By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer

Vice President Dick Cheney challenged lawmakers Monday to prove their support for U.S. troops and the war on terrorism by approving the Bush administration's requests for financing military action in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"When members of Congress pursue an anti-war strategy that's been called 'slow bleeding,' they are not supporting the troops, they are undermining them," Cheney said in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Cheney spoke at the start of a week in which the House plans to begin work on legislation providing nearly $100 billion for the rest of this year's costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Bush's full request for funds.

"Anyone can say they support the troops and we should take them at their word, but the proof will come when it's time to provide the money," Cheney said.

House Democratic leaders want to add provisions to the measure requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by the end of August 2008 and possibly by the end of 2007. Some anti-war Democrats prefer limiting the funds so the administration would essentially be forced to remove U.S. forces, a strategy that party leaders have abandoned.

"We expect the House and Senate to meet the needs of our military and the generals leading the troops in battle on time and in full measure," Cheney said, accusing some legislators of giving lip service to proclamations of support for U.S. soldiers.

"When members speak not of victory but of time limits, deadlines and other arbitrary measures, they are telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out," he said.

Cheney is whistling against the wind. The American people are not different from people everywhere; they start out supporting foreign ventures, persuaded by appeals to spreading democracy, eliminating brutal dictators, protecting American economic interest (oil) and American allies (mainly Israel and Kuwait, but also others), and, of course, stopping or slowing the spread of WMDs.

These arguments have not changed substantially, but the quick victories are over and America is now involved in a struggle to see who will blink first, and a democracy will always begin to have doubts and the nay-sayers will begin to prevail. It is both the positive and the negative of democracy--they do not go to war with each other, but they cannot sustain a long=term committment.

So now it seems the Bush administration realizes this and is looking for ways out, so as not to have too big an albratross around the Republican neck in the next elections. This is not unlike how Nixon and Kissinger betrayed the South Vietnamese. I do hope the Iraqi people will fare better, although a generation later Vietnam has become civilized again.

Ths guy Cheney is no fool, he knows that thanks to him and the rest of his war mongering buddies, the US has no choice but to stay in Iraq, for the time being at least.

Ths guy Cheney is no fool, he knows that thanks to him and the rest of his war mongering buddies, the US has no choice but to stay in Iraq, for the time being at least.

Ah, he is not a fool, but a "war mongerer." You have a marvelous way of elevating the discussion.

I wish it were true that the U.S. has no choice, but sadly it is not. Withdrawal would produce a disaster, but one the U.S. would survive easily and one which politicians in the pursuit of their own advantage are even now pushing.

I have no doubt the US would survive,I was more concerned about Iraqi Citizens.