GOP Don't Support the Troops - Another SillyBooBoo Lie

[sealybobo]

House Republicans are preparing to vote en bloc against the $106 billion war-spending bill, a position once unthinkable for the party that characterized the money as support for the troops.

For years, Republicans portrayed the bills funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as matters of national security and accused Democrats who voted against them of voting against the troops.

In 2005, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) went so far as to say sending troops into battle and not paying for it would be an “immoral thing to do.” And just last year, more House Republicans voted for the war supplemental bill than did Democrats, who opposed the legislation because it did little to wind down the military effort in Iraq.

But Republicans say this year is different. Democrats have included a $5 billion increase for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help aid nations affected by the global financial crisis. Republicans say that is reason enough to vote against the entire $106 billion spending bill and are certain voters will understand.

But wait!!!

This is Boehner in 1998:

That wasn't Boehner's tune in 1998, when the Clinton administration requested $18 billion in IMF funding to ameliorate the effects of the Asian financial crisis.

"I have been as critical about the IMF as many, but given the crisis we have around the world, the U.S. needs to provide leadership," the Ohio Republican told the [Newark, N.J.] Star Ledger in Oct. 1998. "The only real avenue is the IMF."

His comments were in keeping with the rest of the House GOP leadership at the time, including then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, who said the U.S. had "an obligation to work with" the fund.

Boehner backed IMF funding in '98 - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com

And how much garbage was in Bush's "supplimental war bills"? Shall we look? We know that 75% went to private contractors and only 25% went to the troops, and we also know the troops were under funded under Bush.

Now a small percentage of the bill is going to the IMF and the GOP have the balls to not fund the troops? Fine! We'll use this against them in 2010.

For the record, I agree with the GOP to not fund these bullshit wars. Its just their hypocricy that makes me sick!!!

 

[KittenKoder]

If Bush did it, he was praised, if Obama does it, it's bad ... I just don't get partisan freaks.

 

[sealybobo]

If Bush did it, he was praised, if Obama does it, it's bad ... I just don't get partisan freaks.

Didn't you see where I wrote that I agree with cutting off funds and bringing the troops home?

My problem is with the GOP hypocricy. They signed Bush's bills regardless of the garbage/pork that was slipped in. And they said the Dems weren't supporting the troops if they didn't sign too.

We are just pointing out to you the hypocricy.

But I know what you will do with the information. You'll say, "both parties do it".

Just like that Ensign guy who cheated. They all cheat, right? So completely ignore that the guys a fucking hypocrite.

The GOP pray on idiots like you.

 

[KittenKoder]

If Bush did it, he was praised, if Obama does it, it's bad ... I just don't get partisan freaks.

Didn't you see where I wrote that I agree with cutting off funds and bringing the troops home?

My problem is with the GOP hypocricy. They signed Bush's bills regardless of the garbage/pork that was slipped in. And they said the Dems weren't supporting the troops if they didn't sign too.

We are just pointing out to you the hypocricy.

But I know what you will do with the information. You'll say, "both parties do it".

Just like that Ensign guy who cheated. They all cheat, right? So completely ignore that the guys a fucking hypocrite.

The GOP pray on idiots like you.

Don't give me that shit, Dems are doing it to.

 

[sealybobo]

If Bush did it, he was praised, if Obama does it, it's bad ... I just don't get partisan freaks.

Didn't you see where I wrote that I agree with cutting off funds and bringing the troops home?

My problem is with the GOP hypocricy. They signed Bush's bills regardless of the garbage/pork that was slipped in. And they said the Dems weren't supporting the troops if they didn't sign too.

We are just pointing out to you the hypocricy.

But I know what you will do with the information. You'll say, "both parties do it".

Just like that Ensign guy who cheated. They all cheat, right? So completely ignore that the guys a fucking hypocrite.

The GOP pray on idiots like you.

Don't give me that shit, Dems are doing it to.

What, praying on idiots like you?

 

[Gunny]

House Republicans are preparing to vote en bloc against the $106 billion war-spending bill, a position once unthinkable for the party that characterized the money as support for the troops.

For years, Republicans portrayed the bills funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as matters of national security and accused Democrats who voted against them of voting against the troops.

In 2005, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) went so far as to say sending troops into battle and not paying for it would be an “immoral thing to do.” And just last year, more House Republicans voted for the war supplemental bill than did Democrats, who opposed the legislation because it did little to wind down the military effort in Iraq.

But Republicans say this year is different. Democrats have included a $5 billion increase for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help aid nations affected by the global financial crisis. Republicans say that is reason enough to vote against the entire $106 billion spending bill and are certain voters will understand.

But wait!!!

This is Boehner in 1998:

That wasn't Boehner's tune in 1998, when the Clinton administration requested $18 billion in IMF funding to ameliorate the effects of the Asian financial crisis.

"I have been as critical about the IMF as many, but given the crisis we have around the world, the U.S. needs to provide leadership," the Ohio Republican told the [Newark, N.J.] Star Ledger in Oct. 1998. "The only real avenue is the IMF."

His comments were in keeping with the rest of the House GOP leadership at the time, including then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, who said the U.S. had "an obligation to work with" the fund.

Boehner backed IMF funding in '98 - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com

And how much garbage was in Bush's "supplimental war bills"? Shall we look? We know that 75% went to private contractors and only 25% went to the troops, and we also know the troops were under funded under Bush.

Now a small percentage of the bill is going to the IMF and the GOP have the balls to not fund the troops? Fine! We'll use this against them in 2010.

For the record, I agree with the GOP to not fund these bullshit wars. Its just their hypocricy that makes me sick!!!

Read your own link, moron. The GOP opposes the IMF pork attached to the funding, so your thread title is once again, just more partisan lying from you.

 

[Gunny]

Didn't you see where I wrote that I agree with cutting off funds and bringing the troops home?

My problem is with the GOP hypocricy. They signed Bush's bills regardless of the garbage/pork that was slipped in. And they said the Dems weren't supporting the troops if they didn't sign too.

We are just pointing out to you the hypocricy.

But I know what you will do with the information. You'll say, "both parties do it".

Just like that Ensign guy who cheated. They all cheat, right? So completely ignore that the guys a fucking hypocrite.

The GOP pray on idiots like you.

Don't give me that shit, Dems are doing it to.

What, praying on idiots like you?

The only one trying to prey on anyone here is YOU. Your thread is a lie. As usual. Served again. As usual.

 

[KittenKoder]

Don't give me that shit, Dems are doing it to.

What, praying on idiots like you?

The only one trying to prey on anyone here is YOU. Your thread is a lie. As usual. Served again. As usual.

I just can't seem to get how people like Bobo don't see their own hypocritical idiotic views. They ignore what the party they blindly follow does but get angry with the other party when they do the same damned thing ... then they have to lie about it to make it seem more than it is.

 

[sealybobo]

House Republicans are preparing to vote en bloc against the $106 billion war-spending bill, a position once unthinkable for the party that characterized the money as support for the troops.

For years, Republicans portrayed the bills funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as matters of national security and accused Democrats who voted against them of voting against the troops.

In 2005, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) went so far as to say sending troops into battle and not paying for it would be an “immoral thing to do.” And just last year, more House Republicans voted for the war supplemental bill than did Democrats, who opposed the legislation because it did little to wind down the military effort in Iraq.

But Republicans say this year is different. Democrats have included a $5 billion increase for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help aid nations affected by the global financial crisis. Republicans say that is reason enough to vote against the entire $106 billion spending bill and are certain voters will understand.

But wait!!!

This is Boehner in 1998:

That wasn't Boehner's tune in 1998, when the Clinton administration requested $18 billion in IMF funding to ameliorate the effects of the Asian financial crisis.

"I have been as critical about the IMF as many, but given the crisis we have around the world, the U.S. needs to provide leadership," the Ohio Republican told the [Newark, N.J.] Star Ledger in Oct. 1998. "The only real avenue is the IMF."

His comments were in keeping with the rest of the House GOP leadership at the time, including then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, who said the U.S. had "an obligation to work with" the fund.

Boehner backed IMF funding in '98 - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com

And how much garbage was in Bush's "supplimental war bills"? Shall we look? We know that 75% went to private contractors and only 25% went to the troops, and we also know the troops were under funded under Bush.

Now a small percentage of the bill is going to the IMF and the GOP have the balls to not fund the troops? Fine! We'll use this against them in 2010.

For the record, I agree with the GOP to not fund these bullshit wars. Its just their hypocricy that makes me sick!!!

Read your own link, moron. The GOP opposes the IMF pork attached to the funding, so your thread title is once again, just more partisan lying from you.

We didn't approve of the pork that Bush put in his Iraq "supplimental" spending bills either. And you guys said if we didn't sign, we weren't supporting the troops.

Just like Bush said, "this is too important. we have troops out in harms way".

And that was a lie too. Because the troops themselves were plenty funded. The money bush needed went to private contractors and to Mook Tada El Sadr. Remember we bribed the sunni's and shiites to stop shooting at us so Bush could say the surge worked?

For a guy who was in the military, you sure haven't a clue.

 

[sealybobo]

Don't give me that shit, Dems are doing it to.

What, praying on idiots like you?

The only one trying to prey on anyone here is YOU. Your thread is a lie. As usual. Served again. As usual.

Served?

Bush and Cheney are playing their ace in the hole: The old, tattered “you don’t support the troops” card.

Any Democrat and any Republican too (hear that, Chuck Hagel) who doesn’t want to throw another hundred billion dollars down the tubes for Bush’s Iraq War gets this card thrown at them.

Cheney was up to his old tricks on Monday.

He went down to Birmingham to give a talk. (Don’t kid yourself; it wasn’t to hail civil rights, it was to raise cash for Republican Senator Jeff Sessions.) And Cheney took the occasion to try to relink the Iraq War with 9/11, a link he’s stressed all along, never stopping when the evidence failed to materialize.

Facts are insignificant to him.

It’s propaganda that counts.

And bullying.

So he peddled the canard that Democrats in Congress are working “to undercut General Petraeus and the troops.”

And he made clear that he has no understanding of, or patience for, the constitutional powers of Congress.

“The fact is,” said Cheney, “the United States military answers to one commander-in-chief in the White House, not 535 commanders-in-chief on Capitol Hill.”

But Cheney omitted a couple of crucial facts.

Like the Congress funds the military.

And the commander-in-chief can’t go to war without a Congressional declaration of war, which, in actual fact, it never gave.

Congress certainly has the constitutional right to tell the President to stop fighting a war it never declared.

Bush, Cheney Play the “You Don’t Support the Troops” Card | The Progressive

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Sillybozo, the one-trick Lemur, hack-in-the-box!

 

[sealybobo]

What, praying on idiots like you?

The only one trying to prey on anyone here is YOU. Your thread is a lie. As usual. Served again. As usual.

I just can't seem to get how people like Bobo don't see their own hypocritical idiotic views. They ignore what the party they blindly follow does but get angry with the other party when they do the same damned thing ... then they have to lie about it to make it seem more than it is.

You're doing that pussycat, not me.

Democrats don't support the troops
Letter


The other major fact about the troops in Iraq that Democrats choose to ignore is that the military retention rate is at an all-time high. This means that the number of troops who decide to re-enlist in the military and continue tours of duty in Iraq once their contract has expired is at a record high. This demonstrates that the men and women who volunteer to fight for democracy believe in the cause and wish to stay.

So how can it be that Democrats support these troops, but not any of their ideals? I understand not supporting the war, but Democrats should not hide behind a mask of saying they support the troops. You cannot support someone when you make a mockery of their beliefs and belittle their cause.

Democrats don't support the troops | The Cornell Daily Sun

 

[sealybobo]

Sillybozo, the one-trick Lemur, hack-in-the-box!

CONTRACTS TO SUPPORT the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were plagued by
spending abuses, waste and fraud because the government workforce
assigned to monitor those deals fell far short of what was needed,
according to a new report by a bipartisan congressional commission.


More than $13 billion in spending on food, buildings, equipment and
myriad services has been questioned by federal auditors, in part
because of poor planning and oversight by the government, bad record-
keeping by contractors and in some cases outright corruption,
according to the report by Commission on Wartime Contracting.

"They ultimately plan to cut off funds for the troops," the Senate's top Republican, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, told FOX News on Friday.

FOXNews.com - Republicans Sizzle Over Democrats' Plans to Limit Iraq War Funds - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

And on Thursday, House Minority Leader John Boehner said Murtha's plan would "choke off" money for troops.

"While American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements, and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely," said Boehner of Ohio.

If Murtha's plan makes it through the House, it would be a blueprint for what the Senate could consider. In an interview posted on MoveCongress.org, Murtha said this week that he plans on introducing his legislation in mid-March. He said that, if approved, it would likely halt the president's plans.

 

[del]

sealybobo, bringing us yesterday's news tomorrow.

 

[sealybobo]

WASHINGTON, DC (October 24, 2007) – The leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization today urged Congress to swiftly pass this week’s $196.4 billion funding request by the Commander in Chief for Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom.

"Don't nickel and dime the men and women you placed in harm's way," said Marty Conatser, national commander of The American Legion, to Members of Congress responsible for funding the Global War on Terror.

"Our troops have their hands full fighting for their lives and don't have time for the kind of 'political gamesmanship' that the Commander in Chief and the military leadership are having to endure,” Conatser said.

“Congress’ attitude that our troops in harm’s way will have to wait until next year to receive much needed funds for ongoing operations, to repair or replace damaged equipment, or and pay for medical care and transition assistance for injured servicemembers is more than irresponsible,” Conatser said. “It’s wrong!”

It’s time for the rhetoric on Capitol Hill to stop,” he said. “Our troops aren’t running for political office. They just want the resources to do their jobs.”

The American Legion adopted Resolution 169 mandating full support for the Commander in Chief, the military leadership, and, most importantly, the service members. "The Global War on Terror is not about partisan politics, it is about the survival of freedom," Conatser explained.

"To the leadership of Congress, my message is very simple: pass the 2008 War Funding Request," he said.

The American Legion was founded in 1919 on the four pillars of a strong national security, veterans affairs, Americanism, and patriotic youth programs. The Legion’s 2.7 million wartime veterans work for the betterment of their communities through more than 14,000 posts across the nation.

Timely War Funding Passage Needed for Troops | The American Legion - Our Voice

 

[sealybobo]

sealybobo, bringing us yesterday's news tomorrow.

The White House confirmed Wednesday that its new budget next month will not request a full year’s funding for the war in Iraq, leaving the next president and Congress to confront major cost questions soon after taking office in 2009.

The decision reverses the administration’s stance of just a year ago, when President Bush’s budget made a point of spelling out in advance what he thought the costs would be for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2008. By comparison, the new budget, to be unveiled Feb. 4, requests only incremental “bridge” funding into 2009 and won’t sustain the military through the full length of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, 2009.

Bush budget won't fully fund Iraq war - David Rogers - Politico.com

 

[sealybobo]

sealybobo, bringing us yesterday's news tomorrow.

Well you guys tend to forget yesterday.

This is one Christmas gift U.S. taxpayers don't need. Construction of a $30 million dining facility at a U.S. base in Iraq is scheduled to be completed Dec. 25. But the decision to build it was based on bad planning and botched paperwork.

The project is too far along to stop, making the mess hall a future monument to the waste and inefficiency plaguing the war effort, according to an independent panel investigating contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In its first report to Congress, the Wartime Contracting Commission presents a bleak assessment of how tens of billions of dollars have been spent since 2001. The 111-page report, obtained by The Associated Press, documents poor management, weak oversight, and a failure to learn from past mistakes as recurring themes in wartime contracting.

The report is scheduled to be made public Wednesday at a hearing held by the House Oversight and Government Reform's national security subcommittee.

U.S. reliance on contractors has grown to "unprecedented proportions," says the bipartisan commission, established by Congress last year. More than 240,000 private sector employees are supporting military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands more work for the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development.

But the government has no central data base of who all these contractors are, what services they provide, and how much they're paid. The Pentagon has failed to provide enough trained staff to watch over them, creating conditions for waste and corruption, the commission says.


APNewsBreak: Major problems found in war spending - Yahoo! News


We watched billions or trillions disappear when we gave Bush all his "supplimental" war funds.

So now the GOP have the balls to not fund the troops because the bill has some pork in it? At least if that money is pissed away, it'll be pissed away in America.

You guys seem to forget that all the money stolen in Iraq will never come back. Not in taxes, not in trickle down, not anyway.

 

[del]

sealybobo, bringing us yesterday's news tomorrow.

Well you guys tend to forget yesterday.

This is one Christmas gift U.S. taxpayers don't need. Construction of a $30 million dining facility at a U.S. base in Iraq is scheduled to be completed Dec. 25. But the decision to build it was based on bad planning and botched paperwork.

The project is too far along to stop, making the mess hall a future monument to the waste and inefficiency plaguing the war effort, according to an independent panel investigating contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In its first report to Congress, the Wartime Contracting Commission presents a bleak assessment of how tens of billions of dollars have been spent since 2001. The 111-page report, obtained by The Associated Press, documents poor management, weak oversight, and a failure to learn from past mistakes as recurring themes in wartime contracting.

The report is scheduled to be made public Wednesday at a hearing held by the House Oversight and Government Reform's national security subcommittee.

U.S. reliance on contractors has grown to "unprecedented proportions," says the bipartisan commission, established by Congress last year. More than 240,000 private sector employees are supporting military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands more work for the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development.

But the government has no central data base of who all these contractors are, what services they provide, and how much they're paid. The Pentagon has failed to provide enough trained staff to watch over them, creating conditions for waste and corruption, the commission says.


APNewsBreak: Major problems found in war spending - Yahoo! News


We watched billions or trillions disappear when we gave Bush all his "supplimental" war funds.

So now the GOP have the balls to not fund the troops because the bill has some pork in it? At least if that money is pissed away, it'll be pissed away in America.

You guys seem to forget that all the money stolen in Iraq will never come back. Not in taxes, not in trickle down, not anyway.

from your post, dumbo

"Democrats have included a $5 billion increase for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help aid nations affected by the global financial crisis."

tell me again how that money's gonna "be pissed away in america."?

 

[Oddball]

Sillybozo, the one-trick Lemur, hack-in-the-box!

I's...it's....it's...it's all because of GEORGE BOOOOOOSH!!...and...and...THE CORPORATIONS!!...and...and...TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!...and...and...HALLIBURTON!!...and...and...CHENEY RUNNING THE SHADOW GUBMINT IN THE BASEMENT OF WAL-MART!!!

 

[Navy1960]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 ? With its rising budget deficit and ballooning trade imbalance, the United States is running up a foreign debt of such record-breaking proportions that it threatens the financial stability of the global economy, according to a report released Wednesday by the International Monetary Fund.
I.M.F. Says U.S. Debts Threaten World Economy - The New York Times

The U.S. Congress stripped the $18 billion Clinton Administration request for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) from an emergency spending bill on April 23, marking the first major legislative defeat since Congress began considering the funding last year. Called a "supplemental" spending bill, the legislation would have provided some $18 billion in new funding for the IMF, something the Clinton Administration has called a "high priority" for this legislative session.
The U.S. reaction to funding the IMF is important because much of the IMF's future is riding on America's reaction to this funding issue. For example, the IMF is not just requesting $18 billion from the U.S., but is asking for a 45 percent increase in donations from all 182 members of the IMF. Many countries are watching the U.S. to see how much the IMF's largest donor is dedicated to the 50 year old institution. Some IMF watchers already are claiming that if the U.S. votes down the funding request, other countries will follow suit - leading eventually to diminishing IMF influence and membership.

The U.S. Senate recently passed a supplemental spending bill that includes funding for the U.S. peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and the Middle East, disaster relief for storm victims here in the U.S., and the IMF. However, the House broke these funding requests into two separate supplemental bills. The first including funding for Bosnia, the Middle East, and disaster relief. The second includes funding for the IMF and $500 million to help pay U.S. arrears to the United Nations (U.N.). In order for any bill to reach the President for signature, it must pass both houses of Congress in identical form (any differences are worked out in a conference committee between House and Senate members, before returning to the floor for final passage in both houses).

Theres the issue in bold, this is not an issue of not supporting the troops as I'm sure this was the original intent of the people in the Senate Committie who wished to score some points at the expense of the military hoped for. In fact congress has passed legislation for the IMF before as seperate issues and I'm sure it would have passed this time. It's rather "two faced" to say to the troops here is less money that we gave you last year , and oh by the way we are also using this bill to stuff in a bunch of pet projects at your expense , hope you don't mind.