Republicans cut off funding for troops

[Louie]

Victory means err... stay till the mission is "accomplished"


Page 1
Prepared by the Office of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, 3/20/07 REPUBLICANS SUPPORTED TIMELINE, DATE CERTAIN IN BOSNIARepublicans Insisted Upon an Exit Strategy Despite Zero Casualties On June 24, 1997, House Republicans brought to the Floor an amendment that would set a timeline and a date certain for withdrawal from the U.S. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia – a mission that was only eighteen months old: H.Amdt. 203: Buyer (R-IN) Amendment

• Timeline: By December 15, 1997, President Clinton wasrequired to report to Congress on political and military conditions in Bosnia;

• Date certain: By June 30, 1998, all troops had to be withdrawn.

REPUBLICAN ACTION BEFORE AND DURING THE BOSNIA WAR:November 17, 1995: Voted to prohibit funds for Bosnia Deployment.

[H.R. 2606 – Passed 243-171; Boehner, Hastert, Hunter voted yes] December 13, 1995: Attempted to prohibit funds from being used for deployment on the ground in Bosnia.

[H.R. 2770, Failed, 210-218; Hastert, Hunter, Hyde voted yes] December 13, 1995: Passed a resolution expressing “serious concerns and opposition to deployment.”

[H.Res. 302, Passed, 287-141; Boehner, Hastert, Hunter, Hyde voted yes] December 13, 1995: Failed to pass a resolution unequivocally supporting forces in Bosnia.

[H.R. 306, Failed, 190-237; Boehner, Hastert, Hunter, Hyde voted no] December 21, 1995: TROOPS DEPLOYED TO BOSNIAJune 24, 1997: Voted to set a timeline and date certain for withdrawal. [Buyer Amendment, Passed 278-148; Boehner, Blunt, Hastert, Hunter, Hyde voted yes] Despite past support for providing the Commander in Chief with timelines and benchmarks, Republicans continue to support a stay the course strategy in Iraq. Ironically, Republicans supported timelines and benchmarks in a conflict where the US had suffered zero casualties, been involved for a mere 18 months, and spent $7 billion.

A COMPARISON: BOSNIA*IRAQ** Length of Involvement 18 months 48 months Cost $7 billion $379 billion Casualties 0 3,210 *as of June 24, 1997; **as of March 19, 2007

Stephen Buyer (R-IN): “The civilian leadership of the region and the international community in general have failed to make sufficient progress on reconstruction and reconciliation. The time is near for the United States to withdraw its ground forces from the region.” [Floor statement, 6/24/97]

David Hobson (R-OH): “We have done the military job. The longer they think we are going to stay there, the less they are going to move on the civil side. That is why we need to set a date certain and get our troops out, get them home, let the people of the area get on with their lives, hopefully in a peaceful fashion.”[Floor statement, 6/24/97]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
Prepared by the Office of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, 3/20/07 Cliff Stearns (R-FL): “The bottom line here is this is going on and on with no definite time whenthis is going to end. …It is time Congress put an end to this unauthorized operation by creating a date certain for the exit of United States combat troops on the ground in Bosnia.”

[Floor statement, 6/24/97]Benjamin Gilman (R-NY) (Former Chairman, International Relations Committee): “None of us should have any doubt that in the end the President may have to renege on his second deadline, just as he did on the first, unless we step in and hold him to his word.”[Floor statement, 6/24/97]

Floyd Spence (R-SC) (Former Chairman, Armed Services Committee): “Today's votes will call for the withdrawal of U.S. ground troops from a peacekeeping operation of growing expense and seemingly unending duration…. The time is long overdue for Congress to express its will on behalf of the American people. It is important that the Clinton administration be held accountable for the Nation's foreign policy and in this case for Bosnia policy.”[Floor statement, 6/24/97]

 

[jasendorf]

Once again showing you can't spell hypocrisy without Republican. Or, something like that...

... wonder how the right wingers are going to spin this.

 

[Vintij]

If they have any sense, they will stay away from this thread. There is no way they can spout "we need these funds, stop undermining the troops and support the president" When 10 years ago they stopped all funds with the deployment to bosnia, and orderd the president to answer to them. I guess its only fun when they get to do it huh? It sickens me how much power they would allow themselves to have if we gave them the chance. It sickens me what they would do with that power.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

First of all, i am not a right winger, second i stay away from no thread.

And third, how often do you use news articles to make your point.

I think in this case, while i havent gone over it, thoroughly, it is actually a good use .

 

[Vintij]

First of all, i am not a right winger, second i stay away from no thread.

And third, how often do you use news articles to make your point.

I think in this case, while i havent gone over it, thoroughly, it is actually a good use .

News articles are no use unless there are facts. Opinion sections are useless because its just getting someone smarter who shares you point, to word it for you. Opinions are individual and should be only swayed by facts. Plus news articles are too long, i like it better if people read there own articles then site the facts, but thats just me.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Just so you know, before i go over what you wrote, i dont think being write, or proving someone else wrong, is the most important thing, or as important as being civil. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Now, let me get to your point.

First off, I see a similarity and a difference. Which means Your right and your wrong. Your right, the republicans want a timetable, which makes them a bit hypocritical based on that information. But to be fair, we must also consider the circumstances and history of bosnia and iraq. While I dont government is ever really held accountable for anything, I agree that it should be, every R and D, should have the buck stop here, whether they are president, or a first term congressman. If you agree with that statement, then we can have a fair an honest exchange of ideas.

Another thing, asking for a timeline, when their are ZERO casulties is absolutely moronic. I think president bush has too much power, in the fact, any american, with or without cause, can be locked up forever and sent who knows where, and the same can happen to me, if a democrat is elected president, my point, i agree, any president should be reigned in on a tight leash by congress, im talking about the patriot act (off topic i know). We must balance civil liberties with security, in a common sense approach. I think the republicans should NOT have tried to prohibit funds, especially since the rwandan genocide had just happened, but to be fair, clinton did nothing while the rwandan genocide occured.

The problem with all due respect to the creator of this thread, is a timeline works to the benefit of the terrorist insurgent, you see, if an insurgent knows, let say for an example, all us troops out by 1/1/09. Then why wouldnt they lay low, and wait it out, because they day after we leave, iran or al queda, depending on who wins that war, gets an oil rich counry, and a chance and taking over the middle east and toppling moderate arab governments. BUT, i understand the frustations here, are troops are fighting a gorilla warfare, will the mistakes MY parties leader made, and dont forget MY party sold me and all my conservative friends out, you should kinda feel sorry for us at this point, OH yes, get back to topic. Ok, bush didnt give um, the right amount of soldiers, supplies such as body armor, and tanks that protected against ied, and our soldiers are basically being used as target practice, and i dont want our soldiers being used as target practice. The political climate of timelines and benchmarks and timelines, in the 1990's was pre 9/11, it may still be hypocritical, but I dont believe the u.s. government, was dealing with a terrorist regime such as the mullahs in iran, and the possibility of their nukes, and al queda in iran. We left bosnia, and the risk, of terrorists coming here because of that is nill in my opinion. Now, if we leave iraq now, i think the risk is there, i dont know what the percentage is, but its worthy of debate and concern. Also, in bosnia, we never had boots on the ground, we didnt fight a guerilla war fare, in iraq were playing into the enemies hands. I think comparing bosnia and iraq is like comparing apples and oranges their both fruit (war), but different fruits. Now as far as stephen buyer, that is a clear hypocriticalness. We cannot pick and choose which war to stay the course, and which one to leave because it gets too hard, I dont know how many of you know your history, but in 1983, ronald reagan made the same mistake, we left lebanon after, our embassy was bombed, and in the 1990's clinton did nothing about the uss cole, about the terrorist training grounds in afghanistan, about the two embassies in africa being bombed. Right now, the republican may be the morons, but until i see a good idea from the dems on how to win the war on terrorism, i cant say ill support them.
Both parties are responsible for 9/11, Clinton had 8 years, and bush had 8 months, but republicans and democrat were both in power, so blamin one side of the other for the past is lame, what can we do now, april 6th, 2007, to do better?, so stop name calling, personally attacks, be more civil and comprimise, to find better solutions, look, we dont have to be best friends, but we can disagree peacefully.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I couldnt have said it any better myself sir

i like it better if people read there own articles then site the facts, but thats just me.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

If they have any sense, they will stay away from this thread. There is no way they can spout "we need these funds, stop undermining the troops and support the president" When 10 years ago they stopped all funds with the deployment to bosnia, and orderd the president to answer to them. I guess its only fun when they get to do it huh? It sickens me how much power they would allow themselves to have if we gave them the chance. It sickens me what they would do with that power.


I think their is some hypocrisy here, but i think while you compare the similaries, we must also point out there differences as well.

I believe, we are stuck in two bad choices, let our soldiers continue to be used as target practice because were afraid to use any airpower because if one innocent iraqi is killed the whole arab world and some of our media, and maybe some of our citizens will hate us, OR, hand iraq over to iran or al queda, which threatens the stability of israel and the middle east.

Just so you know, this is my opinion, i want you to challenge me on it, and i dont mind if im wrong, but please dont rip me a new one ok?

I guess its only fun when they get to do it huh? It sickens me how much power they would allow themselves to have if we gave them the chance. It sickens me what they would do with that power.

Im not sure what you mean on this last part, but i think any president, and congress, regardless of political side their on must be held accountable, if you cant criticize your own party, and you cant praise the other party meaning... its easy to say my party is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but when they do wrong, are you willing to admit it, because its the truth, and, if the party you disagree with does something good, can you admit it, because its the truth..

doing the easy thing is easy, doing the hard thing is hard.

 

[Annie]

News articles are no use unless there are facts. Opinion sections are useless because its just getting someone smarter who shares you point, to word it for you. Opinions are individual and should be only swayed by facts. Plus news articles are too long, i like it better if people read there own articles then site the facts, but thats just me.

I disagree. Oftentimes an op-ed can give a jumping off point to a discussion of the issues. What I do agree with however is that it helps create discussion when the original poster at least makes clear their own pov and why they think it's worthy of being addressed. It can be done with either writing on the topic or highlighting what they think were the salient points making the op-ed worthy of being posted.

On the other hand, if one chooses not to read the article, that's also fine. Some just jump in after the discussion, without ever have waded through the original posting.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

articles are fine, if you say why you agree with them but not more then 30% of time.

It cant be only articles, agree or disagree ?

 

[Annie]

articles are fine, if you say why you agree with them but not more then 30% of time.

It cant be only articles, agree or disagree ?

For me, contrary to Jasendorph, never has been. But if that is what someone wishes to do, I often find the articles interesting, but rarely comment on them. As I said, there are ways to use any article to answer another or to initiate dialogue, but that's my opinion.

I'm finding it interesting that many are coming recently and trying to set 'rules' that are outside the owners. Surely they can post on such, but it doesn't make them 'rules.'

 

[Louie]

where are the righties?

 

[Gunny]

where are the righties?

"Righties?"

What is it you want anyone to say? That "Bush Cutting Off Funding for the Troops" is a serious twist in the truth and pretty-much just another bullshit accusation?

Remove the liberal agenda riders from the funding bill and see if he signs it.

 

[Vintij]

Yea but the non-cooperation of bush with this bill is the biggest political statement anyone can make. The timetable is not the only part of this bill, each part of this bill was voted on by congress. The fact that bush only wants to change one thing, is such a political attack at democrats. Its proof that he is too stubborn to even talk with dems, let alone conduct policy with congress.

 

[Louie]

clearly some have not read the text of this particular bill...

 

[Gunny]

Yea but the non-cooperation of bush with this bill is the biggest political statement anyone can make. The timetable is not the only part of this bill, each part of this bill was voted on by congress. The fact that bush only wants to change one thing, is such a political attack at democrats. Its proof that he is too stubborn to even talk with dems, let alone conduct policy with congress.

Translation: The Democrats are trying to bend Bush over a barrel and force him to sign the Bill with their riders attached and are using time-sensitivity as their leverage.

Bush isn't too stubborn to talk to Democrats. He could NEVER have been Governor here for 8 years if he was.

This is a power play by Congressional Democrats. Nothing more nor less. I wouldn't back down to it either.

 

[Gunny]

clearly some have not read the text of this particular bill...

Clearly some of us have and just don't agree with your extremist political viewpoint.

 

[Vintij]

Translation: The Democrats are trying to bend Bush over a barrel and force him to sign the Bill with their riders attached and are using time-sensitivity as their leverage.

Bush isn't too stubborn to talk to Democrats. He could NEVER have been Governor here for 8 years if he was.

This is a power play by Congressional Democrats. Nothing more nor less. I wouldn't back down to it either.

Actually the administration is using time-sensitivity as leverage, as the democrats have made clear that the funding for troops would not run out until mid july. Also they make clear, the fact that bush did no sign an emergancy funding bill until late may of last year. Yet Bush repeatedly states that he needs a proper bill before april 17th or the troops will run out of money, now thats exaggerated political pressure on congress.

 

[Gunny]

Actually the administration is using time-sensitivity as leverage, as the democrats have made clear that the funding for troops would not run out until mid july. Also they make clear, the fact that bush did no sign an emergancy funding bill until late may of last year. Yet Bush repeatedly states that he needs a proper bill before april 17th or the troops will run out of money, now thats exaggerated political pressure on congress.

The fact is, as long as we have troops in the field, it's going to be paid for regardless when it is actually signed. Either side hyping otherwise is BS, and one side is just as guilty as the other where this issue is concerned.

If Bush wants it by April 17th, that's certainly his prerogative. However, the Democrats are trying to use Bush's end-date to pressure him.

My biggest opposition is to attaching riders to proposed legislation. That's how pork gets through without being seen. Each proposed piece of legislation should stand on its own, IMO.

Be all that as it may, I think the Democrats adding language that sets a withdrawal date to troop funding is not only dirty pool, it's about as tactically unsound as it gets.

 

[jasendorf]

"Righties?"

What is it you want anyone to say? That "Bush Cutting Off Funding for the Troops" is a serious twist in the truth and pretty-much just another bullshit accusation?

Remove the liberal agenda riders from the funding bill and see if he signs it.

Why didn't President Bush call for the removal of non-war funding in the Emergency bills of 2005 and 2006? Who's playing politics here?