Any new funding legislation MUST include a Definition of the Enemy

[Perky]

* is saying it make no sense to tell the enemy when your leaving and that if we leave withthe job nopt finisished "the enemy will follow us home"


Ok Fine. Lets define who that enemy is.

This would have the effect of defining and tergeting why we are in Iraq and but a box around the mission

The point is that the Sunni-Shia sectarian war is not part of our mission. We can fight our enemy and protect the fragile government without getting into the middle of an unsolvable mess.

[Toots]

1. But they have

Fascists Islamic commies...IOW Muslims.....:shrug:

[genie_weenie]

2. Nope.

Can't do that, it would be giving the enemy the advantage if he knew that we knew who he was or is. And The Regime has the catch-all answer to any requests 9/11 changed everything.

No WMD in Iraq? Doesn't matter 9/11 changed everything.

No connection to between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Doesn't Matter 9/11 changed everything.

Demands of an exit strategy during clinton's presidency http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/gop_kosovo.pdf
‘Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit
strategy is,’ Bush said.” Doesn't Matter 9/11 chnaged everything.

[Perky]

3. Defining the enemy...defining "terrorists" isd essential

By definition Terrorists do not attack the military...They attack people. People who attack he military are either insurgents or those who have declared us to be the enemy.

[Donnachaidh]

4. good luck with THAT

The definition of the *terra-ists* change for the Bush Administration almost daily, depending on what propaganda thay want to push. This is a total nonstarter.

[Perky]

5. Legislatively? No I think the votes are there

and if choose to veto on that basis. it paints him as the madman he is
Wants no time limit, no benchmarks, no definition of the enemy? I

t is an untenable position justifies article of impeachment,

[genie_weenie]

6. Nope.

9/11 changed everything. Repeat as necessary.

Just to be clear, I think you're stance is a good one and can be pushed, if the Congress has the stones.

Personally, terrorism has *usually* been a label authoritarians use to criminalize those who would not allow themselves to be slaves. The addition of violence into the resistance equation does muddle the issue and has been debated by anto-establishment folks for at least 2000 years.