Republicans Vote Against Funding Troops in Iraq

jasendorf

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
76
Points
48
Location
Ohio
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={4F72C9E6-2F70-435E-AF75-A2FD18C9F022}

Democrats win passage of war-funding bill

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Setting a potential showdown with President Bush over the conduct of the Iraq war, House Democrats prevailed Friday in passing a $124.6 billion spending package that would set tough benchmarks for the Iraqi government and withdrawal most troops from the country by next year.

The bill, which cleared largely along party lines in a 218-212 vote, would fund ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but would require the withdrawal of most U.S. troops from Iraq by September 2008. The pullout would begin earlier if the Iraqi government fails to meet certain benchmarks.
"I am proud that we have finally done something," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. "We will fund the troops, and we will also demand that Iraq stand up for Iraq's future and stop leaning on America alone."
Why won't the Republicans fund our troops? Eveindently politics are more important to them than our troops in harm's way.

Now President Bush is going to veto funding our troops? Evidently he didn't see the news on election night this past November and would prefer to stick to his ideological battle instead of working for the will of the people.
 

Vintij

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
105
Points
48
Location
Anaheim, CA
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={4F72C9E6-2F70-435E-AF75-A2FD18C9F022}



Why won't the Republicans fund our troops? Eveindently politics are more important to them than our troops in harm's way.

Now President Bush is going to veto funding our troops? Evidently he didn't see the news on election night this past November and would prefer to stick to his ideological battle instead of working for the will of the people.

I think this was the PERFECT strategy for the democrats. They dont want to cut off funding but, they want our troops home by next year so this answers both problems. And if the president veto's this, he will look like someone who just wants the money to prolong his war past 2008, as if it matters....he's gone next year anyway. I think president Bush is trying really hard to make himself the worst president of all time before he leaves office. And the democrats are trying to bring our troops home by the time he leaves. Next year will literally be a new era, a new start, and a breath of much needed fresh air.
 

Merlin

Active Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
405
Reaction score
61
Points
28
Location
Ponchatoula, La.
I think this was the PERFECT strategy for the democrats. They dont want to cut off funding but, they want our troops home by next year so this answers both problems. And if the president veto's this, he will look like someone who just wants the money to prolong his war past 2008, as if it matters....he's gone next year anyway. I think president Bush is trying really hard to make himself the worst president of all time before he leaves office. And the democrats are trying to bring our troops home by the time he leaves. Next year will literally be a new era, a new start, and a breath of much needed fresh air.
Well let me see. I spent 8 years without a President when clinton lived in the White House playing like he was a grownup President. Now I've had 8 years of the greatest President of all time, that will eventually go down in history as such, and there is no way I can live through another Presidential term, so I guess I am happy to have lived thru at least one great President's term. Thank you Mr. Bush.
 
OP
J

jasendorf

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
76
Points
48
Location
Ohio
Well let me see. I spent 8 years without a President when clinton lived in the White House playing like he was a grownup President. Now I've had 8 years of the greatest President of all time, that will eventually go down in history as such, and there is no way I can live through another Presidential term, so I guess I am happy to have lived thru at least one great President's term. Thank you Mr. Bush.
Proof that old does not equal smart.
 

Vintij

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
105
Points
48
Location
Anaheim, CA
Yea, definitive proof.

Anyway, its too bad merlin is one of the 30% that still support bush in america. But to go as far as saying he will be known as the greatest president of all time sounds like someone is on a little bit too much medication. Even Extreme Right wingers wouldnt say something like that. Your telling me Bush was better than Roosevelt? He was a REAL republican president, stopped over 100 monopolized buisines's from taking over the free market, had the panama canal created which to this day is offering mind blowing efficiency with trade. He was pushed away from his own party because and i quote "a majority of my party is more concerned about making money than helping the american people, thats why im taking matters into my own hands." -Teddy Roosevelt, Thats a true republican president. And your going to compare bush to Roosevelt? Kennedy? Lincoln?

Even Clinton was much smarter, moderate, and peacefull. I hate when people say he was a bad president for getting head in the oval office. Who cares, United States experienced the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in its history under president clinton. In all honesty i think the lewinsky scandal fucked up democrats because the extreme conservatives (wannabe christians) got scared and didnt want that to happen again so they voted for Bush. Sometimes its so predicatable what americans will do.


Thats sad, but I know im not going to convince you otherwise so, have a great last year of your favorite presidents last term, I cant wait for a real president to show up, if there are any left.
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,660
Reaction score
17,741
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
A more honest title would be "GOP votes against attaching earmarked pork to funding for our troops and setting them up for failure by giving the enemy a deadline to await their departure".
 

Merlin

Active Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
405
Reaction score
61
Points
28
Location
Ponchatoula, La.
Teddy Roosevelt, Thats a true republican president. And your going to compare bush to Roosevelt? Kennedy? Lincoln?

Even Clinton was much smarter, moderate, and peacefull. I hate when people say he was a bad president for getting head in the oval office. Who cares, United States experienced the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in its history under president clinton. In all honesty i think the lewinsky scandal fucked up democrats because the extreme conservatives (wannabe christians) got scared and didnt want that to happen again so they voted for Bush. Sometimes its so predicatable what americans will do.


Thats sad, but I know I'm not going to convince you otherwise so, have a great last year of your favorite presidents last term, I cant wait for a real president to show up, if there are any left.
clinton smarter, moderate, and peacefully????? No indeed I'm not going to compare Bush to clinton or kennedy. I have too much respect for Bush than that. I hate to burst your bubble but clinton was dumb as a rock. He wouldn't even do anything when the enemy did attack us. He didn't have enough sense to. He was only peaceful because of his dumbness. His only claim to fame was creating a bunch of minimum paying jobs that put more people in the poor house. I agree with you on Roosevelt, but kennedy's only claim to fame was bedding down Marilyn Monroe and the Bay Of Pigs incident and if that hadn't happened he would have been kicked out of office before his term ended. lincoln was the most hated president (most hated man) in the United States until the 1930s when the Negros started their needed drive for equality. Then the people started quoting his illegal Emancipation Proclamation. He was about to be impeached because of it when he got killed. That is the only thing that stopped his impeachment proceedings. If this is all you know about Presidents, don't be trying to explain anything about them to any sensible thinking person with a brain. Your ignorance will show. I'm not saying you are stupid, because you're not, but you sure are ignorant of the facts.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
You guys sure know how to spin shit. Republicans voted against a funding bill that included the Democrat surrender plan.
 

Vintij

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
105
Points
48
Location
Anaheim, CA
Surrender plan? Who said we lost the war? I thought we got rid of saddam and started democracy? Why wont anyone remember that we won the war already, and we are stuck in the middle of a CIVIL war. They hate us but that does not mean they will invade us! Everyone hates us! This war is over and democrats want out, bush wants to stay in becuase who knows, it could be profitable for several different company's. We won so there is no reason to stick around for longer than a year and a half, to help the iraqi's develope a police system. Thats it, nobody over there is going to invade us, infact why are we not occupying more of afganistan, you know the place where osama is, the poster child of terrorist.
 

Kagom

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
141
Points
48
Location
Vicksburg, MS
I think this was the PERFECT strategy for the democrats. They dont want to cut off funding but, they want our troops home by next year so this answers both problems. And if the president veto's this, he will look like someone who just wants the money to prolong his war past 2008, as if it matters....he's gone next year anyway. I think president Bush is trying really hard to make himself the worst president of all time before he leaves office. And the democrats are trying to bring our troops home by the time he leaves. Next year will literally be a new era, a new start, and a breath of much needed fresh air.
Bush can't top Hoover. No way.
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,795
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
Surrender plan? Who said we lost the war? I thought we got rid of saddam and started democracy? Why wont anyone remember that we won the war already, and we are stuck in the middle of a CIVIL war. They hate us but that does not mean they will invade us! Everyone hates us! This war is over and democrats want out, bush wants to stay in becuase who knows, it could be profitable for several different company's. We won so there is no reason to stick around for longer than a year and a half, to help the iraqi's develope a police system. Thats it, nobody over there is going to invade us, infact why are we not occupying more of afganistan, you know the place where osama is, the poster child of terrorist.
Care to link that bolded statement to something that substantiates it?
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Surrender plan? Who said we lost the war? I thought we got rid of saddam and started democracy? Why wont anyone remember that we won the war already, and we are stuck in the middle of a CIVIL war. They hate us but that does not mean they will invade us! Everyone hates us! This war is over and democrats want out, bush wants to stay in becuase who knows, it could be profitable for several different company's. We won so there is no reason to stick around for longer than a year and a half, to help the iraqi's develope a police system. Thats it, nobody over there is going to invade us, infact why are we not occupying more of afganistan, you know the place where osama is, the poster child of terrorist.
Since when did we have to be losing at anything for Dems to surrender just for a perceived political victory? Y'all need a little foresight, and a good look at history.

When the smokescreen cleared after Vietnam, which party suffered the most and took the blame for our supposed loss there? It's cost you all but 12 of the last 31 years.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...=%7B4F72C9E6-2F70-435E-AF75-A2FD18C9F022}



Why won't the Republicans fund our troops? Eveindently politics are more important to them than our troops in harm's way.

Now President Bush is going to veto funding our troops? Evidently he didn't see the news on election night this past November and would prefer to stick to his ideological battle instead of working for the will of the people.


Lame attemopt at spin. since when do libs care about the troops. Libs have spent the last five years insulting and smeraing them
Libs voted to surrender today - that should make you very happy

Of course the bill will go nowhere since the House does not have a veto proof majority

I also love how Dems loaded the bill with such vital military spending like

$283 million for milk subsidies

$180 million for fishing subsidies

$100 million for citrus subsidies

$74 million for peanut storage


yes, libs continue to show their support for the troops support we can do without

Also, the surrdnder bill has a provison where Pres Bush could not deply troops without a 15 day notice to Congress

Last I checked we had ONE CIC not 535
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,660
Reaction score
17,741
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
It's long past time to get rid of earmarks and to allow the President a line item veto.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
I think this was the PERFECT strategy for the democrats. They dont want to cut off funding but, they want our troops home by next year so this answers both problems. And if the president veto's this, he will look like someone who just wants the money to prolong his war past 2008, as if it matters....he's gone next year anyway. I think president Bush is trying really hard to make himself the worst president of all time before he leaves office. And the democrats are trying to bring our troops home by the time he leaves. Next year will literally be a new era, a new start, and a breath of much needed fresh air.
I wonder how the people who voted for Dems feel now.

SUCKERS!!!!!!!!!


Hogs on the Hill


In response to legitimate, bipartisan demands from Congress, President Bush provided exhaustive details in February documenting his emergency-spending request for funding to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the balance of fiscal 2007. When some of those wartime priorities changed, the president submitted fiscally responsible revisions. Those changes either re-allocated some war expenses among different military accounts or offset upwardly revised military costs by reducing domestic spending in areas that, almost by definition, had lower wartime priority. The result was a straightforward wartime emergency supplemental request for $103 billion.
Democratic leaders and appropriators responded by adding $21 billion to the bill. The vast majority of the additions comprised pork projects or spending utterly unrelated to the wars. The extra spending was designed for a single purpose: to purchase support from Democrats who otherwise would have voted against the bill. Moderate Democrats opposed the legislation because of its war-fighting micromanagement features and ultimatums. Liberal Democrats opposed it because it did not stop funding the Iraq war.
There are two huge problems with this Democratic strategy. First, if this is any indication of how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey intend to conduct fiscal policy, they are getting off to a terrible start by violating the promises Democrats made during the 2006 election campaign. We heard a lot of talk about pursuing responsible budget policies. We heard nothing about turning the first wartime emergency-spending bill into a porker.
Apart from the fiscal ramifications, there is a second, more profound problem. Gary Andres, columnist for The Washington Times, said it best last week. "No one believes crafting congressional policy toward the war in Iraq is a game. It is deadly serious business with life-and-death consequences," Mr. Andres wrote. "In the short run, however, House Democrats' current decision to mix war strategy with funding for farmers, children's health and even raising the minimum wage dangerously merges a serious vote of conscience with the perception of porkbarrel spending and vote trading." As this legislative sausage-making plays out in public, Mr. Andres warned that "the public's perceptions of vote-trading and special-interest politics are only fanned into flames of cynicism by this kind of procedure."
In providing Congress with more timely wartime spending requests, Mr. Bush seemed to get the voters' message. For their part, Democratic leaders seemed to conduct a huge bait-and-switch campaign.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070...1128-4106r.htm
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
It's long past time to get rid of earmarks and to allow the President a line item veto.
You mean it is long past to get rid of liberal Dems and the damn RINO's and replace them with Ronald Reagan conservatives
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
I think this was the PERFECT strategy for the democrats. They dont want to cut off funding but, they want our troops home by next year so this answers both problems. And if the president veto's this, he will look like someone who just wants the money to prolong his war past 2008, as if it matters....he's gone next year anyway. I think president Bush is trying really hard to make himself the worst president of all time before he leaves office. And the democrats are trying to bring our troops home by the time he leaves. Next year will literally be a new era, a new start, and a breath of much needed fresh air.
Dems do NOT want to cut off funding? How about Motor Mouth Murtah's rant on how this is the slow bleed policy?

I am happy to see the Defeatocrats spit in the face of troops in public. It shows what a bunch of cowards the Dems are
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top