Bush's pep rally

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Vintij, Mar 29, 2007.

  1. Vintij
    Offline

    Vintij Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,040
    Thanks Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Anaheim, CA
    Ratings:
    +105
    The vote came shortly after Bush invited all House Republicans to the White House to appear with him in a sort of pep rally to bolster his position in the continuing war policy fight.

    "We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we've got a troop in harm's way, we expect that troop to be fully funded," Bush said



    Basically, in my opinon bush threw a pep rally to make sure his little piggys do not try to overide his upcoming veto. Why do some republicans distance themselves from Bush, but stick by his policy? Im sure Bush charmed there pants off at this rally. Its really going to be impossible to get the 60 votes for override so forget about it democrats.

    Secondy, about that quote. It is frustrating that he says stuff like this, very frustrating and saddening. Everyone can agree that the troops need funding when in harms way, but who put them in harms way in the first place? A republican controlled senate, and BUSH put them in harms way. Thats the whole point of this bill, to fund them and at the same time phase them out of harms way. He is contradicting himself, and ignoring the main focus of this bill, to undo what he messed up. A year is plenty of time for the iraqis to get it together, and if it's not, seek help from surrounding country's! Bush is issolating himself from other countrys, from the senate democrats, and from the american people. So much for bi partisan government.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. hjmick
    Offline

    hjmick Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    16,179
    Thanks Received:
    4,680
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Ratings:
    +7,122
    The main focus of this bill, first and foremost, is to embarass Bush. To say the whole purpose of this bill is to fund the troops is disingenuous, if that were it's sole purpose, the Dems would not have need the pork as a bribe to get votes. Peanut storage, what does that have to do with funding the troops? Subsidies for sugar beet farmers, what does that have to do with funding the troops? Reimbursement for insect erradication in Nevada, what does that have to do with funding the troops? Money for citrus farmers and spinach growers? Scurvey isn't a problem for troops these days and spinach won't work for the troops like it does for Popeye, so I'm guessing these funds aren't for the troops. One hundred million dollars for security at the DNC and RNC conventions? What? Are they pulling the troops home to work security at the conventions? Any bills concerning military funding should be off limits where pork is concerned.

    You say, "A year is plenty of time for the iraqis to get it together, and if it's not, seek help from surrounding country's!" In a perfect world, perhaps a year is enough time, but we're talking about a country that has centuries of internal strife, blood fueds, and tribal warfare, then add an influx of terrorists looking for easy targets. From what neighboring countries would you seek help? Iran? Syria? Saudi Arabia?

    Has this turned out the way any of us thought it would? I doubt it. I'd like to see us out of Iraq, but not until we've cleaned up the mess. Passing pork ladened bills that hve no hope of becoming law is not the way to do it. It's just wasting time. Telling the other side when we are leaving is not the way to do it, they'll just hunker down and wait.

    Pelosi told Inhofe that there are consequences to elections, that the Republicans had lost the last one and there was a "new congress in town." Well, she was right, there are consequences to elections and Bush won the last presidential election, like it or not. He's still the President, he still sets policy. Like it or not.

    You're God damned right he had a pep rally. That's just one of his jobs. And you have to know that rallying the party has got to be harder now than ever.

    I'm not happy with much of what Bush has done, and I voted for the guy, but jerking around the troops while they are in battle irks me to no end.
     
  3. jasendorf
    Offline

    jasendorf Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,015
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +76
    Then sign the $100 Billion that the Congress has appropriated for them.
     
  4. jasendorf
    Offline

    jasendorf Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,015
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +76
    Stop buying the Republican Propaganda Machine's lies. The bill is an emergency funding bill... it includes multiple emergency funding needs. The President can either sign it or veto it. If he vetoes it, he cuts off funding for our warriors in Iraq and Afghanistan... that's all there is to this.
     
  5. hjmick
    Offline

    hjmick Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    16,179
    Thanks Received:
    4,680
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Ratings:
    +7,122
    Don't get me wrong, the Republicans are just as guilty of piling on the pork, and piling onto military bills, and that pisses me off just as much.

    I don't drink the conservative Flavor-Ade, but I don't swallow the liberal bullshit either.
     
  6. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    does anyone actually think that if this bill is vetoed, that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will run out of bullets? will not get fed? will not get paid? will have to write and ask their folks for bus fare to get back home?
     
  7. Vintij
    Offline

    Vintij Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,040
    Thanks Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Anaheim, CA
    Ratings:
    +105
    I agree, the main focus of this bill was the emergency funding of iraq. The agricultural aspect of this bill would have been there with or without the troop timeline. The house voted on the spinach funding and it was prohibited in the bill, the senate did not even have a spinach fund on the bill. Every aspect of this bill was voted on and edited by both houses, not just two major votes to approve or dissaprove this bill.

    They voted 98-0 in favor of 1.5 billion dollars for mine resistant vehicles for marines. 93-0 to aid a program to track down convicted sex offenders. and in the house 96-1 to prohibit funds in the bill to be used for spinach farmers. Spinach farming is not in the bill.

    You are right though hjmick, there was alot of extra spending the democrats had proposed that would not help anyone besides farmers, but alot of that was shot down by several different votes in both houses.
     
  8. jasendorf
    Offline

    jasendorf Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,015
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +76
    Because they know their constituent lemmings will not bother to learn the facts... they know their obedient little dittoheads will buy whatever ole Dopebo sells them...

    Only in a Republican's mind could $100 billion ( That's $100,000,000,000.00 )for our warriors in Iraq and Afghanistan be "not funding our troops."
     
  9. Shogun
    Offline

    Shogun Free: Mudholes Stomped

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,495
    Thanks Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    1,043
    Ratings:
    +2,260
    ha!

    HE SAID flavor-ade!


    which is actually what ole jim used.

    it's too bad there are no compromises in american politics these days...

    I wouldnt mind if our operation in iraq was scaled back inside kurdish iraqi territory like the east germany/south korea presence of US troops.

    all the the pork does suck though....
     
  10. Vintij
    Offline

    Vintij Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,040
    Thanks Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Anaheim, CA
    Ratings:
    +105
    Exactly, how are the democrats not funding the troops, they just passed a bill in the senate that approves 100 billion dollars in funds!!!! Why are republicans turning this into a political issue by saying the democrats are NOT funding the troops when they clearly are. That should not even be an argument because the bill is right in front of the presidents face approving 100 billion in emergency military funds. IF the president does not like the phased withdraw then in reality HE is not funding the troops. This is clearly not what republicans want, but its what the american people want, you know the people who voted the democrats into power in the first place!

    Its frustrating to see an argument that includes the much used quote "democrats are playing with the troops lives"!??!?! By funding them? And getting them out??????????? That quote is extremely frustrating to hear. Especially coming from top seat republicans in the senate.
     

Share This Page