Efforts to cut spending veiled effort to end war

President Bush has asked Congress for $100 billion to carry on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's a lot of money. I wish there was not a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is really being run by Iran and Syria. The fact of the matter is that they have in mind to kill us and destroy our society. Is $100 billion too much to keep these fanatics at bay?

One thing for sure, standing on the corner of 10th and White Sands in Alamogordo with a sign calling for "Peace, Unity and Love" will probably not scare the Iranians and Syrians away. Being nice to them is interpreted, by them, as weakness and an invitation to redouble their efforts to bring down the Great Satin, i.e. us.

The Democrats, who cling to a slim majority in both houses of Congress, have replied to President Bush's request for funds by offering a bill. The Wall Street Journal on March 17 reported the first chapter of that bill contains, among other things, $25 million for spinach, $20 million to restore farmland damaged by freezing temperatures, $1.46 billion for livestock farmers, $78 million to ensure proper storage of peanuts, $500 million for urgent wild land fire suppression and though not part of this bill there is the raise in the minimum wage nationwide.

That money has to come from somewhere. For God's sake, we are at war, people are trying to kill us and destroy our civilization and we are heaping this on top of our funds to support our troops. It was Nero who fiddled while Rome burned. Why are the Democrats trying to do the same thing?

I understand that the Democratic leadership and the liberals who want to end the war yesterday or this afternoon at the latest, are too cowardly to try to just shut off the funds for the war. That would make them publicly responsible for the consequences of doing so. They are trying to do the same thing by stealth, by imposing conditions on the use of the funds for the war, and time limits that will tie the president's hands and those of the military commanders conducting day to day operations, if the Iraq parliament fails to meet our Democrats' deadlines. The conduct of any war is an executive responsibility, not a legislative one.

I submit that Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership of the House and Senate are just plain incompetent to govern. God help the United States if the likes of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards are ever handed the presidency. President George W. Bush's judgment respecting the conduct of the war is open to Monday morning quarterbacking. Let's put it this way, have you made any mistakes in judgment since March 2003? Suffice it to say that, at least the president does not favor irresponsible, immediate surrender and damn the consequences.

The article was posted on Alamogordo Daily News

Please don't think I agree with this author, insead, I feel it is very funny to see how Americans view internal and external issues. I need to point out this author should be a educated American and interested in the political affairs.