Dingey Harry Reid Threatens Troop Funding Again
Here We Go Again
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that Democrats won't approve more money for the Iraq war this year unless President Bush agrees to begin bringing troops home.
By the end of the week, the House and Senate planned to vote on a $50 billion measure for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would require Bush to initiate troop withdrawals immediately with the goal of ending combat by December 2008.
If Bush vetoes the bill, "then the president won't get his $50 billion," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., made a similar statement last week in a closed-door caucus meeting.
The tough rhetoric does not necessarily foretell another veto showdown with Bush on the war. Similar legislation has routinely fallen short of the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate. It is possible the upcoming bill will sink, in which case Democrats would probably wait until next year to revisit the issue.
But their remarks reflect an emerging Democratic strategy on the war: Force congressional Republicans and Bush to accept a timetable for troop withdrawals, or turn Pentagon accounting processes into a bureaucratic nightmare.
If Democrats refuse to send Bush the $50 billion, the military would have to drain its annual budget to keep the wars afloat. Last week, Congress approved a $471 billion budget for the military that pays mostly for non-war related projects, such as depot maintenance and weapons development.
The tactic stops short of blocking money outright from being used on the war, an approach that has divided Democrats and fueled Republican criticism that Democrats are eager to abandon the troops. But forcing the Pentagon into a painful budget dance to pay for the wars spares Democrats from having to write a blank check on the unpopular war.
"We will and we must pay for whatever cost to protect the American people," said House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "But tragically, unfortunately, incredibly, the war is not making us safer."
In a recent letter to Congress, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England warned that the Army was on track to run out of money by February.
England also said that without more money the military would eventually have to close facilities, layoff civilian workers and defer contracts. Also, the budget delay could disrupt training efforts of Iraqi security forces and efforts to protect troops against roadside bombs, he said.
"The successes they (the troops ) have achieved in recent months will be short lived without appropriate resources to continue their good work," England wrote in a Nov. 8 letter.
A White House spokesman said Bush would veto any legislation that sets a timetable for troop withdrawals.
In a speech in Indiana on Tuesday, Bush said Congress should not leave for Christmas recess without passing a clean war spending bill.
"We don't need members of Congress telling our military commanders what to do," he said. "We need our military commanders telling us what to do so we can win the war against these extremists and radicals."
Congressional Republicans said they would back the president.
"It's very clear that the American people want us to succeed," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. "They would like for our troops to be able to come home, but not in a losing cause."
The House was expected to vote as early as Wednesday, with the Senate following suit by the end of the week.
The bill is similar to one Bush rejected in May. Unable to muster the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, Democrats stripped the timetable from the $95 billion bill and approved the war money without restrictions.
Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh why cant these Democrat's just leave the war to the President and the General's on the ground to tell us what they need to finish this mission? Why must Congress insist on Micromanaging this war? They have litterally taken leave of their senses. Can we put Congress under House Arrest?
UPDATE:
House Passes $50B Iraq Withdrawal Bill
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that Democrats won't approve more money for the Iraq war this year unless President Bush agrees to begin bringing troops home.
By the end of the week, the House and Senate planned to vote on a $50 billion measure for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would require Bush to initiate troop withdrawals immediately with the goal of ending combat by December 2008.
If Bush vetoes the bill, "then the president won't get his $50 billion," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., made a similar statement last week in a closed-door caucus meeting.
The tough rhetoric does not necessarily foretell another veto showdown with Bush on the war. Similar legislation has routinely fallen short of the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate. It is possible the upcoming bill will sink, in which case Democrats would probably wait until next year to revisit the issue.
But their remarks reflect an emerging Democratic strategy on the war: Force congressional Republicans and Bush to accept a timetable for troop withdrawals, or turn Pentagon accounting processes into a bureaucratic nightmare.
If Democrats refuse to send Bush the $50 billion, the military would have to drain its annual budget to keep the wars afloat. Last week, Congress approved a $471 billion budget for the military that pays mostly for non-war related projects, such as depot maintenance and weapons development.
The tactic stops short of blocking money outright from being used on the war, an approach that has divided Democrats and fueled Republican criticism that Democrats are eager to abandon the troops. But forcing the Pentagon into a painful budget dance to pay for the wars spares Democrats from having to write a blank check on the unpopular war.
"We will and we must pay for whatever cost to protect the American people," said House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "But tragically, unfortunately, incredibly, the war is not making us safer."
In a recent letter to Congress, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England warned that the Army was on track to run out of money by February.
England also said that without more money the military would eventually have to close facilities, layoff civilian workers and defer contracts. Also, the budget delay could disrupt training efforts of Iraqi security forces and efforts to protect troops against roadside bombs, he said.
"The successes they (the troops ) have achieved in recent months will be short lived without appropriate resources to continue their good work," England wrote in a Nov. 8 letter.
A White House spokesman said Bush would veto any legislation that sets a timetable for troop withdrawals.
In a speech in Indiana on Tuesday, Bush said Congress should not leave for Christmas recess without passing a clean war spending bill.
"We don't need members of Congress telling our military commanders what to do," he said. "We need our military commanders telling us what to do so we can win the war against these extremists and radicals."
Congressional Republicans said they would back the president.
"It's very clear that the American people want us to succeed," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. "They would like for our troops to be able to come home, but not in a losing cause."
The House was expected to vote as early as Wednesday, with the Senate following suit by the end of the week.
The bill is similar to one Bush rejected in May. Unable to muster the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, Democrats stripped the timetable from the $95 billion bill and approved the war money without restrictions.
Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh why cant these Democrat's just leave the war to the President and the General's on the ground to tell us what they need to finish this mission? Why must Congress insist on Micromanaging this war? They have litterally taken leave of their senses. Can we put Congress under House Arrest?
UPDATE:
House Passes $50B Iraq Withdrawal Bill
Labels: Dingey Harry, Nitwits
posted by Marie's Two Cents | 8:54 AM
27 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
Could there possibly be any more of reason to make sure everyone turns out next year to vote these morons out of the Congress? While they complain about a war that is costing less than 4 percent of the budget they sit idly by while the social security system is on a crash course for destruction within only a few short years. The first baby boomers have started to collect and in just a short while there will be nothing left to draw from.
While China drills for oil in the Gulf of Mexico off of Cuba the Congress sits on their hands and denies the right for us to be energy independent by being able to drill for oil, build new refineries, and start making gasoline from coal oil.
Not to make the lives lost in the war on terror insignificant but in the last year many more people died from crime in the major cities controlled by democrats because they refuse to enforce the law, hire more police and attack the problem of out of wedlock childbirths.
All of things the democrats have not even discussed in meaningful way because it would distract them from their Bush derangement syndrome.
This is way past stupid, ridiculous and assinine. But they are Democrats so what else can we expect.
This is going to come back and bite them in the butt next November. The people see through this crap and the 11% approval ratiing proves it!
Perhaps it's a good thing the nitwits won in 06. It gives the American people plenty of time to see what they're all about! Let them keep on tying the knots in the rope they are hanging themselves with. They're doing a fine job of it! :)
so typical Marie..Rush was going off on this this morning!..ha
Jenn,
Tell us how you really feel lol
You nailed it!
If that comment doesnt get people to the polls nothing will.
Ken,
Can you believe this crap? Again and again and again? I'm serious, let's find a way to put Congress under House arrest till the knock this crap off!
Gayle,
LOL! Yes they are doing a fine job of screwing themselves. I just hope we can get them out of there next year before they screw up the Country!
Angel,
I heard part of that today lol
The troops do need their funding, but I am opposing the way they are getting the funding.
I am opposed to borrowing more money from China and Saudi Arabia to fund anything.
Penn,
Are you the same one who used to comment here?
If you are how have you been?
And have you absolutely lost your mind? I just looked at your webpage and you are supporting Ron Paul?
Why are you supporting that dingbat?
I am supporting Ron Paul because of what he stands for. The man has never accepted a congressional raise, refuses to participate in the Congressional Pension plan. He opposes internet regulation. He is a man who stands by the constituion and freedoms and rights for everyone.
Penn,
He is also a man that believes we attacked ourselves on 9-11, want's to demolish the CIA and FBI and leave us vulnerable for another attack!!
Dont let yourself get sucked into this Ron Paul Cult crap.
Paul has stated: "I agree on getting rid of the IRS, but I want to replace it with nothing, not another tax. But let's not forget the inflation tax. In other statements, he has permitted consideration of a national sales tax as a compromise if the tax need cannot be reduced enough. He has advocated that the reduction of government will make an income tax unnecessary.[63] Paul would substantially reduce the government's role in individual lives and in the functions of foreign and domestic states; he says Republicans have lost their commitment to limited government and have become the party of big government. He would eliminate most federal government agencies as "unnecessary bureaucracies", such as the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service. Paul would severly reduce the role of the CIA; reducing its functions to intelligence-gathering. He would eliminate operations like overthrowing foreign governments and assassinations. He says this activity is kept secret even from Congress and "leads to trouble."He also commented, "We have every right in the world to know something about intelligence gathering, but we have to have intelligent people interpreting this information."
Ron Paul does not want to get rid of the FBI. And he wants to reduce the role of the CIA back to intellegence gathering.
Penn,
Ya know I like ya, but you are way off on Ron Paul.
What good are any of his plans if we have no Country left?
The only 2008 presidential candidate to earn Gun Owners of America's A+ rating, Paul has authored and sponsored pro-Second Amendment legislation in Congress. He has also fought for the right of pilots to be armed.
In the first chapter of his book, Freedom Under Siege, Paul argued that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to place a check on government tyranny, not to merely grant hunting rights or allow self-defense. When asked whether individuals should be allowed to own machine guns, Paul responded, "Whether it's an automatic weapon or not is, I think, irrelevant." Paul believes that a weapons ban at the federal or state level does not work either. "Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer." Rather, he sees school shootings, plane hijackings, and other such events as a result of prohibitions on self-defense.
One solution is arming pilots,
Ron Paul has also proposed using the military to secure our borders. That being said our borders aren't really that secured now, Look at all the illegal immigrants in this country now.
Paul does not believe the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks were a government conspiracy and has explicitly denied being a 9/11 truther, arguing the issue is not a conspiracy but a bureaucracy. He believes the 9/11 Commission Report's main goal was "to protect the government and to protect their ineptness - not ... to do this so they can use this as an excuse to spread the war .... Some who did want to spread the war would use it as an opportunity. But, it wasn't something that was deliberately done."He does not think the government would have staged such an attack. When asked whether "9/11 was orchestrated by the government", Paul emphasized, "Absolutely not."
Penn,
Aw Dammit here we go:
In the first part of your statement, we have enough drunken or half asleep pilots on airplanes as it is and arming them would be like a bomb waiting to go off.
What if we had a "Out Of His Mind" pilot that no one ever knew was out of his gourd until all hell broke loose and he started shooting passengers?
We already have "Air Marshalls" onboard the planes that are armed. I think that is sufficient. It has worked for the last 6 and 1/2 years anyway! If it aint broke why fix it?
For the second half of your arguement Paul IS associated with the "Truthers"! They show up at every Ron Paul event and hand out fake dollar bills with Dick Cheney's face on them that read "9-11 Truth.com" Not to mention he writes for them.
Paul cant be that blind as to not know that this is going on at his events, if he is he has no business being a Congressman let alone President!
Paul is a Liberatarian NOT a Republican. He only joined the Republican party because he thought that would garner him more light in his quest to become President and it has worked so far.
He would take away all of our defenses that have protected us for the last 6 and 1/2 years and that we just cant have.
We have to get control over those that want to attack us first before we can even consider any of this other stuff Paul want's to do. This election is to important to hand someone like Ron Paul the Presidency while we are at War.
Maybe some other time.
Give 'em hell Marie...
so, you got the ronbots all fired up?
Tell them you were listening to RON PAUL on the moonbat ALEX JONES conspiracy radio show and he said this...(quote)
"Ron Paul was asked to respond to comments by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan that the U.S. is in danger of a staged terror attack or a provocation of an enemy similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 before the Vietnam War.
"Yes, ...we're in danger in many ways," Paul said on the Alex Jones radio show. "The attack on our civil liberties here at home, the foreign policy that's in shambles and our obligations overseas and commitment which endangers our troops and our national defense."
During the radio interview, Paul said the government was conducting "an orchestrated effort to blame the Iranians for everything that has gone wrong in Iraq."
(end)
Sounds like your average run of the mill moonbat to me... not the so-called front running Republican Presidential candidate.
Ron Paul is the 2008 version of 1992's Ross Perot... kicked up a knotch in the krazy dept.
Red,
I have been going easy on Penn.
He used to be sensible, yet Independent!
Now the Ron Paul Cult has got ahold to him, and I like him, he's just WRONG!
I guess he hasnt read some of the other posts I have done on Ron Paul.
I would hope he changes his mind but these Ron Paul people are set in thier minds.
Yes I usually do work up the Ron Paul people, but this was supposed to be about Troop Funding!
!@#$%^&^%$#@!
Wow your blog is busy today. Or maybe I'm just late? Probably both. LOL This frustrates me to no end. There is not enough to worry about that you have to beat a dead horse. I mean c'mon, enough already. I do agreee with Gayle, they will hang themselves eventually and we will all have a clear view of it.
Hard to believe the Democrats would be that stupid to threaten to cut off funds to our troops when nearly EVERYONE now sees we are winning.
But then, it seems there are a lot of stupid people out there (Ron Paul supporters).
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey Pennsy, glad to see you back. Just to let you know though. Some of the things that Ron Paul has said are conservative ideals. The last Congress lost their conservative way and lost control of Congress because of their misguided corruption. Having said that though, there is not even a slim chance of Ron Paul being elected, their is actually no chance of it.
Government needs to pared down but it just isn't going to happen under a Paul administration because there will be no Paul administration and even he will acknowledge that.
You have a few choices here. Vote for Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton gets elected. Vote for Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton gets elected. Don't vote at all and Hillary clinton Clinton gets elected. Vote for a common sense candidate that can win like Rudy, Fred, or Mitt and make sure you vote for a conservative candidate for Congress to go along with that so that we have a bigger majority in congress next session.
Voting for a libertarian in a presidential election is fruitless and helps liberals. I've seen it so many times and I'm trying to save you the frustration that you will get following people that have no real guide. Oh yeah, Ron Paul will tell you that he knows the constitution and he'll make the same quotes over and over again but so far after watching this guy for over 20 years I have not seen that he has any real practical understanding, not one bit. Ron Paul no more understands the constitution than your average public high school student in my estimation and I have been watching this guy since he ran as a libertarian back in'88.
I once believed all that crap about libertarians and such but I found I could not get behind Ron Paul, Harry Brown or any of those other footnotes in history. It became much more productive to be involved in changing the party I belonged to. Even the most popular President of his time Theodore Roosevelt couldn't make a viable third party. Ron Paul is no TR.
The biggest problem I see with the ronulans is that they are projecting the image of man and leader that Ron Paul is not and can never be. I've seen this all before and if you have it in your mind to find out for yourself then go do it and when you find out what I say it is true, I won't say I told you so, I'll just say let's get this thing done in defeating the real danger, Hillary Clinton.
Senator Reid won't rest until we lose in Iraq.
As for Paul, we is an awful candidate. He's not really a Republican, he's a libertarian. I'm a bit of a libertarian myself, and I sympathetic to some of their goals, but Paul is a different story. His national defense strategy is insane. He wants to disband the CIA.
Paul isn't a 9/11 truther, but he is sympathetic to their cause. He appeared on Alex Jones's radio show, and Jones is perhaps the most notorious "truther".
Jenn CC,
This is rediculous, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are just pulling this crap left and right, they have to be stopped.
Mike,
It seems Reid and Pelosi are just sucking up to the Code Pink crowd.
Jenn,
I remember Pennsy, and I would like to be soft with him about Ron Paul, but we have to remember he is for Ron Paul lol.
I'm not sure how soft we will be able to be shortly.
Danny,
That's why we must show up at the polls next year and dump these fools out of office.
I am unsure if I cannot support any other cadidates for 2008. Fred Thompson propses that socail security benefits are cut, and we cannot afford another fiscal liberal like Rudy. I like Rudy Guiliani, he is a great man,but his fiscal policies are terrible. Governemnt at any level does not need to fund baseball stadiums, although I am a huge baseball fan, tax dollars do not need to be used to build stadiums.
Mitt Romney waffles on gun issues and several other things. I am not at all impressed with him.
I can no longer support candidates that are either borrow and spend or tax and spend and it is both sides of the political spectrum that have increase the size of government and taken away rights away from the states. That is one reason I cannot support Hillary or Obama.
Pennsy, when push comes to shove next year at election time the choices are going to be Mitt vs Clinton or Guiliani vs Clinton. I think Rudy is probably the most likely.
In any case the congress has to be rearranged because Harry Reid/butt head can't be the Senate majority nor can Nancy Pelosi be the Speaker of the House if this country is to move forward.
The people who keep electing Dingey Harry and Kucinich must be related, coming from the same uni-branch family tree.
Moonbats elected by sheep(lovers).
Kucinich and Paul seem to share a certain "off-kilterness" in common. They should run a ticket together.
pennsy,
Do you agree with Ron Paul that we should be out of Iraq IMMEDIATELY? (set aside for a moment, how unrealistic and unlikely anyone could make that happen).
Do you think there is such a thing as an Islamist threat?
Two books I recommend that could change views regarding American interventionism and whether or not our military are doing good work for the betterment of the world:
Dangerous Nation by Kagan
Hog Pilots and Blue Water Grunts by Kaplan.
Post a Comment
<< Home