Bush Veto of Supplemental will Deny Troop Funding!

from JoeUser Forums


The threatened veto of the supplemental to fund the Iraq War contains ALL the money Bush requested to support out troops through the end of the fiscal year. Now Bush is telling the American People that if Congress passes the supplemental with restrictions on the War, he will veto the bill and Congress will have failed to fund the troops. That is not correct Mr. President! If congress had not included the needed funding such a claim would be valid. However, if you veto the bill that contains the money needed for the support of our troops it will be the Commander-in-chief that prevented the funding from being available NOT Congress. In addition, the reason we even need a supplemental is because Bush did not include the funding for the war in his 2007 budget so it appeared the budget was $120 billion smaller. The excuse was that they could not estimate the amount needed. Then how did Bush estimate the amount to ask for in the supplemental? In addition, in the 2008 budget, Bush did include the funding for the Iraq war. HOW was he was able to estimate the amount he included in the 2008 budget?

Bush may not like the restrictions aimed at ending this war, however, that is the WILL of the Congress and the American people. Bush simply will not accept the fact that the majority of Americans want this war to end. Congress has acted in accordance with the wishes of the majority and it is time for GWB to accept that he is NOT a Dictator.

Yesterday, Bush got another shock when King Abdullah the ruler of Saudi Arabia condemned our invasion of Iraq. The King was speaking before the Arab Summit and said the invasion of Iraq was an, “illegitimate foreign occupation”. He lectured the U.S. on the invasion in a very strongly worded speech before the leaders of the Arab World. This from the leader of a country the U.S. needs to supply our oil and who has been a good friend to the Bush family. If GWB had any sense he would look around and see that he has no support for this war. It was a mistake as King Abdullah said it is time to end our occupation of Iraq.

If Bush vetoes the supplemental funding for the military, Congress needs to pass an identical bill and send it back to the White House. If the funding becomes a problem it will be because of the stubbornness of the President to acknowledge the time has come to turn the fight for Iraq over to the Iraqi people.
politics
11,220 views 36 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
And it will all be the fault of Democrats that are trying to prove they are more stubborn than President Bush.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
By the way, I note no mention from the normal complainer about deficit spending that this pork laden product would also be busting the bank.  Not able to complain about that part since this was the product of Democrats?!?
Star Control: Origins
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

This is pretty low even for you col.  You know you are misrepresenting the reality that this bill was used by democrats in a purely political manner.

This bill was filled with democratic bribes and pork, and you haven't said a word about the wasted money in that bill. Good for Bush to veto this bill with restricitons of failure and surrender.  Let the rats make a new bill with more pork.

 

 

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top





“And it will all be the fault of Democrats that are trying to prove they are more stubborn than President Bush.”

Not So. The Congress has the RESPONSIBILITY to enact laws including ALL Funding. They are doing what they believe is correct. If Bush Veto's that appropriations it is BUSH not CONGRESS that will prevent the needed funding!

"Let the rats make a new bill with more pork.”

No I would eliminate the Pork but retain all the other provisions. The issue is not the PORK. The GOP has NO right to talk about PORK after what they have passed over the past 6 years! It is the RIGHT of Congress to pass funding legislation with the restrictions they deem appropriate. In this case the Congress is acting in a manor that conforms to the desire of the majority of Americans. It is Bush that is outside looking in! He will not accept the People and Congress have had enough of this war. He also does not seem to understand he has almost NO support abroad. When the leader of Saudi Arabia takes the stand he did, it is time for Bush to acknowledge the war is OVER for the U.S.!
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush tells us He is the decider. No Mr. President the American People are the deciders. They chose in November 2006 and elected a Congress that placed control of Congress in the hands of the democrats. The Democrats in Congress along with a few Republicans have spoken and it is time for the President to understand WHO IS BOSS!
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

Hay you IDIOT I said I did not support the pork. The reality is that Congress and the American People have spoken. It is time for Bush to listen!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Democrats in Congress along with a few Republicans have spoken and it is time for the President to understand WHO IS BOSS!


LMAO.  You seriously have no grasp of reality.


The issue is not the PORK. The GOP has NO right to talk about PORK after what they have passed over the past 6 years!


So let's see col.  You spend years complaining and complaining about pork and the GOP, but now the democrats do the same thing, and I haven't seen an article yet.


Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hay you IDIOT I said I did not support the pork.


Prove it. Where are the articles bashing Congress for all of the pork in the appropriations bill that you're lauding? I mean, come on! Almost half of the cost of the bill is PORK! Pure, unadulterated PORK.

Where are all the articles holding the Democrats in Congress to the same standard (which, alas and alak, they're not meeting) that you tried to hold the Republicans to?

COL - I'd call you a RINO, but most of the RINO that I know at least PRETEND to agree with the others at some point. You don't even make a pretense of your Democratic partisanship.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

I don't know why you keep claiming the American people "have spoken", you are just grasping onto emotion at this point. They gave control of Congress to the democrats. That is how they spoke. Now that Congress has said the war must come to an end. It is time for Bush to understand who is BOSS. It is the people who elected a Congress to end this war! If the GOP and Bush prevent the will of the people from becoming reality, the election of 2008 result in another blood bath for the GOP!
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

IslandDog



Hay you IDIOT I said I did not support the pork. The reality is that Congress and the American People have spoken. It is time for Bush to listen!


Col, your childish insults show that you cannot win a debate.

I don't know why you keep claiming the American people "have spoken", you are just grasping onto emotion at this point.  Just because democrats barely pass a bill doesn't mean Bush has to sign it. 

As the other poster said, where is your articles holding the democrats responsible for their pork?  Will you finally admit you are a democrat?




Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush tells us He is the decider. No Mr. President the American People are the deciders.


Gene why let a little thing like the constitution get in the way of your delusion? Fighting wars is exclusively the responsibility of the President of the United States, you seem to think that it is alright for Congress to mess with the war plans by cutting funding or using delaying tactics in order to gain political points. Good for you Gene you want to lose the war.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is the people who elected a Congress to end this war!


This is a lie as the Democrats that won election did not campaign on ending the war. I can’t recall one candidate that advocated pulling out of the war before it was over and won election.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Paladin77

The Congress that was elected in November 2006 has voted to fund the war for a limited time and the withdrawal requirements are what the LAW requires if the final bill passes both houses of Congress with these restrictions in place. If Bush refuses to sign that bill then HE is the one that is denying the funds to continue the war. If Congress sticks by their vote Bush will be forced to bring the troops home when he no longer has the funding to continue the war! Congress makes the laws in our country and it is time Bush reads the constitution. If there are no funds Bush may be Commander-in-chief but he will be unable to continue the war without spending authority!
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Paladin77

The Congress that was elected in November 2006 has voted to fund the war for a limited time and the withdrawal requirements are what the LAW requires if the final bill passes both houses of Congress with these restrictions in place. If Bush refuses to sign that bill then HE is the one that is denying the funds to continue the war. If Congress sticks by their vote Bush will be forced to bring the troops home when he no longer has the funding to continue the war! Congress makes the laws in our country and it is time Bush reads the constitution. If there are no funds Bush may be Commander-in-chief but he will be unable to continue the war without spending authority!
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
They gave control of Congress to the democrats. That is how they spoke. Now that Congress has said the war must come to an end. It is time for Bush to understand who is BOSS. It is the people who elected a Congress to end this war! If the GOP and Bush prevent the will of the people from becoming reality, the election of 2008 result in another blood bath for the GOP!


LOL.  You seriously have no grasp of how things work in the world.  Keep dreaming col.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
THE SURGE IS A MISTAKE!!!!!

BUSH REFUSES TO FUND THE SURGE!!!!!

Why am I not surprised?  
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Paladin77

There is No politics in the action of Congress. It is a CLEAR desire on the part of Congress which is a reflection of WHAT the American People want which is to end the Iraq war. If Bush veto's this Bill HE and HE alone is preventing the funds from being available. If Bush had included the funding for the war in the 2007 budget request rather then attempting to make the deficit appear smaller he would not need an Emergency Funding bill!
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
If Bush refuses to sign that bill then HE is the one that is denying the funds to continue the war.


This is an emergencey funding bill for the war effort. If Congress wants to make a law to restrict the war they can do that any time. It will be Vetoed and the Congress will have to send another bill up. If not then the Democrat controlled Congress will haave to explain to the American people why they were playing politics with the lives of our children. This will make you happy as you cheer the deahts of our troops in the quest to get rid of a man that can't run for office again.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Paladin77

There is No politics in the action of Congress. It is a CLEAR desire on the part of Congress which is a reflection of WHAT the American People want which is to end the Iraq war. If Bush veto's this Bill HE and HE alone is preventing the funds from being available. If Bush had included the funding for the war in the 2007 budget request rather then attempting to make the deficit appear smaller he would not need an Emergency Funding bill!


Then tell the democrats to take the PORK out of the bill to start with.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
If Bush had included the funding for the war in the 2007 budget request rather then attempting to make the deficit appear smaller he would not need an Emergency Funding bill!


Do you actually have a brain in your head? The emergency funding bill is because of THE SURGE!
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Get congress over to Britain. Tell the Senate to make Iran free the British hostages. Blair won't do it but Congress can. Et Tu Brutus!
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is No politics in the action of Congress.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!



Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Drmiler

If Bush had included the funding for the war in the 2007 budget request rather then attempting to make the deficit appear smaller he would not need an Emergency Funding bill!


Do you actually have a brain in your head? The emergency funding bill is because of THE SURGE! WHERE DID I SAY THE EMERGENCY FUNDING BILL WAS DUE TO THE SURGE? I said had Bush included the money for the Iraq War in the 2007 Budget request, he would not need the supplemental. It is true, some of that 122 Billion is due to the added cost of the surge but the majority is to sustain the war which should have been included in the 2007 defense request! The ONLY reason Bush has not been including the Iraq War Cost in the defense Request is to make it appear he is spending less. That is pure BS because the spending from any supplemental cones from the same place-- INCREASED DEBT!

Today again Bush said the failure to fund the troops will fall on Congress. That is a LIE

All you need to do is answer the simple question, “If Bush signs the bill will the troops have the needed funding for the balance of this fiscal year? The answer is YES. If Bush vetoes this bill the troops will NOT have the needed funding. That puts it squarely on the President’s responsibility not Congress!
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
If Bush had included the funding for the war in the 2007 budget request rather then attempting to make the deficit appear smaller he would not need an Emergency Funding bill!


I explained this to you before but reading is not one of your srtong suits.

Wars are always done seperately and not part of the regular budget. Supplementals and emergency bills because war is not a normal budget item. Are you sure you were in the U. S. Army? I had to write budgets for my unit so as a colonel in the Army I would assume you have written at least one and would know how the budget process works.

“If Bush signs the bill will the troops have the needed funding for the balance of this fiscal year?


The answer is no because it is paid for quarterly not yearly. You would know this if you understood the process. You pose a question that you think you have the answer to and once again you hove no idea what you are writing about. Nice try my son could make a better argument or at least one with fewer holes.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
All you need to do is answer the simple question, “If Bush signs the bill will the troops have the needed funding for the balance of this fiscal year? The answer is YES. If Bush vetoes this bill the troops will NOT have the needed funding. That puts it squarely on the President’s responsibility not Congress!


WRONG, it puts it SQUARE on CONGRESS! GW "will" veto it and partially because of the added pork and the 400 billion dollar tax increase that the democrats stuck in with it. GW didn't put the junk in it. Now would be a GREAT time for a "line item" veto. Although "I" think it's mainly because of the "CONGRESS" imposed time line.