The main message I want to understand from the "fiscally resposible right", those that pissed out this compromised bill, is this, Are we in this war at all cost? Does their obsession on "winning" this war mean that we should give as much money as we can, no matter the effectivness? If that's a case, just give the president a blank check. Is this honestly the message from the right?
At times it seems like a should we amputate for a splinter, or should we sponge bath for a brain hemmorage, argument? Either we pull funding or trust that we're are progressing, even though we don't have any benchmarks to guide our progress.
I don't think our issue should be with the war, entirely. (While I have an issue with it.) Our common issue, red & blue, is the effectiveness of the war. If I had a uncle frank that borrowed my money but pissed it away protecting his neighbor, would it be unfamilial to ask uncle frank to require his neighbor to fulfill some goals? Defining goals or benchmarks are how things are measured. Bush doesn't want us to measure his legacy today, he's just hoping for a bigger yard stick to measure against.
What are our goals in Iraq? When would this war be labeled as "won"? These are simple questions that even Bush should be able to stumble through.
It amazes me that we cannot ask these questions without being called unpatriotic, or naive?