City of Roses
The difference being?
When something is invalid, it means there is no foundation to an argument and is indefensible. When something is biased, it is influenced by prejudice and/or unreasoned judgement. The intention is more active in the latter, while more passive in the former.
The Library of Congress: HR 1591
The bottom line is, I don't believe the argument whether the Democrats are legislating defeat in Iraq is as clear as night and day as some may make it out to be. When you read the US Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act (HR 1591) very closely, it strikes me as fair and reasonable language overall. It specifies clearly it "provides funds to enable military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan to respond to urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction requirements."
It specifies that "Congress will fully support the needs of members of the Armed Forces who the Commander in Chief has deployed in harm's way in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, and their families."
It specifies that Congress accepts that the U.S Constitution grants the President as the sole role of Commander In Chief and that Congress has the sole power to declare war.
And it specifies that it directs "the President to transmit to Congress by specified dates certain determinations and certifications with respect to conditions to be met by the Government of Iraq." and "requires redeployment of the armed forces from Iraq if any of such conditions is not met." which the language requiring U.S combat troops within four months of enactment, with a goal of withdrawal completion by March 31, 2008, helps push the Iraqi government to begin putting control of their country in their own hands and stop stretching our own military thinner and thinner.
About three in five Americans support such a timetable for withdrawal, and this bill does just that while also, as Hagel made clear today, doesn't cut off funding for our troops nor encourage an abrupt complete withdrawal but rather a gradual, phased one.
None of this strikes me personally as "legislating defeat in Iraq", nor "cutting and running", nor "slow-bleeding", nor "micro-managing" or any other banana sticker soundbytes some of the most ardent proponents of the war toss out. If anything, the main critique I would have of the bill is all that other pork that's attached to it. Most of that pork is actually important things like avian flu preparation, agricultural disaster assistance and AmeriCorps funding, but shouldn't be attached to this particular sort of legislation. That is my central critique of the bill, though I generally agree with it.
So to cut a long lecture short, I do believe that Fox News banner message is completely biased, despite the network continuing to deny so and claim itself "fair and balanced".
"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"