Republicans cut off funding for troops

[Gunny]

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?

I really couldn't answer for why Bush does anything, nor do I care. I've been against "pork barrel" spending and attaching riders to legislation since about the late 70s. You can find posts on message boards from the years you mentioned where I have been quite consistent on the issue.

And it diesn't matter to me which party is doing it.

 

[Emmett]

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?

Because they did not contain the same type of language aimed at shortchanging our troops out of the victory they deserve. Dems were not the majority then either.

 

[jasendorf]

Because they did not contain the same type of language aimed at shortchanging our troops out of the victory they deserve. Dems were not the majority then either.

You think we serve for the sake of "victory"? You honestly believe that men and women go to war because they desire "victory"?

Our troops deserve to know what the mission is and what the objectives are. Any E-4 who's been to WLC (the PLDC of today's Army) knows that objectives are time based. Do you think any 1LT would write in his or her opord "First Platoon will arrive at the rendezvous point at whenever where they will be met by Second Platoon at some other time... point is, they'll both be at the place by some time."


As to your second point of Dems not being the majority then... uh, that's kind of the point. President Bush didn't give a rat's ass how much pork and non-war funding was in the past two bills... now he's full of mock-indignation and it is his attitude that stinks of partisanship. Where were his Chicken Little pronouncements last year when the emergency funding bill didn't pass until late May?

 

[red states rule]

You think we serve for the sake of "victory"? You honestly believe that men and women go to war because they desire "victory"?

Our troops deserve to know what the mission is and what the objectives are. Any E-4 who's been to WLC (the PLDC of today's Army) knows that objectives are time based. Do you think any 1LT would write in his or her opord "First Platoon will arrive at the rendezvous point at whenever where they will be met by Second Platoon at some other time... point is, they'll both be at the place by some time."


As to your second point of Dems not being the majority then... uh, that's kind of the point. President Bush didn't give a rat's ass how much pork and non-war funding was in the past two bills... now he's full of mock-indignation and it is his attitude that stinks of partisanship. Where were his Chicken Little pronouncements last year when the emergency funding bill didn't pass until late May?

The troops do know what victory is - I wish libs would

I am enjoying watching Dems flip flop all over the place on this issue.

First they are cutting of funding - then they arn't

First they will not meet with Pres Bush - then they are

The voters are laughing as well. Dems poll numbers are going down faster then Monica

 

[TheStripey1]

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.

Certainly you're not suggesting that the democrats are the only party that attaches pork to supplemental spending bills that fund the troops, are you gunny? And if this supplemental bill is as time restrictive as you righties claim, why aren't you pissed off at the republican congress that failed to pass it last December?

 

[red states rule]

Certainly you're not suggesting that the democrats are the only party that attaches pork to supplemental spending bills that fund the troops, are you gunny? And if this supplemental bill is as time restrictive as you righties claim, why aren't you pissed off at the republican congress that failed to pass it last December?

They did run on NOT doing it

Of course that is not the only promise Dems has broken and it will not be the last

 

[Rosotar]

They did run on NOT doing it

LINK?

Of course that is not the only promise Dems has broken and it will not be the last

You just reminded me of a promise that Bush has broken.

Didn't he claim sometime before stealing the first term that "our troops should never be used for nation building?"

So why are our troops still in Iraq nation building?

 

[red states rule]

LINK?




You just reminded me of a promise that Bush has broken.

Didn't he claim sometime before stealing the first term that "our troops should never be used for nation building?"

So why are our troops still in Iraq nation building?

Dems told voters they would get rid of pork and cut back on spending, one of many promises they broke

Before his win over Gore, 9-11 did not happen

We are helping Iraq stand on their own

 

[Rosotar]

Dems told voters they would get rid of pork and cut back on spending, one of many promises they broke

They've only been in the majority for a few months. Give them time.

Before his win over Gore, 9-11 did not happen

Iraq wasn't responsible for 9-11

We are helping Iraq stand on their own

Which is EXACTLY what Bush promised he WOULDN'T do!

 

[red states rule]

In only a few months Dems have been able to break nearly all their promises they made

They have raised taxes on the retired and middle class, they want to raise the marriage penalty, they want to reduce the child tax credit, they want to cut off funding to the troops, they are adding losts of pork to defense bills (with the surrender clause), they are setting the nations foreign policy (not part of their Constitutional duties), they want to impose Hillarycare on the nation, and the poll numbers show how the voters feel about their performance

 

[red states rule]

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.

Bush, Democrats at loggerheads on Iraq timeline
By Jon Ward

President Bush and Democratic congressional leaders yesterday drew lines in the sand, saying they won't back down from their positions at a meeting tomorrow about a Democrat-backed deadline for withdrawal from Iraq in an emergency war-funding bill.
"I hope the Democratic leadership will drop their unreasonable demands for a precipitous withdrawal," Mr. Bush said during a brief speech to military families at the White House. "I am willing to discuss any way forward that does not hamstring our troops, set an artificial timetable for withdrawal and spend billions on projects not related to the war."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Democrats would stand their ground.
"We're going to send the president a bill that has timetables in it," Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat, said at a press conference with two retired Army generals, shortly after the president's speech. "Congress is committed to fully funding the troops, changing the course in Iraq and responsibly ending the conflict in far-away Iraq. We are committed to pressing these goals to the administration until they do change course."
The Democrat-controlled Senate and House have passed separate emergency-funding bills of about $100 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. The House bill sets a September 2008 withdrawal deadline, and the Senate bill calls for most troops to leave Iraq before next April. The differences must be worked out in a House-Senate conference committee, which has not met.
Mr. Bush has said for months that he would veto any bill with a withdrawal deadline, and he will meet with Democratic leaders tomorrow at the White House.
Mr. Reid did say that if Mr. Bush vetoes a bill with a withdrawal timeline, then Congress will still send him a bill with benchmarks for the Iraqi government and military's progress that must be met for U.S. troops to remain. "The president is not going to get a bill that has nothing on it," he said.
In the argument between Mr. Bush and Democratic leaders that has gone on for weeks, the administration has often said it will not negotiate with Mr. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat.
Yesterday, however, Mr. Bush, while not ceding any ground in substance, struck a more conciliatory tone, while Mr. Reid more soundly rejected compromise.
"I understand Republicans and Democrats in Washington have differences over the best course in Iraq. That's healthy. That's normal. And we should debate those differences. But our troops should not be caught in the middle," Mr. Bush said.
Mr. Reid, however, said that Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are "isolated in their thinking and are failing our troops and our country."
"Maybe [Mr. Bush is] so protected in that White House that he really doesn't hear what's going on on the outside. And he will," Mr. Reid said. "We will express to him in no uncertain terms that he's wrong in his threats to Congress."
Mrs. Pelosi said that "we are ready to work with the president to change the direction in Iraq, but the president must accept the facts and put aside partisan attacks and heated rhetoric."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...1448-8099r.htm
__________________

 

[Bullypulpit]

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.

Let's be real here. The only talking Bush wants to do on this issue is "Look, we're doin' it my way, or we ain't doin' it." If anyone is going to be responsible for cutting off the funding to the troops, it'll be Bush when he vetoes this bill. His intransigence is different, only in terms of magnitude, from a willful child being told he can no longer raid the cookie jar with impunity. He is no longer being given the <i>carte blanche</i> by a lickspittle GOP controlled Congress. He resents any impingement on his perceived presidential authority by a co-equal branch of the government.

As for the bitching and moaning the GOP is currently doing, they aren't wearing their hypocrisy well.

 

[red states rule]

Let's be real here. The only talking Bush wants to do on this issue is "Look, we're doin' it my way, or we ain't doin' it." If anyone is going to be responsible for cutting off the funding to the troops, it'll be Bush when he vetoes this bill. His intransigence is different, only in terms of magnitude, from a willful child being told he can no longer raid the cookie jar with impunity. He is no longer being given the <i>carte blanche</i> by a lickspittle GOP controlled Congress. He resents any impingement on his perceived presidential authority by a co-equal branch of the government.

As for the bitching and moaning the GOP is currently doing, they aren't wearing their hypocrisy well.

It would be a nice change for Dems to make a decison and stand by it

They must be watching their falling poll numbers and THEN they decided to go to the White House and talk

Why are libs so obsessed with surrender?

 

[Creek_George]

They'll cut off funding sooner..or later....

Libs are there scape-goat for that...

Hang in there the best you can...

Creek

 

[red states rule]

They'll cut off funding sooner..or later....

Libs are there scape-goat for that...

Hang in there the best you can...

Creek

How are they scape goats when they have SAID they want to cut off funding?

The problem is for Dems (and the terrorists) there are many newly elected Dems who oppose the cut off, and I do not see the Pelosi/Reid appeasment wing getting the votes

Dems are boxed in a corner - Pres Bush will win this one

Then the liberal media will circle the wagons and "report" what a win it is for Dems