism and training Iraqi security forces.

Reid and other Democrats were initially reluctant to discuss such draconian measures to end the war, but no longer.

This is why you can't trust Democrats. They say one thing, then they turn around and knife you in the back when you're not looking. This isn't even some fringe Democrat, this is the Majority Leader in Congress. This is one of the ones that most Democrats look up to.

The Pentagon has already said that they have funds available until June. If Democrats don't have the necessary votes to push their bill through to override a Presidential veto, then all they are doing by waiting is hurting the troops in the field. This is the worst kind of underhanded, sneaky bullshit to try to appease their constituents who don't have the stomach to fight against those who wish to wipe us and the Iraqi's out.

They say it was a war over oil, if so, why didn't we just keep it when we had it in 1991? I remember bumper stickers from that time frame saying "no blood for oil".

If you think gas is expensive now, watch what happens to it when Iraq can't pump it out because of the violence that will erupt because we aren't there to stop it.

They say that we should just let the Iraqi's have their "civil war" and we should do nothing about it. So you're saying that we should allow innocent civilians get slaughtered when they are going to the market by al-Sadr's militia instead of taking them on with trained, armored soldiers who have a much better shot at defeating them?

But then they turn around and make impassioned speeched about how we should "do something" about the situation in Darfur. So which is it? Should we go help fight in Darfur, but not in Iraq? I fail to see the difference between the two.

Hypocrites.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com