COL Gene

Bush Veto of Supplemental will Deny Troop Funding!

▼

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 #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
“The answer is no because it is paid for quarterly not yearly”

You do not know what you are talking about. The supplemental Bush has requested goes thru 30 Sept 2007. If he signs the 123 Billion Dollar supplemental the funding for Iraq is in place until the end of the fiscal year. Your statement that war funding is always separate is also not correct. The Bush 2008 Budget contains the funding for Iraq in 2008.

An issue I noticed has been ignored is the problem we have created with Saudi Arabia. In effect the government we helped create in Iraq is allied with Iran the arch enemy of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. CNN has been reporting that Saudi Arabia is not funding separate groups that oppose the Shea which controls the new Iraq Government. What Bush has done is to begin driving a wedge between the U.S. and the few Moslem countries we have been able to deal with the formation of the Shea dominated Iraq Government! WAY TO GO GEORGE!!!! Just think what could happen if Saudi Arabia were to turn off the oil spigot to the U.S. because we helped form a government in Iraq that is killing the Sunni Arabs!


“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.”

Although I do not agree with the Pork that is NOT why Bush will veto this bill and you know it. The reason is the date to get out of Iraq. Some of the added funding in the Bill is for the VA that Bush has under funded in his 2007 budget!
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
You do not know what you are talking about. The supplemental Bush has requested goes thru 30 Sept 2007. If he signs the 123 Billion Dollar supplemental the funding for Iraq is in place until the end of the fiscal year.


Can't take it past the fiscal year right? The money was supposed to run out in June and needs to be in place ahead of it running out. oops. Because of the surge the money will run out the end of April maybe the end of May. The Congress approved the new general for the surge. We started the surge and it was working, and now the Congress wants to cut funding for the war and make the surge fail before it is even 40% started. Tell me again how the President will get the blame for the failure?
Star Control: Origins
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
these satire posts give me such a laugh. It's so obvious that no sane person could actually think this way that it's hilarious. This should be a regular part of SNL, much like the "Jane you stupid bitch" bits.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Paladin 77

YOU ARE WRONG!!! You have no idea how the federal Budget works.

The issue in this Blog is that if Bush vetoes the funding bill because it contains a date to end this war it will be BUSH not Congress that prevented the added funding for the Iraq War! The Bill has all the money Bush claims is needed and it will be his veto that prevents that money from being available for our military operations.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue in this Blog is that if Bush vetoes the funding bill because it contains a date to end this war it will be BUSH not Congress that prevented the added funding for the Iraq War! The Bill has all the money Bush claims is needed and it will be his veto that prevents that money from being available for our military operations.


I love how you try and turn this around to blame Bush when you know democrats are using this bill to push their pork bribes and surrender dates.

I'm still waiting for your article criticizing democrats for their pork bill.


Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
PORK is not why Bush will veto this bill. I do not agree with the PORK but that is not a valid reason to not approve the money Bush claims is needed for our military. His veto places the blame for not having the funding on him!
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
PORK is not why Bush will veto this bill. I do not agree with the PORK but that is not a valid reason to not approve the money Bush claims is needed for our military. His veto places the blame for not having the funding on him!


You disloyal, socialist loving, pompous, hemorrhoid chewing, lying sack of whale dung!
You screamed to high heaven about the earmarks of the republicans and how that would change now that the democrats are in power. You admit that the pork is still there so nothing has changed. You cried about the culture of corruption then we find out that your beloved Senator Feinstein has been an ethically challenged war profiteer since day one of the war feeding no bid contracts to her husbands company to the tune of over a billion dollars. I don’t hear you screaming for her head on a platter for it. You are a political hack and nothing more. The democrats had to put the pork into the bill to get the votes to pass it because just saying a date to pull out of the war on terror they came up short by about 20 votes. Why reward people who would vote against their constituents unless they can bring them a bone so they can get re-elected? If you have to be bribed to vote for the Democrat way of losing the war I would say the votes are not really there and that the Veto will stand because of it.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
paladin77

You are about the biggest ASS I have ever encountered!
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are about the biggest ASS I have ever encountered!


Thaat is the best you have? I expected better from one of your age and education.

Please don't think that calling me an ass would upset me. I had professionas try to kill me for over 10 years your weak words don't ever register on the threat meter in negative numbers.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
paladin77

You are about the biggest ASS


He "may be" the biggest....but "you're" a complete one.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
He "may be" the biggest....but "you're" a complete one.


Thanks!

I think.