Now which party is it that is always called "weak on national security"?

This is very interesting and it will be more interesting to see how it is quickly spun.

A group of Democrats in the House of Representatives on Wednesday called for at least $10 billion in additional funds to help the U.S. Army rebuild resources depleted by the Iraq war, now in its fourth year.

In a letter to President George W. Bush, Missouri Rep. Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record) cited Army assessments showing that "nearly every non-deployed combat brigade in the active Army is reporting that they are not ready to complete their assigned wartime mission." Skelton is the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.

The Army is estimating a funding shortfall of $17 billion next year for repairing and replacing equipment used in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Democrats said.

They asked Bush to submit an emergency request to Congress for the added funds by October 1, the beginning of the new fiscal year.

If the emergency request is not submitted, Democrats this fall will push for a $10 billion increase in a "bridge fund" for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that is included in a fiscal 2007 Pentagon spending bill moving through Congress. That fund currently would be set at $50 billion, with the expectation that another $50 billion or so for the wars would be sought early next year.

Thats right - it's the Democrats. They are weak because they believe in funding the military and not sending them into war without the proper equipment. Those weak Democrats also believe that the military should be have the funding available to keep their equipment in working order and support the veterans who gave so much.

Those "strong on national security" Republicans would rather cut all funding, strip civil rights and invade sovereign nations. That is why they feel they are strong on national security. The only thing they are strong on is us needing national security.