Republicans Vote Against Funding Troops in Iraq

[Mr.Conley]

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.

Dude, what the Hell?!?!? Get your facts straight.

 

[red states rule]

Dude, what the Hell?!?!? Get your facts straight.

So what did Bill do after the terrorists attacked US interests overseas four times in eight years? Oh, he took out an aspirin factory - a terrorist threat on a grand scale

 

[Merlin]

Dude, what the Hell?!?!? Get your facts straight.

They are.

 

[red states rule]

They are.

Remember how the liberal media were all over Republicans for pork sopending (of which I agree with them)

NOW, that Dems are running things, it seems the liberal media have a very different attitude on pork


CNN's Harris: Iraq Bill's Pork Will Help 'Real People In Trouble'
Posted by Michael M. Bates on March 23, 2007 - 13:13.
On this morning's CNN Newsroom anchor Tony Harris interviewed Congressman (and presidential candidate) Duncan Hunter (R-CA) on the Iraq emergency spending bill which would, among other things, withdraw American combat troops from the country before the fall of 2008.

Mr. Hunter detailed his opposition to the legislation, pointing out that it ignores military needs while at the same time the bill's backers "did find money for shrimp and spinach." Here he was referring to the almost $4 billion targeted for farm interests that are included in the legislation.

HARRIS: Yes. You are referring to some of the sweeteners in the deal, millions, for example, to make spinach farmers whole again after last year's E. coli episode.

HUNTER: Yes.

HARRIS: I recall at least some of those farmers are located in your home state of California. There's money in here for Katrina recovery.

Are you unwilling to attach strings to the president's war strategy even if it helps people in your home state, people in Louisiana, real people in trouble, maybe get some help getting out of trouble?

HUNTER: Absolutely. The spinach farmers -- and I think I have got some in my district -- and the shrimp fishermen, I would simply say this: All those people have young men and women in uniform in the two war fighting theaters in Iraq and Afghanistan. This bill is bad for people in uniform, and I would tell that to any farmer. I'd much rather take that spinach money and put it in these vehicles that can deflect roadside bombs.

The congressman was too gracious to point out to Mr. Harris that the Democratic bill is not, as he asserted, "the president's war strategy."

As for the "real people in trouble," this is an argument made constantly by liberals while peddling their Big Government schemes. Farm spending is totally unrelated to the Iraq War, but liberals are using the bill as a convenient way of subsidizing special interests while attracting votes for their withdrawal plan. So there's $74 million for peanut growers, $25 million for spinach growers, $252 million for milk subsidies and $3.3 billion for crop and livestock losses. All that pork didn't go to waste; the bill passed.

According to USA Today, "Agribusiness spent $84 million lobbying Congress and contributed $44.1 million to federal campaigns in 2005 and 2006. . . "

Maybe Tony Harris should consider if the "real people in trouble" include politicians whose hands are always open for money from special interests they can prop up with funding from real taxpayers.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11607

 

[Gunny]

So what did Bill do after the terrorists attacked US interests overseas four times in eight years? Oh, he took out an aspirin factory - a terrorist threat on a grand scale

So, in your own words. what is it you think he should have done?

 

[Bullypulpit]

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.

Actually, we won the war. It was the occupation the Bush Administration fucked up so badly that it can't really be said that it met even the minimum criteria laid out in the Geneva Conventions for an occupying power.

But getting rid of Saddam was NOT the stated goal of the Administration in invading Iraq, a gimme, but not a goal. That was the destruction of Iraq's WMD's and the reconstituted programs that developed them. As history has shown us, neither were present.

 

[Vintij]

Care to link that bolded statement to something that substantiates it?

Bechtel Group=Bush administration gave it the first big Iraqi reconstruction contract, a prized $680 million deal over 18 months that puts Bechtel in the driver's seat for the long-term reconstruction of the country, which could cost $100 billion or more. ALL done privately under Bush's authority.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/042303B.shtml


That was just the first contract, there are so many.

Raytheon
Boeing
Globemaster
TRW
Halliburton
Chevron
NorthRop Grumman
Lockheed Martin

And many more

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue49/articles/49-mic.pdf


Every Single One of these Company's has posted Record High Profits Over the past 4 years due to, and linked directly to The invasion of Iraq, They may be defense companys, oil companys, air companys and random contractors, but they all have one thing in common...THIS WAR HAS MADE THEM MONEY!

Feel free to respond

 

[CSM]

Bechtel Group=Bush administration gave it the first big Iraqi reconstruction contract, a prized $680 million deal over 18 months that puts Bechtel in the driver's seat for the long-term reconstruction of the country, which could cost $100 billion or more. ALL done privately under Bush's authority.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/042303B.shtml


That was just the first contract, there are so many.

Raytheon
Boeing
Globemaster
TRW
Halliburton
Chevron
NorthRop Grumman
Lockheed Martin

And many more

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue49/articles/49-mic.pdf


Every Single One of these Company's has posted Record High Profits Over the past 4 years due to, and linked directly to The invasion of Iraq, They may be defense companys, oil companys, air companys and random contractors, but they all have one thing in common...THIS WAR HAS MADE THEM MONEY!

Feel free to respond

I guess companies should operate at a financial loss. Would that make you libs happy? Then we could have very high unemployment rates, more welfare, and even higher individual debt. After all, those are the planks in the Dem/lib platform!

 

[red states rule]

I guess companies should operate at a financial loss. Would that make you libs happy? Then we could have very high unemployment rates, more welfare, and even higher individual debt. After all, those are the planks in the Dem/lib platform!

Like the US had under Pres Peanut Carter and a Dem House and Senate?

BTW the top tax rate was a numbing 70% before Pres Reagan came in and cleaned up the mess with - gasp - tax cuts

 

[jasendorf]

I guess companies should operate at a financial loss. Would that make you libs happy? Then we could have very high unemployment rates, more welfare, and even higher individual debt. After all, those are the planks in the Dem/lib platform!

Spoken like a true 80's 90's CSM...

We're at war. Those who make outrageous profits off of us while we're at war have been called "war profiteers" in previous wars... and punished as such.

But, God forbid was ask for these companies and their shareholders to make any sacrifices for their country.

 

[Vintij]

I agree, the contractors to rebuild iraq, should not have been hand picked by the President. What happen to the Free market? If bush hand picks these types of companys, whos to stop him from hand picking company's for his own financial interest? Or those financial interests of people around him, and who helped him get elected!?!? It just does not look right, it looks like the company's poured in millions to get him ellected, if he promised to go to war and make them billions. Thats what it looks like. Not to mention, he picked these company's to stay in iraq for a LONG period of time, meaning the real reason he wants to stay in iraq, is to live up to his end of the deal. THe problem is, his end of the deal, is at the expense of our soldiers and iraqi civilians.

The contractors should be selected by the congress, or via public bidding.

 

[CSM]

I agree, the contractors to rebuild iraq, should not have been hand picked by the President. Got proof that he did that? I happen to know how that selection was made and it wasn't the President. What happen to the Free market? If bush hand picks these types of companys, whos to stop him from hand picking company's for his own financial interest? Again, who said he hand picked them? Or those financial interests of people around him, and who helped him get elected!?!? You seriouly cannot be naive enough to believe that every administration has financially benefitted their supporters! Why It just does not look right, it looks like the company's poured in millions to get him ellected, if he promised to go to war and make them billions. Really! So what does it look like when Unions support Democrats? Thats what it looks like. Not to mention, he picked these company's to stay in iraq for a LONG period of time, meaning the real reason he wants to stay in iraq, is to live up to his end of the deal. Again, care to prove that? Maybe he wants to stay in Iraq until the Iraqiis can stand for themselves? Naw, that can't be true because Bush is evil and stupid, right? THe problem is, his end of the deal, is at the expense of our soldiers and iraqi civilians.

The contractors should be selected by the congress, or via public bidding. You need to research how the military acquisition programs work.[/QUOTE]

You need to do some research. the President does NOT determine who gets what contracts from military organizations...despite what you hear from the MSM.

 

[jasendorf]

Got proof that he did that? I happen to know how that selection was made and it wasn't the President.

Great Debater Tactic 1: I'm really important and know how all military contracts were made. Anyone believe that?

You seriouly cannot be naive enough to believe that every administration has financially benefitted their supporters!

Great Debater Tactic 2: Repubicans are just as smarmy as Democrats and vice-versa... way to prove that you're nothing more than a partisan who knows what's going on.

Really! So what does it look like when Unions support Democrats?

Great Debater Tactic 3: CSM's favorite tactic, DISTRACT, DISTRACT, DISTRACT! If you got nothin', try to point the conversation in some other direction. In this case it's, "LOOK! UNIONS!"

Again, care to prove that? Maybe he wants to stay in Iraq until the Iraqiis can stand for themselves? Naw, that can't be true because Bush is evil and stupid, right?

Great Debater Tactic 4: Since your opponent isn't saying what your republoradio hosts are telling you they are saying, just say it for them and debate what you WISH they said instead of debating what was actually said.

You need to research how the military acquisition programs work. You need to do some research. the President does NOT determine who gets what contracts from military organizations...despite what you hear from the MSM.

It's pretty straight forward. The DoD sets up preferred buyers. Those preferred buyers bilk the military for the simplest of items and the supply sergeants are at the mercy of that preferred vendor list.

Guess who runs the DoD.... just take a guess... any idea who appoints the SecDef? Anyone?

 

[Vintij]

I agree, the contractors to rebuild iraq, should not have been hand picked by the President. Got proof that he did that? I happen to know how that selection was made and it wasn't the President. What happen to the Free market? If bush hand picks these types of companys, whos to stop him from hand picking company's for his own financial interest? Again, who said he hand picked them? Or those financial interests of people around him, and who helped him get elected!?!? You seriouly cannot be naive enough to believe that every administration has financially benefitted their supporters! Why It just does not look right, it looks like the company's poured in millions to get him ellected, if he promised to go to war and make them billions. Really! So what does it look like when Unions support Democrats? Thats what it looks like. Not to mention, he picked these company's to stay in iraq for a LONG period of time, meaning the real reason he wants to stay in iraq, is to live up to his end of the deal. Again, care to prove that? Maybe he wants to stay in Iraq until the Iraqiis can stand for themselves? Naw, that can't be true because Bush is evil and stupid, right? THe problem is, his end of the deal, is at the expense of our soldiers and iraqi civilians.

The contractors should be selected by the congress, or via public bidding. You need to research how the military acquisition programs work.[/QUOTE]

You need to do some research. the President does NOT determine who gets what contracts from military organizations...despite what you hear from the MSM.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/042303B.shtml

I completely agree with jasendorf. No contracts go through without approval of the administration and the pentegon, and who is head of the administration, what about the pentegon?????

You, need to research military contract aquisition.

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue49/articles/49-mic.pdf


Within days of 9/11, the republican controlled congress approved 40 billion! within DAYS! The pentagon stock went up. Basically, this administration was approved for more money on contracts and millitary spending since world war 2. 46% of the US federal Budget was focused on Iraq and its contractors the last two years!!! What about here at home!! What about defecit, what about healthcare, what about FIMA, what about Medical research and boarder patrol?!?!?!

Bush is trying to make America, the "globocop" of the world, the authority in all military and terrorist matters. And hes taking away money from the american people to do so. 46% of the US federal budget is ridiculess, we need the money here in america. Not in the hands of weapons industrys, contractors, oil companys, air plane companys.

Thats where i think bush has failed, because he is more focused on being a global cop, and catching all terrorists, than his own countrys problems!

 

[CSM]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/042303B.shtml

I completely agree with jasendorf. No contracts go through without approval of the administration and the pentegon, and who is head of the administration, what about the pentegon?????

You, need to research military contract aquisition.

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue49/articles/49-mic.pdf


Within days of 9/11, the republican controlled congress approved 40 billion! within DAYS! The pentagon stock went up. The pentagon doesn't offer stock options; I have no idea why you think they would. Basically, this administration was approved for more money on contracts and millitary spending since world war 2. Got a link for that asserrtion? 46% of the US federal Budget was focused on Iraq and its contractors the last two years!!! Nearly half the US budget eh? Got a link for that gem too? I think it is a bit off. What about here at home!! What about defecit, what about healthcare, what about FIMA, what about Medical research and boarder patrol?!?!?!
I can buy into more fnding for border patrol..the rest I would rather see go away all together.

Bush is trying to make America, the "globocop" of the world, the authority in all military and terrorist matters. And hes taking away money from the american people to do so. 46% of the US federal budget is ridiculess, we need the money here in america. Not in the hands of weapons industrys, contractors, oil companys, air plane companys.

I'm with you. Shut down those companies! Who needs jobs anyway! All those employees should be organic farmers and take those jobs the illegals have now. I like that idea. We can always buy up armored vehicles and body armor from foreign suppliers. Nobody really needs to fly either so the airlines wont be missed and everyone knows we dont need those money grubbing oil companies!

Thats where i think bush has failed, because he is more focused on being a global cop, and catching all terrorists, than his own countrys problems! I am glad you think terrorists do not number among this country's problems. One word of avice...dont go into any really tall buildings!

Bad news for you. Neither of those two articles accurately describe the procurement process for the US military. Nice try, however.

 

[Gunny]

Spoken like a true 80's 90's CSM...

We're at war. Those who make outrageous profits off of us while we're at war have been called "war profiteers" in previous wars... and punished as such.

But, God forbid was ask for these companies and their shareholders to make any sacrifices for their country.

Being awarded construction bids for the purpose of resonstructing a country and war profiteering are not mutually inclusive. Construction companies tht do not make a profit are no longer in business. Overhead ain't cheap, and from what I've heard offered, they're paying a pretty penny to get qualified tradesmen to risk going.

Then, we could offer the jobs to all those Iraqi tradesmen standing in line ....

 

[Louie]

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.

what a friggin' idiot!!

 

[Vintij]

Bad news for you. Neither of those two articles accurately describe the procurement process for the US military. Nice try, however.

http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/sss/archives/ASSA_US Military Spending.pdf


There is your proof for 46% of the US federal Budget, the US exhageration on terrorism as and excuse to spend more money on the military and nukes, (we have 6000 nuclear weapons)

Proof that the defense budget did not go down even after the cold war, in actually increased since then.

Proof that the 500 billion we spend on defense, is half of the ENTIRE WORLDS budget on defense.

Basically colin powel was asked "whats the point of spending so much money on military expenses if we are not using them"

Powel responded "our troops are not toy soldiers, they should not be submitted to wars of choice"

A correct statement if i do say so.

The last 5 wars (korea, vietnam, kuwait, afganistan, iraq) where ones in which the US attacked countrys that did not directly attack the us. 4 of the 5 are still unresolved!!

That is why my, and many other americans faith in the Past administrations and US federal budget proposals have gone way down. My faith in the leadership of this country is at an all time low, due to wars of "choice". Its not hard to decrease military spending! After world war 2, the budget went down 73%! After korea it went down 23%!

Why spend all this money on Defense when it will only provoke the presidents to conduct wars of choice? Which can be defined as the last 5 US wars.

Please Respond to this without saying that the last 5 wars were a direct result of endangerd US soil. Because we were never in danger, not in any of those wars. Nor were we attacked.

 

[CSM]

http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/sss/archives/ASSA_US Military Spending.pdf


There is your proof for 46% of the US federal Budget, the US exhageration on terrorism as and excuse to spend more money on the military and nukes, (we have 6000 nuclear weapons)

Proof that the defense budget did not go down even after the cold war, in actually increased since then.

Proof that the 500 billion we spend on defense, is half of the ENTIRE WORLDS budget on defense.

Basically colin powel was asked "whats the point of spending so much money on military expenses if we are not using them"

Powel responded "our troops are not toy soldiers, they should not be submitted to wars of choice"

A correct statement if i do say so.

The last 5 wars (korea, vietnam, kuwait, afganistan, iraq) where ones in which the US attacked countrys that did not directly attack the us. 4 of the 5 are still unresolved!!

That is why my, and many other americans faith in the Past administrations and US federal budget proposals have gone way down. My faith in the leadership of this country is at an all time low, due to wars of "choice". Its not hard to decrease military spending! After world war 2, the budget went down 73%! After korea it went down 23%!

Why spend all this money on Defense when it will only provoke the presidents to conduct wars of choice? Which can be defined as the last 5 US wars.

Please Respond to this without saying that the last 5 wars were a direct result of endangerd US soil. Because we were never in danger, not in any of those wars. Nor were we attacked.

Oh cmon...you can do better than an opinion piece by a Harvard professor!

 

[boedicca]

I wish the Dems would apply the same logic to growth in entitlements that Vintij is applying to his calculations of Defense spending.