• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Dems Pass Another War Funding Bill That Bush Won't Accept

ericlp

ericlp

Diamond Member
link

President Bush says he'll veto another Iraq war funding bill passed by the House on Thursday because it would keep money flowing to U.S. troops only until July.

How many times will the idiot veto? Maybe he will veto his ass out of a job?

One message I have heard from people from both parties is that the idea of benchmarks makes sense -- and I agree," Mr. Bush said following a meeting at the Pentagon on Thursday.

But "benchmarks" alone are not enough, said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

"The President has long said he supports benchmarks; what he fails to accept is accountability for failing to meet those benchmarks," Pelosi said in a news release.

"Benchmarks without consequences and enforcement are meaningless, a blank check," she said.

Sheesh, Bush can talk about benchmarks all he wants... When has this president "EVER" met any of his goals? He's all talk no action....

Bush adviser Karl Rove is said to be furious that Republicans who met with the president later told reporters all about their "frank" discussion.


Pretty funny....And the band plays on...

 
Heh, more "do as we say" nonsense from the US. The more the US dictates what the Iraqi government has to do, the more it undermines the Iraqi governments credibility (if it had any to start with).
 
Exactly the dilemma now faced by GWB. The decider---or the bumbler---depending on your viewpoint, is being told in no uncertain terms that he better shape up or ship out. After he and his team have totally bumbled the Iraqi occupation for more than four years, its clear that more of the same is going exactly no where. And the mini surge is just a clever name for stay the course because the US military can't possibly come up with the extra 200,000 troops needed to police an occupation. A fact that General Shinseki pointed out before we invaded. And Rummy fired Shinseki for it.

And GWB&co. sits astride all diplomatic options clearly needed now. The Baker Hamilton report is now
better than five months old, and although the options laid out were obvious years ago, the diplomatic
options sit and gather dust. While I don't think its wise to abandon Iraq to its fate with a rapid US withdrawal, that is the inevitable directions things are heading unless GWB&co. gets off staying stuck on stupid. Four broad options now exists.

1. Congress can surrender to the President and give GWB&co. his no strings attached funding. Negative progress will be made in Iraq until GWB&co. leaves office 1/09. Or the clock will run out
and some random event(s) will trigger a full blown civil war in Iraq that soon spills far past Iraqi borders. Thereby igniting a broader mid-east war and a worldwide depression. Meaning best case scenario is that we pour more money and lives down a rat hole for eighteen months and worse case scenario is that events will spin out of all possible control.

2. Congress can stay the course and give the decider notice that his allowance is limited and also that congress no longer trusts GWB to manage this occupation. Which is the message of the bill that passed the house. GWB is free to veto the bill but then he runs out of funding. Which then forces a slow withdrawal of US troops and sends a clear signal to the international community that they better step up and manage Iraq now that GWB&co. no longer is in control. And not only does GWB&co. now limit US diplomatic efforts, it also limits the role the international community can play. Maybe the international community can step up with its own plan.

3. GWB&co. can do the right thing and go hat and hand to both the US congress and the international community and ask for help in solving Iraq through diplomatic means. And such a course has a hope of working and is the best course in MHO.

4. GWB can choose to veto and congress refuses to fund. Leaving the question to be fought out in public opinion. My guess is that GWB would lose such a PR battle as future administration scandals come out and turn criminal. Presidents with 28% approval ratings are not in a good position to fight such battles--especially when they are stuck on a stupid course with a four year track record of failure.
Our troops come home, Iraq blows up, a full blown mid-east war ignites, no oil moves out of the mid-east into world markets, and a world wide depression results.

Take your pick of options. Lets put it this way---all fall a little short of the no more than 50 billion and
the flowers and candy we were promised. And the international community will never trust the USA any time in the foreseeable future.
 
This has been going on for four years. WHy has nobody thought to have benchmarks before? And if they did, why has there been no accountability?
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Dems should keep this up, and make it look like Bush isn?t funding the troops.
Click to expand...

Your proposition is a lose-lose situation. Bush is hard headed. No funding means no contractor, no equipment. We will still be there. I personally believe that President thinks the end justify all meaning.
 
You can't fight a war in two month segments.

I see nothing wrong with passing a six month funding bill, or maybe they should try funding it till September when and then look at it after the report from Patreus.
 
I wouldn't pass a war funding bill when more than half of it is expenditures are completely unrelated to the war.

Why can't the Dems pass a bill that solely focuses on the war?
 
Originally posted by: jrenz
I wouldn't pass a war funding bill when more than half of it is expenditures are completely unrelated to the war.

Why can't the Dems pass a bill that solely focuses on the war?
Click to expand...
Because its call a Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill.
 
The real question is why we should pour another dime down Bush's rathole? Its high time for congress to take control of the occupation because GWB clearly can't get the job done.
And speak of Benchmarks---we need diplomatic benchmarks from GWB&co. And the shorter the allowance period---the faster GWB will get cracking. We have let GWB do it for far too long
and have exactly nothing but negative progress to show for it.
 
I've made my modest proposal, but I'll reiterate-

Dems need to pass a bill authorizing Bush to reallocate existing DoD funds as he sees fit to support the troops in Iraq. He has over $400B to work with. Let him and his staff work out the compromises necessary to do what they can with the money allocated, and not a cent more...

If Bush has the right to deploy troops as he sees fit, then he also has the responsibility to see to their safety and to do so within funding limits set by Congress. Now's a great time for the "Decider" to do just that- make some tough choices, show us all what leadership really is...
 
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: jrenz
I wouldn't pass a war funding bill when more than half of it is expenditures are completely unrelated to the war.

Why can't the Dems pass a bill that solely focuses on the war?
Click to expand...
Because its call a Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill.
Click to expand...

Indeed. In fact, even under the Republicans there was no such thing as an Iraq war funding bill, it's all emergency supplemental appropriations, the Republicans are just making noise about that NOW in the hope that they can confuse people into thinking it's pork.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You can't fight a war in two month segments.

I see nothing wrong with passing a six month funding bill, or maybe they should try funding it till September when and then look at it after the report from Patreus.
Click to expand...

Let me take a wild guess, you just want the Congress to give Bush the money he needs when he needs it, no questions asked, right?
 
It's wonderful how well our so called commander in chief gets along and works with our law makers. It's almost like he's jesus himself. What a lovely man.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You can't fight a war in two month segments.

I see nothing wrong with passing a six month funding bill...
Click to expand...

But you can fight a war in six month segments?

 
You guys are idiots. Have you thought maybe the reason it was vetod was due to the add-ons? Why cant the Dems come up with funding bill for the war AND THATS IT? Maybe you think these are OK, but it's the usual Democratic pork barrel in full effect: Here's some highlights:

The House Appropriations Committee passed it yesterday by a party-line vote. The president initially asked for a little over a hundred billion dollars, almost all of it to fund the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the appropriators have tacked on more than $20 billion more for other domestic priorities. There's money for veterans' health care, children's health insurance, levees in New Orleans, home heating assistance for low-income families. And House Democrats have added the minimum-wage increase, which they already passed once this year but it's languished in the Senate.

There's $25 million for spinach farmers who were hit by that outbreak of e.coli last fall. There's assistance for livestock farmers, fish breeders. Of course, you know, Republicans are going around saying they're shocked to see such blatant use of a spending bill to attract votes and help particular members of Congress back in their districts. But it's true: Democrats promised to be cracking down on these earmarks. But now, there's . . . appears to be some backtracking. This is all getting into a semantic dispute over what is an earmark. The Democrats' reform tried to describe an earmark, and it's not easy. It took more than a page of fine print. It's essentially money that goes to benefit a specific district, rather than a generic government program. Crop-disaster assistance is OK, but money targeted for asparagus farmers in a specific valley, that becomes an earmark. But where you cross the line gets kind of murky. One budget analyst told me today it's sort of like what Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography: "I can't really describe it, but I know it when I see it."

aid for avocado growers to help for children lacking health insurance.

Lawmakers also hope to add money for drought relief in the Great Plains, better levees in New Orleans and development of military bases that are closing down.

Lawmakers from the Great Plains are pressing for about $4 billion in disaster aid for farmers suffering under drought conditions.

Gulf Coast lawmakers want $1.3 billion above the $3.4 billion requested by Bush for hurricane relief. Northwest lawmakers are desperate for about $400 million to extend payments to rural counties hurt by cutbacks in federal logging.

And governors are pressing for $745 million to address a shortfall in the State Children's Health Insurance Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source 1
Source 2
 
Hopefully he'll veto enough times to end the contractor gravy train.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Hopefully he'll veto enough times to end the contractor gravy train.
Click to expand...

Contractors arent really the problem. See my above post. THAT is the problem.
Click to expand...
No, that is NOT the problem. Spending almost half a trillion (that's trillion, with a 't') of the American taxpayers dollars in Iraq, and not domestically, is the problem.

What's Bush going to do with the rubber stamp gone?

EDIT: Pointing the blame for the veto at the 'add-ons' is just a Republican game of distraction. Pork has never been vetoed by Bush (including the billion dollar Alaskan 'bridge to nowhere') in previous bills. Bush knows that any reasonable benchmarks will never be met, and he doesn't want to look like an even bigger idiot if that came to pass.

Is it such a bad thing to reinvest our taxpayer money domestically, for veteran's health care, for children's health care, for hurricane cleanup?
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Hopefully he'll veto enough times to end the contractor gravy train.
Click to expand...

Contractors arent really the problem. See my above post. THAT is the problem.
Click to expand...
No, that is NOT the problem. Spending almost half a trillion (that's trillion, with a 't') of the American taxpayers dollars in Iraq, and not domestically, is the problem.

What's Bush going to do with the rubber stamp gone?
Click to expand...


WTF are you talking about? You think it's acceptable to approve a budget that carries an additional 25% in domestic spending for farmers and such? You think thats OK?
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
WTF are you talking about? You think it's acceptable to approve a budget that carries an additional 25% in domestic spending for farmers and such? You think thats OK?
Click to expand...
It contains spending for veteran/children health care as well. Do you hate our war vets or something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top