and using Walz's logic, the troops will never come home because there will also be another request for funding. It's like the argument that it's OK to debate a war before it starts, but once troops are in harms way, everyone should get in line behind the warmongers. The logical conclusion of such a position is that a president can start any war he wants because all "loyal" Americans will get behind him once the war has started. It's called carte blanche.

I sympathize with Tim Walz.
As a resident of the 1st Congressional District who was active in Tim's campaign I know him personally.
His conflict is genuine:
He has been opposed to the war in Iraq since before he started his campaign. On the other hand, as a long time member of the National Guard involved in training troops who are now serving in Iraq he feels a personal commitment to these people and is unwilling to support actions which might put their lives at even more risk than they are now.
That he finds him self in this no win situation is not his fault; it is George Bush's -- that is where the blame should be put.

The "Devils's Deal" was created by the Bush Democrats that voted with the Republicans. If they voted against this bill another one would have to be written, one that would have real enforceable (not optional) goals or benchmarks. Iraq is in chaos. We created the situation, but we cannot fix it. It will have to run its course. People will suffer. This is what happens when we put fools in charge of the military and the legislature.

The problem is that there is enough money in the Pentagon's pipeline to continue the war for another year at the present level.
If the Dems pass another bill with deadlines in it, Bush will simply veto it again and continue the war the way he's running it now.
That is, by cannibalizing the rest of the military (remember what he did to Walter Reed).
The only way to stop an out of control chief executive is to impeach him, and that is not likely to succeed.

What do they mean who vote for this bill "because they don't want to harm the troops"?
Are they saying that the expect the soldiers to remain in combat without pay, without bullets, without gasoline?

That has to be it, right? But it doesn't make sense. If the Congress refused to fund the war, the only responsible choice for the executive would be to withdraw the troops to Qatar or Kurdistan or somewhere. If the leadership decided to keep the troops fighting on the cheap, it would surely be a scandal.

There is no practical argument for voting to fund the war if you want to end it. The only conceivable argument is the political one, that the administration would find a way to spin a vote against the war as harmful to the troops.

From this I conclude two things: 1) the Democrats have no faith in the American people to mean what they have said for months, and 2) they are scared to death of the Republican propaganda machine.

"It is fair to say...that Senator Thompson needs to take a crash course on Middle Eastern politics."

First Reaction: Fred Thompson on the Middle East

An analysis on LessThanExpert
http://lessthanexpert.wordpress.com/

I'm afraid anticlimacus has followed the time worn practice of oversimplifying a complicated situation in order to make one's own stance seem logical or plausible.

To begin with, the notion that this administration gives a damn about a "scandal" is absurd. The President believes he's been called by God to fight this war. No "scandal" is going to cause him to end the fight. (To learn more about this administration's susceptibility to scandal, see attorney general scandal)

Contrary to anticlimacus' assertion, there are many practical arguments for voting to fund the war, despite wanting the war to be over. What is more, the poster would obviously like us to believe that a political argument is not practical - a logical fallacy if I ever heard one. Congress, anticlimacus, is a political entity. As such, any Congressional argument is political, whether it is practical or not. Are the Dems concerned about appearing to harm the troops? Probably not as concerned as they are that they might actually harm the troops, but, yes, they are concerned about how the vote might be used against them. They would be hopeless buffoons were they not.

Whether or not the poster wants to recognize this, the Democrats are involved in an extremely intricate chess match and they're moving towards the end game. They know that Republicans have spent their political capital, and there is an important presidential election looming on the horizon. The Republicans know this, too. To continue the chess analogy, the poster wants the Dems to move quickly for a chess mate. The Dems, for a change, are wise enough to see the folly in that strategy and are waiting until the weight of public opinion is so strong (the Presidential election) that the Repubs have no choice but to resign their king.

Its hard to be patient when Americans are being killed on a daily basis, we all know that, but this is how a republic works. The leverage held by the people varies by the election calendar and the future of the Republican party is extremely dependent on tending to a constituency that, like most Americans, has grown skeptical of the benefits of open-ended occupation of Iraq.

In terms of funding the troops, GO WALZ!! Seriously, if the US was to pull all funds away from the war, Iraq, essentially, would turn into another Vietnam. And if we leave, we leave the feeble Iraqi government in the hands of Islamist extremists and terrorist groups, mainly Al-Qaida. Then the whole five years that the troops have spent there will have truly gone to waste. Furthermore, our army would be exhausted, both physically and financially, so that they would not be able to secure our own national border from any terrorism that might fight its way here. Why back out of a fight that's going to find us anyway??

As a resident of the First District, I disagree with the assessment that "Walz was propelled into the House over an entrenched GOP incumbent on a strong anti-war message."
Although I did not work on the campaign, I frequently commented on my blog. Walz earned my vote based on his concern for fiscal discipline. Although Gil Gutknecht, who had represented the district for six-terms, stressed fiscal discipline, he always caved to the White House and voted for imbalanced budgets.
Minnesota had three competitive Congressional Districts (1, 2, 6) and two were won by strong Bush advocates (Kline and Bachmann) versus extreme anti-war Democrats.
Walz always talked of his military service, commitment to protect the active-duty troops and veterans, and the direction that Bush managed the war. Gutknecht made headlines after his only visit to Iraq in July, 2006 when he called for troop withdrawal stating "he's felt uneasy about American policy toward Iraq for the last two or three years." If war was an issue, it probably was the Bush supporters who would have been disappointed in Gutkencht.

If you looked at the First District the swing was in Gutknecht's home city of Rochester. Walz beat him there by almost two thousand votes ... in previous elections, Gutknecht carried his county by at least 16,000 votes. Walz won the district by just under 16,000 votes.
At the same time that Rochester voters were rejecting Gutknecht, they provided the slim margin of victory for Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty.
Rochester voters turned on Gutknecht for a number of reason with the biggest his unwavering support for $35 Billion Federal Government loan for DM&E railroad that would route traffic through the city of Rochester. The city, county and the Mayo Clinic protested. Early this year, the Federal Railroad Authority turned the loan. If Gutknecht had listened to his constituents, he may have been the one casting the War Supplemental vote.

I applaud Tim Walz's vote on the Supplemental Funding bill. It was a realistic assessment of what was going to happen eventually. Bush would have vetoed until he got the war spending, but the Dems got $4.8 billion funding for veteran health care, $3 billion for disaster aid to farmers, $1.1 billion for military housing, $1 billion for homeland security projects such as protecting ports and $650 million for health care for poor children. The bill also increases the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25. These were also issues that were actively debated by Walz and Gutknecht ... so the First District knew what Walz wanted and he's delivering.

The supplemental funding is not for our troops, that is included in the regular budget. The supplemental is for the Mercenary Army. 150,000-200,000 strong. They earn $100,000 to $200,000 per year. Our troops earn $35,000.