Obama supports our troops?

[jreeves]

"We need to look at what options do we have available to constrain the president, to hopefully right the course that we are on right now, but to do so in a way that makes sure that the troops that are on the ground have all the equipment and the resources they need to fulfill their mission and come home safely," Obama said Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Obama Jumps Into Presidential Fray - washingtonpost.com


The two Democratic frontrunners in the race for the presidency, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, last night voted against a bill to fund the US war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan.The bill, a stopgap measure that only provides funding until the end of September, was passed by 280 to 142 in the House and, hours later, 80 to 14 in the Senate.

It provides nearly $100bn (£50bn) for the two wars, with a further $20bn was tacked on to pay for an increase in the minimum wage, relief for Hurricane Katrina victims and other measures.

Obama and Clinton vote against Iraq funding | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

[editec]

What ELSE was in the bill?

We've all seen how these poison pill bills get structured so that headlines like these can be made that confuse the easily confusable.

Read the entire bill, and stop believing partisan headlines.

 

[jreeves]

What ELSE was in the bill?

We've all seen how these poison pill bills get structured so that headlines like these can be made that confuse the easily confusable.

Read the entire bill, and stop believing partisan headlines.

Since your lazy, here's the whole bill.

This $120 billion dollar package was passed in the Senate by an 80-14 vote on May 24. The bill primarily focuses on funding for the Iraq war but also addresses other unrelated topics.



A previous war funding bill was vetoed by the president because it included troop withdrawal deadlines, which were largely supported by anti-war Democrats.



Ten Democrats opposed this new bill with no withdrawal deadlines, while 37 supported its passage. Congress had to act to replace war funding that would have ended May 28.



According to the Washington Post, this bill includes 18 “benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet to continue receiving reconstruction aid.” One hundred billion dollars in funding is slated to support continuing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill says that the President and Congress must not take any action that will endanger the troops and that they provide any funds necessary for training, equipment and other types of support to ensure their safety and the effectiveness of their missions. The president is required to give a first report on the Iraqis' progress in meeting the benchmarks to Congress on July 15.



Seventeen billion dollars in the package is for domestic spending. Out of this funding, $6.4 billion is for Gulf Coast hurricane relief efforts, $3 billion in emergency aid for farmers, $1 billion to upgrade port and mass transit security, $3 billion towards converting closing U.S. military bases to other uses, and $650 million to increase funding for children’s health care. A Congressional Research Service summary states that the “other domestic beneficiaries include state HIV grant programs, mine safety research, youth violence prevention activities, and pandemic flu protection.”



Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hilary Clinton (N.Y.) were among the 14 who opposed the bill.

110th Congress, 1st session, Senate vote 181 | Congress votes database | washingtonpost.com

There's nothing, contraversial in there, Obama caved in to the anti-war people. First he states that he won't deny troops of funding, then does just that, votes against funding them.

 

[editec]

Since your lazy, here's the whole bill.

Not so lazy that I didn't read the ARTICLE which does not include the text of the BILL

You link take me to an article written by the Washinton Post about the BILL, not the bill itself.

Here's the meat of that article:

A previous war funding bill was vetoed by the president because it included troop withdrawal deadlines, which were largely supported by anti-war Democrats.
Ten Democrats opposed this new bill with no withdrawal deadlines, while 37 supported its passage. Congress had to act to replace war funding that would have ended May 28.

So you could have elected to title your article more honestly than you did. In fact your thread title starts our by misdirecting us to think one thing that is not proven by this article.

Support the troops?

Did you start a post entitled Bush Supports our Troops? When Bush vetoed the last bill to give Iraq more aid?

I don't think did, did you? Why not?

And incidently, giving aid to Iraq is not the same thing as supporting the troops, anyway.

Another example of a partisan using misdirection and omission to completely make shit up.

Nothing to see here, folks.

Just more partisan bullshit.

Move on.

 

[midcan5]

Damn, you wake up yesterday, republicans have never supported the troops as the troops are a cost, a tax, and corporations don't like taxes, nor do the rich, and they are the people the republicans support. Bush's "My People."


A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

Joe Bageant: Australian labor unions reverse a trend

 

[jreeves]

Not so lazy that I didn't read the ARTICLE which does not include the text of the BILL

You link take me to an article written by the Washinton Post about the BILL, not the bill itself.

Here's the meat of that article:



So you could have elected to title your article more honestly than you did. In fact your thread title starts our by misdirecting us to think one thing that is not proven by this article.

Support the troops?

Did you start a post entitled Bush Supports our Troops? When Bush vetoed the last bill to give Iraq more aid?

I don't think did, did you? Why not?

And incidently, giving aid to Iraq is not the same thing as supporting the troops, anyway.

Another example of a partisan using misdirection and omission to completely make shit up.

Nothing to see here, folks.

Just more partisan bullshit.

Move on.

Evidently you don't read.....

110th Congress, 1st session, Senate vote 181 | Congress votes database | washingtonpost.com
The bill primarily focuses on funding for the Iraq war but also addresses other unrelated topics.

Obama stated that we should not cut off funding for the troops which is what he voted for, cutting off funding. There is nothing misleading or partisan about that. He says one thing then does the other, he caved in to the anti-war movement in his party.

 

[Swamp Fox]

It's the same old political posturing by BOTH sides. We need to get rid of them all and start over.

 

[Charles_Main]

These petty attacks on Obama do nothing to help the cause of defeating him. Focus on the real good reasons to not elect him, and stop making petty attacks.

 

[jreeves]

These petty attacks on Obama do nothing to help the cause of defeating him. Focus on the real good reasons to not elect him, and stop making petty attacks.

I believe he flip-flopped on this issue and voting against funding our troops while we are at war.

 

[editec]

Evidently you don't read.....

110th Congress, 1st session, Senate vote 181 | Congress votes database | washingtonpost.com
The bill primarily focuses on funding for the Iraq war but also addresses other unrelated topics.

Obama stated that we should not cut off funding for the troops which is what he voted for, cutting off funding. There is nothing misleading or partisan about that. He says one thing then does the other, he caved in to the anti-war movement in his party.

Ah but I did.

But unlike you, apparently, I know what I read actually means.

 

[jreeves]

Ah but I did.

But unlike you, apparently, I know what I read actually means.

aka.. I want it to mean......LOL

 

[Chris]

Support the troops.

Bring them home and put them on the Mexican border.

 

[jreeves]

Support the troops.

Bring them home and put them on the Mexican border.

Support them, by funding them while they are in the midst of a war. Don't play politics with them as political pawns. Don't authourize their use, then when it becomes politically advantageous vote against funding their use.

 

[Chris]

Support them, by funding them while they are in the midst of a war. Don't play politics with them as political pawns. Don't authourize their use, then when it becomes politically advantageous vote against funding their use.

Why should American troops die to set up a Shia government in Iraq allied with Iran?

 

[jreeves]

Why should American troops die to set up a Shia government in Iraq allied with Iran?

It should be a government that represents the Iraqis. A stable Iraq would do much to squelch Iran's influence in the middle east.

 

[Charles_Main]

I believe he flip-flopped on this issue and voting against funding our troops while we are at war.

That may be, but going around saying he does not support out troops is IMO not helping what should be the real goal. Defeating him in the election. Even if he really does not support them, I think when people say that most people just get mad for hearing more mud slinging.

I think focusing instead on the multiple good reasons not to Vote for him is a better way to defeat him.