I have mixed emotions regarding the Iraq Veto. My brother was stationed in Kuwait 18 months. He supported the troops in the danger zones of Iraq. I feel that demanding a withdrawal/redeployment sends the message that we are giving up and that the American government can't or won't follow through.

However, many lives have been lost and it's sad and frustrating to see the news and wonder if we're really making progress.

I don't think President Bush is spitting in Americans' faces. I think he's doing his job. He's standing by his beliefs. He's supporting a cause he believes in. He's supporting a war he believes we can win. Americans don't seem to believe that we can win and this may be part of the problem.

If Hillary Clinton was our president right now and she threatened to veot this same bill, would we really be having this debate? Probably not. I get the feeling Democrats feel they can do no wrong.

Mrs. Clinton voted for this war, too. Why must we keep reminding her of that fact? Why is she cutting and running all of a sudden (yet she won't admit her vote to go to war was a mistake)? She can petition all she wants, but until she admits she was wrong to vote for the Iraq war, it won't mean a thing to any American.

Dana from The Dana Files.

I think Tommy Thompson is right. We should have the Iraqi's vote as to whether or not they want us in their country. If they say no, we should withdraw our troops.

Dana from The Dana Files.

Tough subject...

Most Americans do support ending this war. We also have a president who got us into it based on misdirecting his outrage over 11 September towards thinking that gave him sanction to attack anyone he chose.

The more he has dug in his heels, the worse the problem has become. Any good manager or decision maker in an organisation knows that a fundamental principle in managing is to monitor and adjust as the situation warrants. He failed to do so, and only half-heartedly reacted based on increased domestic pressure.

Yet should his call be solely based on what we wish to do, at least looking at this in terms of overall presidential decision making, for all presidents?

He has shown a marked inability to lead this nation, and nowhere is it more evident than with this issue. I fear his outlook now is geared toward rescuing his legacy, rather than finding a pragmatic course, and given this is election season, do not have confidence any of our elected leaders will find consensus on how to proceed.

nelle

Dana I agree that a president's job is to lead the American people and do what he/she thinks is right. But like a CEO, Executive Director, University President or any other leader with accountability, the ability to make such decisions is a privilege.

Bush has lost that privilege. His approval ratings, legal problems and general policy failures show he does not have the right to make unilateral decisions. The veto power is written into the Constituion and if the Congress doesnt have enough votes to overturn the veto, that's how it goes. But I feel it's very tone deaf of Bush and he is acting obstinately.

He is not Augustus, at the dawn of the Roman empire. Whether he likes it or not, he needs to answer to the Congress and the people.

As for Thompson, and asking Iraqis to vote. Nice idea. But one cannot enforce democracy. That should not be grounds for our troops to stay in harm's way.

I am not a fan of President Bush's politics - foreign or domestic. However, I agree with the sentiment that the President should retain the right to veto anything that does not support his objective. The checks and balances of the democratic system is what makes it so great.

There have been other unpopular presidents who have had to stand their ground as well -- Truman and Lincoln come to mind.

http://www.marymbauer.com

I have never been a supporter of the Iraq War because we hadn't reached our objective in Afghanistan. But know we are there and our troops need money to continue.

Pulling out of this war is not a option I think we have. In 1991, when Daddy Bush was in Iraq, we had the chance to get rid of Hussein then. We didn't and look what happened. We left Iraq and the citizens suffered. If we leave now, in the midst of secular violence and turmoil, what will happen?

We have been placed in a situation that was not necessary to the war on terror. We have been placed in the midst of a conflict between opposing factions in the region. We either stay and fight for years to come and never achieve stability; or we leave and let the different factions fight it out while the country never achieves stability. Or we can leave and maybe another Hussein will immerge. Or maybe Iran will see it as an opportunity to overtake Iraq.

Many possibilities and not many great end results. But where do we draw the line of whether it is worth us being in the region. We don't have very many supporters in this war, worldwide. Britain is pulling its troops out soon. Where does that leave the U.S. in the fight? Not very good, from where I'm sitting.

Now, Iran will have nuclear capabilities within the next 2 years. What then? If we are still in Iraq, what does that mean for our boys then? So many questions and not a lot of good answers.