Senate passes Iraq withdrawel timeline

[DC Tom]

Then Pelosi & Reid should have absolutely no problem in presenting Bush with a simple bill cutting off funding for the Iraqi theater, right? Once sentence, one figure $0.

 

No, they have to make it Bush's responsibility...so they can say "Look what we did!"

 

Politics...

[erynthered]

Whats the Democrat plan after the troops leave? They told everyone they had a plan prior to the election. When are they going to share that little tid-bit? And do they have a back up plan if that one doesn't work, and then another, and another. Lets tell everyone in the world what their plan is. The terrorists are waiting. I'm glad the Democrats in the Senate and the House know how to lose a war. Makes me feel all giddy. And I'm sure the troops feel all giddy too.

[erynthered]

<Please disregard the above post. Left leaning liberal Bloggers will be coming up with all the answers momentary. Crazy me >

[molson_golden2002]

1) Whats the Democrat plan after the troops leave?

 

2) And I'm sure the troops feel all giddy too.

1) Iraqi independence and self government, maybe?

 

2) Ya, it will really suck for them being home with their families and no raodside bombs to dodge

[erynthered]

1) Iraqi independence and self government, maybe?

 

2) Ya, it will really suck for them being home with their families and no raodside bombs to dodge

 

 

1) Thats what we've been telling them for 5 years. So pulling out the troops is going to make them do it faster?

 

 

2) So being in the Military means staying home with your family's. NICE JOB!!

[PastaJoe]

It's not quite true that the House bill wouldn't have passed without the domestic emergency spending. There were at least 8 Democrats, possibly more, such as Maxine Waters who voted against it because they wanted to go farther and have a quicker timeline to stop combat operations. If it came down to them, they would probably vote for the appropriation. And where does it say an emergency spending bill has to focus on one emergency? The lack of funding for drought, flood, and Katrina relief that was promised by the Republicans but never appropriated is an emergency for those people waiting for that relief. And how many who oppose it would switch their vote if it was taken out? I doubt any would, it's just a red herring.

 

What I want to know is why after 5 years do the military still have to get emergency spending in such amounts? You can't believe the military and White House can't anticipate the need for additional hundreds of billions. By now it should be part of the regular budget, and hopefully will be after this one. Of course the answer is Bush and the Republicans want to keep using our credit card and not have to face paying the bill by giving up tax cuts or offering real offsetting budget cuts.

 

Bush will have quite a legacy of vetoes; denying funding for stem cell research and denying funding for the troops.

[DC Tom]

1) Iraqi independence and self government, maybe?

 

[erynthered]

Actuall Joe, one of the last few Iraqi war funding budgets HAD Katrina money attached to it.

[GG]

It's not quite true that the House bill wouldn't have passed without the domestic emergency spending. There were at least 8 Democrats, possibly more, such as Maxine Waters who voted against it because they wanted to go farther and have a quicker timeline to stop combat operations. If it came down to them, they would probably vote for the appropriation. And where does it say an emergency spending bill has to focus on one emergency? The lack of funding for drought, flood, and Katrina relief that was promised by the Republicans but never appropriated is an emergency for those people waiting for that relief. And how many who oppose it would switch their vote if it was taken out? I doubt any would, it's just a red herring.

 

So, which one is it, an emergency domestic bill or Iraq funding bill? If there's such an overwhelming tide against the Iraq war, stop the funding, right now. Your party is in the majority. Let them exercise their Constitutional mandate. Send the message that the US and their constituents need to hear.

[DC Tom]

What I want to know is why after 5 years do the military still have to get emergency spending in such amounts? You can't believe the military and White House can't anticipate the need for additional hundreds of billions. By now it should be part of the regular budget, and hopefully will be after this one. Of course the answer is Bush and the Republicans want to keep using our credit card and not have to face paying the bill by giving up tax cuts or offering real offsetting budget cuts.

 

Ah, THERE'S the real question.

 

The real answer is probably: Republican Congress, Republican White House, so they could. By asking for supplemental funding, they could keep it out of the budget and claim to be fiscally responsible ("Look how good we are! We have all these extra costs, but the budget's not growing!")

 

And the most recent budget submitted (2008) actually does finally roll the war costs into the DoD budget...which went from about half a trillion to three-quarters of a trillion dollars largely on the strength of finally deciding to fund the war with a budget line item...I presume to dare the now Democratic Congress to cut funding so the Republicans could scream "Soft on defense!" before the 2008 elections ("They cut defense spending by 33% in one year alone. They don't care about your safety. Vote Republican.") Otherwise, by putting supplemetals before a Democratic Congress, the Dems get to scream "Look how much this damn war is costing us!" before the election.

 

Smart politics, really. Doesn't change the fact that they're playing a political shell game with hundreds of billions of dollars.

[PastaJoe]

Actuall Joe, one of the last few Iraqi war funding budgets HAD Katrina money attached to it.

 

So why was it OK with Republicans then but isn't now?

[DC Tom]

Actuall Joe, one of the last few Iraqi war funding budgets HAD Katrina money attached to it.

 

Supplementals. It wasn't a budget.

 

Seems nitpicky, I know...but there's a huge difference.

[PastaJoe]

So, which one is it, an emergency domestic bill or Iraq funding bill? If there's such an overwhelming tide against the Iraq war, stop the funding, right now. Your party is in the majority. Let them exercise their Constitutional mandate. Send the message that the US and their constituents need to hear.

 

It's an emergency spending bill, where does it say it has to be for one specific issue? The Iraq war ended when we toppled Saddam, this is now playing policeman to sectarian violence, with some actions against al Queda that came into the Al Anbar region after we invaded. A majority of Americans and Democrats don't want to just leave right now, they are mature enough to realize that it has to be a phased redeployment and want to put more resources towards training Iraqis, border control, and chasing al Queda in Al Anbar. So the Congress is already doing what the majority of Americans and Democrats want.

[DC Tom]

The Iraq war ended when we toppled Saddam...

 

Here's another thing I'm not getting. Now "Mission Accomplished" is suddenly right??? Didn't we spend the past four years listening to everyone explain how much of a crock of sh-- that was? Now it's suddenly become the left's mantra...

[erynthered]

So why was it OK with Republicans then but isn't now?

 

Go find the other budgets, Joe. Then compare them.

 

Here's some of the sh-- tied into the war budget this time:

 

 

$25 million for spinach growers;

$100 million for citrus growers;

$25 million for livestock farmers;

$74 million for peanut storage; and

$283 million in milk subsidies.

$120 million for the shrimp and menhaden fishing industries;

$60 million for fisheries;

$35 million for NASA;

$5 million for those engaged in "breeding, rearing, or transporting live fish" ;

$6.4 million for additional salaries and expenses for the House of Representatives; and

$16 million for additional office space for the House of Representatives.

 

The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, for whose benefit this legislation was intended, have become merely a bargaining chip for an additional $21 billion in spending that could never pass on its own. Lawmakers are effectively telling President Bush that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot have their body armor unless Congress gets $16 million for additional office space for the House of Representatives. Is it any wonder that polls show 80 percent of Americans disapprove of Congress's performance on federal spending?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Here's another thing I'm not getting. Now "Mission Accomplished" is suddenly right??? Didn't we spend the past four years listening to everyone explain how much of a crock of sh-- that was? Now it's suddenly become the left's mantra...

 

Very Orwellian, isn't it?

 

"Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia"

[erynthered]

Supplementals. It wasn't a budget.

 

Seems nitpicky, I know...but there's a huge difference.

 

 

No problem, you're right. My bad. Hey? Hows my spelling?

[GG]

I'm soooo confused. Which one is it?

 

A majority of Americans and Democrats don't want to just leave right now, they are mature enough to realize that it has to be a phased redeployment and want to put more resources towards training Iraqis, border control, and chasing al Queda in Al Anbar. So the Congress is already doing what the majority of Americans and Democrats want.

And your inability to be unable to recognize a groundswell of anti-war sentiment among most in the country shouldn't come as a shocker to anyone here as well.

[DC Tom]

Very Orwellian, isn't it?

 

"Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia"

 

What's in Room 101?

 

"Your greatest fear..."

 

Well, then...what's in Room 3.5?

[DC Tom]

I'm soooo confused. Which one is it?

 

You mean you're not confused by the "groundswell of anti-war sentiment" even though

 

The Iraq war ended when we toppled Saddam...