Bush vows to defund troops

[PastaJoe]

By threatening to veto the House appropriations to fund the troops, Bush will be responsible for them not getting the funds he says they need. Bush is like a bad credit risk, his past actions have shown that he can't be responsible for having a blank check, so the House is asking him to follow rules, some of which are already in place regarding military training and readiness that he has disregarded. So the balls in his court, veto the bill and he's the reason they don't get the funds that the House has appropriated.

[Bungee Jumper]

By threatening to veto the House appropriations to fund the troops, Bush will be responsible for them not getting the funds he says they need. Bush is like a bad credit risk, his past actions have shown that he can't be responsible for having a blank check, so the House is asking him to follow rules, some of which are already in place regarding military training and readiness that he has disregarded. So the balls in his court, veto the bill and he's the reason they don't get the funds that the House has appropriated.

 

 

Don't know why he doesn't just ignore the deadline, since IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

[erynthered]

By threatening to veto the House appropriations to fund the troops, Bush will be responsible for them not getting the funds he says they need. Bush is like a bad credit risk, his past actions have shown that he can't be responsible for having a blank check, so the House is asking him to follow rules, some of which are already in place regarding military training and readiness that he has disregarded. So the balls in his court, veto the bill and he's the reason they don't get the funds that the House has appropriated.

 

 

 

Thanks, I needed that.

 

BLANKCHECKGATE!! VETOGATE!!! READINESSGATE!! BADCREDITRISKGATE!!!! ITSHISOWNDAMNFAULTGATE!!!

 

 

!@#$mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmegate.

[PastaJoe]

Oh yeah...Joey....but the tons of PORK loaded into the bill, used to BRIBE congressmen to get the damn thing on Bush desk in the first place...thats OK.

 

!@#$ing dolt.......

 

I agree Bush is a dolt, but regarding the so-called pork, it's actually funding for drought, hurricane, and flood relief that was promised by Bush and the Republicans in their soundbytes but never funded until now. Just another instance of the Democrats making Bush put the money where his mouth is. Regardless, Bush and the Republicans would have opposed the appropriation to fund the troops anyways.

[SilverNRed]

Oh yeah...Joey....but the tons of PORK loaded into the bill, used to BRIBE congressmen to get the damn thing on Bush's desk in the first place...thats OK.

 

!@#$ing dolt.......

 

"Here are some examples of what the Democrats consider 'urgent' needs that require 'prompt action: '

-- $25 million for payments to spinach producers

-- $120 million to the shrimp industry

-- $74 million for peanut storage

-- $5 million for shellfish, oyster and clam producers

 

"Spinach, shrimp, peanuts and shellfish? That's not a war funding bill, that's the salad bar at Denny's."

 

--Rep. Mike Pence

Congress selling out the troops for some pork spending......AWESOME.

 

[Johnny Coli]

Congress selling out the troops for some pork spending......AWESOME.

 

Exactly how is attempting to bring them home "selling them out"? Selling them out is sending them over there without appropriate training, repeatedly, for your own hubris and to cover up your own failures. Selling them out is saying you support them, then fugging them over when they come home.

[SilverNRed]

Exactly how is attempting to bring them home "selling them out"? Selling them out is sending them over there without appropriate training, repeatedly, for your own hubris and to cover up your own failures. Selling them out is saying you support them, then fugging them over when they come home.

They aren't "attempting to bring them home" because this has zero chance of working. As DC already pointed out, this is almost certainly unconstitutional because Congress isn't in the chain of command. This is basically a publicity stunt. And for what? To bring the troops back in 17 months? If Pelosi really believes the war is such a disaster, why wait 17 months? More importantly, how does doing this ensure success for what our troops are trying to do over there? Do you think General Petreaus is happy about this?

 

This is pretty much the last thing you'd want Congress to do when you're trying to achieve your goals in a military conflict and the fact that they had to sweeten this thing up to grab the extra votes needed to barely make this thing pass confirms it's a complete abortion.

[Bungee Jumper]

Exactly how is attempting to bring them home "selling them out"? Selling them out is sending them over there without appropriate training, repeatedly, for your own hubris and to cover up your own failures. Selling them out is saying you support them, then fugging them over when they come home.

 

 

"Without appropriate training"? Where did this stupid new talking point come from?

[erynthered]

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DonaldL..._troops_at_risk

 

 

House Democratic leaders want to add $24.6 billion to President Bush's $95 billion request for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it's not for more weaponry or life-saving armor.

 

Most of the added money stuffed into the emergency supplemental bill, which was expected to come up for a vote this Thursday, is for the kind of costly, pork-barrel, special-interest, vote-buying handouts that Democrats promised they would end if they won control of Congress.

 

 

 

But less than three months after taking over the House leadership, the Democrats returned to the old logrolling practice of buying votes for a bill whose micromanaging war provisions to ultimately defund our troops has raised deeply troubling doubts in the minds of many of their members.

 

The bill contains $25 million in subsidies for spinach growers hurt by last year's E. coli outbreak to persuade Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., to hold his nose and vote for it. There's another $75 million "to ensure proper storage for peanuts" to convince three conservative Democrats from Georgia to do likewise.

 

Other doubting Democrats were offered $1.48 billion for livestock ranchers, plus $20 million to reclaim damaged farmlands, $500 million for "urgent wildland fire suppression" and $120 million for shrimp and Atlantic fishing interests.

 

With so much at stake in the latest attempt to reduce the violence in Iraq and give the Iraqi government time to regain some semblance of control over the country, the spectacle of Democrats using a war-funding bill for pure political vote-buying pork was sickening.

 

"The war supplemental legislation voted out of the Appropriations Committee last week was an exercise in arrogance that demonstrated the utter contempt the majority has for the American people and their hard-earned tax dollars," said Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz.

 

"We are at war with a ruthless global terrorist network, yet the appropriators allocated hundreds of millions in funds to gratuitous pork projects," he said.

 

The opening paragraph on page two of the bill begins this way: "Title I -- Supplemental Appropriations for the Global War on Terror Chapter 1, Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service."

 

"Forget the Marines; send in the meat inspectors," the Wall Street Journal said in an editorial titled "'Peanuts' for (David) Petraeus,'" the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

 

The political rationale behind the Democrats' pork-barrel gambit was the difficulty of coming up with a 218-vote majority in the House where many in their party were squirming over the prospect of imposing a complicated obstacle course of "benchmarks" that could force a U.S. pullout to begin within 180 days.

 

But even if Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her anti-war aide-de-camp John Murtha were able to come up with 218 votes, it's doubtful the bill would have any chance of passing the Senate, where Democrats have been unable to move any pullout legislation.

 

Last week, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid couldn't even cobble together a simple majority for a bill that would set a deadline for U.S. troop withdrawal that faced a certain veto from Bush.

[erynthered]

http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10570

 

The Porkers are Back: Congress Fattens Up Emergency Supplemental

 

Washington, D.C. -- Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today criticized the House of Representatives for out-of-control spending and unrelated policy provisions in the emergency war supplemental bill (HR 1592). President Bush requested $103 billion in emergency spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and disaster relief. The House Appropriations Committee included an additional $21 billion in the U.S. Readiness, Veterans’ Health and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007, that is being marked up today.

 

 

“By passing earmark reforms, Congress signaled that it was serious about restoring fiscal responsibility to the budget process,” CAGW President Tom Schatz said. “It seems the commitment to reform was short-lived, as Congress fattens up the emergency spending bill with special-interest goodies.”

 

 

Below is a list of spending and policy provisions in the supplemental that are unrelated to military operations.

 

$500 million for emergency wildfires suppression; the Forest Service currently has $831 million for this purpose;

 

 

$400 million for rural schools;

 

 

$283 million for the Milk Income Loss Contract program;

 

 

$120 million to compensate for the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the shrimp and menhaden fishing industries;

 

 

$100 million for citrus assistance;

 

 

$74 million for peanut storage costs;

 

 

$60.4 million for salmon fisheries in the Klamath River region in California and Oregon;

 

 

$50 million for asbestos mitigation at the U.S. Capitol Plant;

 

 

$48 million in salaries and expenses for the Farm Service Agency;

 

 

$35 million for NASA risk mitigation projects in Gulf Coast;

 

 

$25 million for spinach growers;

 

 

$25 million for livestock;

 

 

$20 million for Emergency Conservation Program for farmland damaged by freezing temperatures;

 

 

$16 million for security upgrades to House of Representatives office buildings;

 

 

$10 million for the International Boundary and Water Commission for the Rio Grande Flood Control System Rehabilitation project;

 

 

$6.4 million for House of Representative’s Salaries and Expenses Account for business continuity and disaster recovery expenses;

 

 

$5 million for losses suffered by aquaculture businesses including breeding, rearing, or transporting live fish as a result of viral hemorrhagic septicemia;

 

 

$4 million for the Office of Women’s Health at the Food and Drug Administration; and

 

 

A minimum wage increase, which is the subject of separate legislation.

 

Supplemental appropriations bills are exempt from spending caps and other budget controls, which makes them magnets for projects and programs that might not stand up to the scrutiny of the budget process. Members of Congress know that the President is unlikely to veto a bill that is meant to meet the needs of troops in the field. The Senate version of the fiscal 2006 emergency appropriations bill included $700 million for the “Railroad to Nowhere” in Mississippi, but public criticism led conferees to remove that provision and others in order to pass a final version in line with the President’s request.

 

 

“Members of Congress will pay a price if they go back to the usual pork-barrel politics. Taxpayers must demand that Congress remove the waste and bloat from the final bill and stop the routine abuse of emergency spending,” Schatz concluded.

 

 

Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.

[PastaJoe]

They aren't "attempting to bring them home" because this has zero chance of working. As DC already pointed out, this is almost certainly unconstitutional because Congress isn't in the chain of command. This is basically a publicity stunt. And for what? To bring the troops back in 17 months? If Pelosi really believes the war is such a disaster, why wait 17 months? More importantly, how does doing this ensure success for what our troops are trying to do over there? Do you think General Petreaus is happy about this?

 

This is pretty much the last thing you'd want Congress to do when you're trying to achieve your goals in a military conflict and the fact that they had to sweeten this thing up to grab the extra votes needed to barely make this thing pass confirms it's a complete abortion.

 

There aren't enough votes to bring them home now. The majority of Democrats are representing the views of the majority of Americans who don't say bring them home now, but begin the process to draw down combat troops by next year, which is what the appropriation calls for. And this is no longer a U.S. military conflict, it's playing referee in a shooting civil war. Our military conflict ended when Saddam was ousted and there were no W.M.D. found. It's now up to Iraqis to step up.

[The Big Cat]

http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10570

 

it is just me or does the majority of this so-called "pork" strike you as being not THAT useless. seems like some worth while projects either affected by Katrina or just in general. some seem shaky, others, not that bad.

[Johnny Coli]

If Pelosi really believes the war is such a disaster, why wait 17 months? More importantly, how does doing this ensure success for what our troops are trying to do over there? Do you think General Petreaus is happy about this?

 

This is pretty much the last thing you'd want Congress to do when you're trying to achieve your goals in a military conflict and the fact that they had to sweeten this thing up to grab the extra votes needed to barely make this thing pass confirms it's a complete abortion.

A deadline for completion of a phased withdrawl is better than none at all. I would have had them out of there months ago (and I was one of the vocal few who was against this debacle based on lies to begin with). Some compromises were made, but the House delivered. The American people are overwhelmingly behind getting the troops home. You can spin. You can kvetch. You can continue to lie and trot out the delusional notion that things are geting better over there (or will if we only add a few more troops...then a few more troops, we promise...well maybe a few more but things are really looking great over there America), but you are spiralling further-and-further into the shrill minority.

[SilverNRed]

A deadline for completion of a phased withdrawl is better than none at all. I would have had them out of there months ago (and I was one of the vocal few who was against this debacle based on lies to begin with). Some compromises were made, but the House delivered. The American people are overwhelmingly behind getting the troops home. You can spin. You can kvetch. You can continue to lie and trot out the delusional notion that things are geting better over there (or will if we only add a few more troops...then a few more troops, we promise...well maybe a few more but things are really looking great over there America), but you are spiralling further-and-further into the shrill minority.

Everyone wants the troops home but how they leave is the big issue. Announcing your troop movements to the enemy a year and a half in advance is pretty much only going to ensure that things get worse over the next year and a half. And they're doing this about two months (?) into Petreaus's turn in charge there and his implementation of a new plan (which is still in the early stages). Fighting a war with a timer pretty much ensures that you won't achieve your goals because the enemy will just wait you out.

 

And, again, this bill is just a useless gesture based on how Congress has nothing to do with these decisions and how even if they did, Bush is vetoing this thing.

[erynthered]

it is just me or does the majority of this so-called "pork" strike you as being not THAT useless. seems like some worth while projects either affected by Katrina or just in general. some seem shaky, others, not that bad.

 

 

I think my question to you is, why?

 

ALL Politicians seem to think they can slide their pet projects into any legislation. I'm sick of it.

 

They've done it before in Military budgets. This whole thing makes me sick.

 

To tie in this Pork spending on this one, is getting the right attention it deserves.

 

I hate politicians.

[VRWC]

If you were a terrorist what would you do?

 

This is what I would do if I were one.

 

• I would fund the Democratic Party to the hilt using dummy corps, legal resident contributions and any other means that I could think of.

• Fund and Stage anti-war rallies in the US.

• Keep on utilizing the MSM as the propaganda tool for our message.

• Lie low for awhile around the world and concentrate on recruiting and gathering intelligence.

• Gather the capability to deploy WMD (Chemical, biological, nuclear – dirty bomb, etc.)

• Wait until the Democrats come into power and pull the troops out of Iraq and the Middle East.

• Take over those countries abandoned by the U.S. using violence and other terror methods

• Strike the US with the WMD and other techniques

• Laugh all the way to the bank as the price of oil escalates to over $200/barrel and the U.S. economy falls into a deep depression unable and unwilling to do anything about it.

 

Sounds exactly what is happening now. The only thing they can't control are the many American's who won’t fall for this BS and vote Republican in 2008. If this happens, and our candidate wins, we will continue to fight these bastards until they can no longer be effective and radical Islam becomes a pimple on the ass of Mohammad.

[PastaJoe]

If you were a terrorist what would you do?

 

This is what I would do if I were one.

 

• I would fund the Democratic Party to the hilt using dummy corps, legal resident contributions and any other means that I could think of.

• Fund and Stage anti-war rallies in the US.

• Keep on utilizing the MSM as the propaganda tool for our message.

• Lie low for awhile around the world and concentrate on recruiting and gathering intelligence.

• Gather the capability to deploy WMD (Chemical, biological, nuclear – dirty bomb, etc.)

• Wait until the Democrats come into power and pull the troops out of Iraq and the Middle East.

• Take over those countries abandoned by the U.S. using violence and other terror methods

• Strike the US with the WMD and other techniques

• Laugh all the way to the bank as the price of oil escalates to over $200/barrel and the U.S. economy falls into a deep depression unable and unwilling to do anything about it.

 

Sounds exactly what is happening now. The only thing they can't control are the many American's who won’t fall for this BS and vote Republican in 2008. If this happens, and our candidate wins, we will continue to fight these bastards until they can no longer be effective and radical Islam becomes a pimple on the ass of Mohammad.

 

If you were a terrorist, especially Al Queda, you would want a continuation of the current Bush policies, since your strength has grown since the Iraq invasion and your leaders are still safe and sound in Pakistan. Your ranks are growing due to the decisions made by the Bush administration, and the worldwide support for the U.S. that really threatened your influence in the Muslim world has be squandered so that a large portion of the world now see's the Bush administration as a bigger threat. The relatively moderate government in Iran was replaced by a more radical one less willing to negotiate, the Palistinian issue that helps you gain recruits has made little progress in being resolved and again because of Bush unwilling to support the Palistinian moderates more radical leaders are now in charge, and in Afganistan the Taliban and terrorists are making a comeback because Bush redirected forces to Iraq.

 

So bottom line, find the Republican that most believes in continuing the Bush policies, and you'll be assured of another 4-8 years of progress towards your goals. Don't forget to add in a rubber-stamp Republican Congress and you'll really be in good shape.

[Taro T]

Oh yeah...Joey....but the tons of PORK loaded into the bill, used to BRIBE congressmen to get the damn thing on Bush's desk in the first place...thats OK.

 

!@#$ing dolt.......

 

"Here are some examples of what the Democrats consider 'urgent' needs that require 'prompt action: '

-- $25 million for payments to spinach producers

-- $120 million to the shrimp industry

-- $74 million for peanut storage

-- $5 million for shellfish, oyster and clam producers

 

"Spinach, shrimp, peanuts and shellfish? That's not a war funding bill, that's the salad bar at Denny's."

 

--Rep. Mike Pence

Is this strictly corporate welfare for Peter Pan, or does this protect all domestic peanut butter suppliers? Isn't peanut butter a tangible good, shouldn't molson goldfish be upset about this subsidy to a non-service provider? (Of course, if they provided peanut butter education, perhaps this subsidy wouldn't be egregrious.)

[Bungee Jumper]

Is this strictly corporate welfare for Peter Pan, or does this protect all domestic peanut butter suppliers? Isn't peanut butter a tangible good, shouldn't molson goldfish be upset about this subsidy to a non-service provider? (Of course, if they provided peanut butter education, perhaps this subsidy wouldn't be egregrious.)

 

 

But I think peanut storage is a service...unless they're making and selling peanut storage crates or something, in which case it's manufacturing, which is still service if it helps out people moslon_goldfish doesn't want to live anywhere near...

[Taro T]

But I think peanut storage is a service...unless they're making and selling peanut storage crates or something, in which case it's manufacturing, which is still service if it helps out people moslon_goldfish doesn't want to live anywhere near...

But, it's a well known east German fact that it takes 3.5 times the volume of peanuts to make a volume of peanut butter. And we ALL know that peanut storage is merely a precursor to manufacturing peanut butter and/or fulfilling an elephant's wildest fantasies. While the latter, in a VERY sick way, could be considered a service (but not for human consumption) I see no way to consider the former anything but a stage in manufacturing. So, except for a very small percentage, of which I am certain a political appointee could choose which of those peanut farmers/speculators qualify for subsidies, peanut storers do not DESERVE to receive a subsidy for their wanton efforts.