There appears to still be some mystery about it, so let me try to help: if you go into a battle, that's high risk behavior. If you don't go into a battle, that is not high risk behavior. Any questions?
"In the face of the administration's stubborn unwillingness to change course, the Senate has no choice but to force a change of course," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who signed on Monday as a co-sponsor of Reid's proposal with Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
The move is likely to intensify the Democrats' rift with the administration, which already contends Democrats are putting troops at risk by setting deadlines."It's time the self-appointed strategists on Capitol Hill understood a very simple concept: You cannot win a war if you tell the enemy you're going to quit," Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday at a fundraising luncheon for Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
Bush has said several times he would veto the measure, and Republicans say they'll back him. On Monday, 154 House Republicans sent Bush a letter promising to stick with him in opposition to the legislation.
Mindful that they hold a shaky majority in Congress and that neither chamber has enough votes to override a presidential veto, Democrats are already thinking about the next step after Bush rejects their legislation.
Reid said Monday that if that happens, he will join forces with Feingold, one of the party's most liberal members who has long called to end the war by denying funding for it.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Putting troops at risk (guest post by Uranus)
President George Bush is making a lot of racket today about how setting deadlines to withdraw troops from Iraq places them at risk. He doesn't elucidate about that risk; perhaps he means they risk walking away from the misguided catastrophe alive! Bush wouldn't want that to happen: