FINALLY: TROOPS FUNDED
Since the House Passed This Bill The Senate Has Now Also.
WASHINGTON — The House approved a bill that would fund the war in Iraq through September without a timetable to withdraw U.S. troops — despite some Democratic lawmakers' efforts.
House members voted 280-142 to send the $120 billion bill to the Senate for final passage, expected later Thursday night. Congress will likely send the bill to President Bush this weekend.
Bush vowed support for a bill despite opposition from some Democrats and Republicans who are unhappy with the bill. Some Democratic critics want a timetable for withdrawing troops while some Republicans don't support about $10 billion of extra spending.
The bill also would fund more bomb resistant humvees and aid for farmers and victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Bush refined his definition of the enemy in Iraq in a commencement address at the Coast Guard Academy on Wednesday.
"Al Qaeda is public enemy number one for Iraq's young democracy, and Al Qaeda is public enemy number one for America, as well," Bush said. "And that is why we must support our troops, we must support the Iraqi government, and we must defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq."
The president declassified intelligence he said showed Usama bin Laden had urged Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq to attack American targets outside Iraq. Bush said if troops leave Iraq too soon, the terrorists will follow them home.
Some Democrats don't agree.
"You saw what would be done in the region and they may very well be deciding against the United States," said Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del. "If that's true, Mr. President, get out of the civil war. Get in the business of dealing with Al Qaeda."
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., stands behind Bush's position to remain in Iraq until the job is done.
"This is going to be a long process," Hoekstra told FOX News. "We're going to get some good news, we're going to get some bad news. What we need to do is stay consistent on putting the pressure on Al Qaeda, Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the world."
Democrats failed to force Bush to set a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces when the president vetoed a bill that required bringing troops home. Democrats couldn't get enough votes to reach the two-thirds majority needed to override Bush's veto.
Democrats coupled their concession to the president with pledges to challenge his policies anew. "This debate will go on," vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, announcing plans to hold votes by fall on four separate measures seeking a change in course.
Two front-runners, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, declined to say how they intended to vote on the measure.
Both have voted against binding timetables for troop withdrawals in the past, before public sentiment against the war hardened or they became presidential contenders. Last week, the two voted to advance legislation that would have cut off money for U.S. combat operations by March 31, 2008, cutoff.
Democratic challengers Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio said they would oppose the measure because in their view it issued a blank check to Bush on the Iraq war.
"Half-measures and equivocations are not going to change our course in Iraq," Dodd said in a statement. "If we are serious about ending the war, Congress must stand up to this president's failed policy now — with clarity and conviction."
The hefty spending bill has become a lightning rod for political attacks on Bush and his handling of the deeply unpopular war, which has killed more than 3,400 U.S. troops and cost more than $300 billion. But it also has exposed a sharp divide among Democrats on how far Congress should go to end the war.
Democratic candidates are vying for the anti-war vote, but at the same time do not want to appear as though they are turning their backs on the military.
The bill includes about $100 billion for military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as $8 billion in domestic projects such as farm aid and hurricane relief and $9 billion in military-related spending such as improved health care for service members.
While the measure does not include a timetable on the war, it does threaten to withhold U.S. aid dollars for Iraq if Baghdad fails to make progress on political and security reforms. The president, however, could waive that restriction.
Biden said that while he would vote for the measure, he disagreed with the approach because it could hamper the Iraqi government's ability to take on more responsibility.
The legislation resulted after weeks of negotiations with the White House, which agreed to accept $17 billion in funding not requested by Bush as long as there were not restrictions on the military campaign.
Democratic leaders planned multiple votes in the House on Thursday to ensure the measure would ultimately pass because of disagreements among members on elements of the bill. One vote was to be on war funding, while another would be to approve the extra money for domestic and military-related projects.
While liberal Democrats were expected to vote against the war funds measure, GOP members were expected to make up for the losses. On the added spending, Democrats likely were to be unified in their support for the measure, overcoming GOP objections.
House Approves Iraq War Funding Bill Without Timetable for Withdrawing U.S. Troops
Congress Bows to Bush and Approves Billions for Iraq War Without Troop Withdrawal Timeline
CLINTON, OBAMA VOTE AGAINST WAR FUNDING
Senate Passes War Funding Bill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well It's about time. Why could'nt they do this months ago? Instead of visiting Syria, avoiding General Petraeus, and stuffing PEANUT STORAGE among other pork projects in this bill? I sure hope the Troops havent had to suffer for to long at the hands of the Democrats. And all this for Political gain. And now the Democrats have to answer to the anti-war crowd that THEY encouraged and got motivated. Oh well thier problem, not ours. How many more mistakes, hypocrisy, undermining of our Troops, micromanaging the war, and defeatism do we all have to put up with? Hopefully we will only have to endure this disaster of a Democrat Congress until the General Election.
WASHINGTON — The House approved a bill that would fund the war in Iraq through September without a timetable to withdraw U.S. troops — despite some Democratic lawmakers' efforts.
House members voted 280-142 to send the $120 billion bill to the Senate for final passage, expected later Thursday night. Congress will likely send the bill to President Bush this weekend.
Bush vowed support for a bill despite opposition from some Democrats and Republicans who are unhappy with the bill. Some Democratic critics want a timetable for withdrawing troops while some Republicans don't support about $10 billion of extra spending.
The bill also would fund more bomb resistant humvees and aid for farmers and victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Bush refined his definition of the enemy in Iraq in a commencement address at the Coast Guard Academy on Wednesday.
"Al Qaeda is public enemy number one for Iraq's young democracy, and Al Qaeda is public enemy number one for America, as well," Bush said. "And that is why we must support our troops, we must support the Iraqi government, and we must defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq."
The president declassified intelligence he said showed Usama bin Laden had urged Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq to attack American targets outside Iraq. Bush said if troops leave Iraq too soon, the terrorists will follow them home.
Some Democrats don't agree.
"You saw what would be done in the region and they may very well be deciding against the United States," said Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del. "If that's true, Mr. President, get out of the civil war. Get in the business of dealing with Al Qaeda."
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., stands behind Bush's position to remain in Iraq until the job is done.
"This is going to be a long process," Hoekstra told FOX News. "We're going to get some good news, we're going to get some bad news. What we need to do is stay consistent on putting the pressure on Al Qaeda, Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the world."
Democrats failed to force Bush to set a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces when the president vetoed a bill that required bringing troops home. Democrats couldn't get enough votes to reach the two-thirds majority needed to override Bush's veto.
Democrats coupled their concession to the president with pledges to challenge his policies anew. "This debate will go on," vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, announcing plans to hold votes by fall on four separate measures seeking a change in course.
Two front-runners, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, declined to say how they intended to vote on the measure.
Both have voted against binding timetables for troop withdrawals in the past, before public sentiment against the war hardened or they became presidential contenders. Last week, the two voted to advance legislation that would have cut off money for U.S. combat operations by March 31, 2008, cutoff.
Democratic challengers Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio said they would oppose the measure because in their view it issued a blank check to Bush on the Iraq war.
"Half-measures and equivocations are not going to change our course in Iraq," Dodd said in a statement. "If we are serious about ending the war, Congress must stand up to this president's failed policy now — with clarity and conviction."
The hefty spending bill has become a lightning rod for political attacks on Bush and his handling of the deeply unpopular war, which has killed more than 3,400 U.S. troops and cost more than $300 billion. But it also has exposed a sharp divide among Democrats on how far Congress should go to end the war.
Democratic candidates are vying for the anti-war vote, but at the same time do not want to appear as though they are turning their backs on the military.
The bill includes about $100 billion for military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as $8 billion in domestic projects such as farm aid and hurricane relief and $9 billion in military-related spending such as improved health care for service members.
While the measure does not include a timetable on the war, it does threaten to withhold U.S. aid dollars for Iraq if Baghdad fails to make progress on political and security reforms. The president, however, could waive that restriction.
Biden said that while he would vote for the measure, he disagreed with the approach because it could hamper the Iraqi government's ability to take on more responsibility.
The legislation resulted after weeks of negotiations with the White House, which agreed to accept $17 billion in funding not requested by Bush as long as there were not restrictions on the military campaign.
Democratic leaders planned multiple votes in the House on Thursday to ensure the measure would ultimately pass because of disagreements among members on elements of the bill. One vote was to be on war funding, while another would be to approve the extra money for domestic and military-related projects.
While liberal Democrats were expected to vote against the war funds measure, GOP members were expected to make up for the losses. On the added spending, Democrats likely were to be unified in their support for the measure, overcoming GOP objections.
House Approves Iraq War Funding Bill Without Timetable for Withdrawing U.S. Troops
Congress Bows to Bush and Approves Billions for Iraq War Without Troop Withdrawal Timeline
CLINTON, OBAMA VOTE AGAINST WAR FUNDING
Senate Passes War Funding Bill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well It's about time. Why could'nt they do this months ago? Instead of visiting Syria, avoiding General Petraeus, and stuffing PEANUT STORAGE among other pork projects in this bill? I sure hope the Troops havent had to suffer for to long at the hands of the Democrats. And all this for Political gain. And now the Democrats have to answer to the anti-war crowd that THEY encouraged and got motivated. Oh well thier problem, not ours. How many more mistakes, hypocrisy, undermining of our Troops, micromanaging the war, and defeatism do we all have to put up with? Hopefully we will only have to endure this disaster of a Democrat Congress until the General Election.
Labels: Crybaby Liberals, Troop Funding
posted by Marie's Two Cents | 6:24 PM
11 Comments:
hooahhhhhhhhhhhh!..finally a bit of good news hun!
Hopefully we will only have to endure this disaster of a Democrat Congress until the General Election.
By then, Marie, only an obtuse minority of Americans should still be interested in voting Democrat.
"Two front-runners, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, declined to say how they intended to vote on the measure."
And that would be a resounding NO, from both ofthese losers.
Hitlery Clinton and Obama voted "no". I have it posted on my Liberal Lunacy blog. Perhaps they are out together crying in their beer. Well, maybe not together, and probably not beer.
Chateau Lafite, perhaps?
Chateau Lafite, perhaps?
Nah, Gayle. More like Kool-Aid.
Don't you just love this?
We Support The Troops But Won't Fund Them
Why do the Libs always say that and then put the word ....."But" afterwards?
Angel,
It sure was. Finally! They could have done this long ago, and that is the lowest of the low playing political football with our Troops lives.
Seth,
Hopefully we will only have to endure this disaster of a Democrat Congress until the General Election.
By then, Marie, only an obtuse minority of Americans should still be interested in voting Democrat.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh let us hope so Seth, let us pray!!
Gayle,
They make me sick.
Anything to score Political points with the anti-war group who are slowly turning into the minority.
What are they going to do with these people? They created this anti-war movement, well they didnt create it but they encouraged it, it's gotten way out of control now and they have to live with them.
I'm glad we dont.
Uncle P,
LOL, Kool Aid
DD,
I cant imagine.
These people are really out there.
How can you possibly support the Troops then rufuse to fund them while we are at war?
Unfriggenbelievable
Post a Comment
<< Home