GOP Senators Stop Funding For OUR Troops

from JoeUser Forums


The House approved $50 Billion for the Iraq War and Senate GOP members prevented that bill from coming to a vote. It is now clear what is stopping the Iraq War Funding are the GOP members of Congress and George W. Bush. I would suggest the Defense Secretary address his comments to them.

If our troops do not have what they need it is clearly because of the GOP and President Bush. I wonder how they will justify their actions?
politics
37,146 views 162 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sir,

The handful of articles I've read about this today (mostly from the Early Bird News compilation that the DoD puts out) have said that the bill passed by the House would require a near complete withdrawal of combat troops by December 2008, that the funds are effectively tied to that deadline. The Senate shot down a similar bill, right, that would tie the funds to a withdrawal timetable?

Why won't the Democrats send up a bill without that deadline in it? On the other hand, why can't the Republicans push up a bill that has no deadline, and get it passed?

I think laying the blame entirely at the feet of the Republicans isn't giving the full picture of the political backdrop of the actions being taken.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why won't the Democrats send up a bill without that deadline in it? On the other hand, why can't the Republicans push up a bill that has no deadline, and get it passed?


they did it also was defeated today
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
If our troops do not have what they need it is clearly because of the GOP and President Bush.


blaming bush because the idiot democrats keep putting things in the bill they know will get it vetoed.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gene, it's really pathetic how you obviously try to blame everything on Bush and the GOP.  The democrats are using the funding for the troops for their political agenda, and that is why these bills don't pass. 


Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why won't the Democrats send up a bill without that deadline in it?


The Congress can impose restrictions on a funding Bill. The fact is that the GOP members of the Senate would not allow the bill to come to a vote and are thus stopping the funding for the war. What the House Bill does is what the majority of Americans want!
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Friday, November 16, 2007Why won't the Democrats send up a bill without that deadline in it? On the other hand, why can't the Republicans push up a bill that has no deadline, and get it passed?they did it also was defeated today


No that is what the majority of Congress wants and is what the majority of Americans want-- An end to the Iraq War!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Island DogPosted: Friday, November 16, 2007Gene, it's really pathetic how you obviously try to blame everything on Bush and the GOP.


I have stated the facts. The House provided the funding for the War and the GOP members in the Senate PREVENTED it from being voted on. WHY?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Congress can impose restrictions on a funding Bill.


I understand that they can, I'm certainly not convinced that they should. Especially with it being fairly obvious that the Republican party would block such a bill. In that case, I feel it's both parties inability to compromise that is at fault here.

An exagerrated parallel: I tell you that I can cure cancer, but you have to allow me to personally slaughter 100s of people. You refuse to allow me a murder spree, and I blame you for the cure for cancer not being brought to the public. If the Republicans think that it is unacceptable (for moral or other reasons) to have a set deadline for withdrawal tied to an appropriations bill, and that is apparent to the Democrats, they really can't entirely blame the Republicans when the bill doesn't go up.

The fact is that the GOP members of the Senate would not allow the bill to come to a vote and are thus stopping the funding for the war.


The fact is that, because the Democrats are aware that the Republicans wouldn't compromise on the point of withdrawal timetables, the Democrats are also culpable for the bill being shouted down. I'm certain there is some minor political wrangling going on behind the scenes, but the whole thing smacks of theatrics; I find it hard to imagine that there are a lot of good-faith compromise attempts being made across party lines. The whole process is very partisan.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
The House provided the funding for the War and the GOP members in the Senate PREVENTED it from being voted on. WHY?


Because they refuse to accept a set deadline for troop withdrawal, I'd wager.

The House (Democrats) put forth a deadline for withdrawal and refused to send up an appropriations bill without it. WHY?

Politics.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
No that is what the majority of Congress wants and is what the majority of Americans want-- An end to the Iraq War!


the last pole i saw tonight said it was only 10%
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Of all the vile vomitus you have spewed out onto your blog, this is the most incidious.

The "bill" that was approved by the House contained language that would require Prs. Bush to get permission from Congress before ANY troop movement.  This is not only a blatant attack on the separation of powers, it is an attempt to shred the US Constitution. 

Newsflash, No member of Congress is given authority to decide how a war is to be fought.  I don't care which side of the aisle they sit on, or how much military experience they may have... The U.S. Constitution is VERY clear on this.

btw, The Republican sponsored bill was shot down by the Democrats too, so why are you only blaming the Republicans for this budget impasse?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, Good Grief!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
back to the old stand by


everyone all at one time now


what ever
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: pseudosoldierPosted: Friday, November 16, 2007The Congress can impose restrictions on a funding Bill.I understand that they can, I'm certainly not convinced that they should. Especially with it being fairly obvious that the Republican party would block such a bill. In that case, I feel it's both parties inability to compromise that is at fault here.


The issue is as stated- The GOP members of Congress are the ones preventing the funding. If the majority of Congress believes that the funding should contain the restrictions on the war then that is what should happen. What is taking place is the GOP and Bush are attempting to thwart the will of the majority in Congress which happens to agree with the majority of the country. If the funding is not available to our troops it will be because the GOP and Bush.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Newsflash, No member of Congress is given authority to decide how a war is to be fought. I don't care which side of the aisle they sit on, or how much military experience they may have... The U.S. Constitution is VERY clear on this.


Congress has the power to END the war and to end the funding!
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
They do have the authority to stop funding the war, and the right. But that's not what they tried here is it. All they have to do to end the war is to say, "no, not another dime". But they don't do that, do they. No! Instead they play unconsitutional games with the funding and slime like you applaud them for it.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Funny, I'm just home on leave, and last I checked (last week), despite, according to the media, repeated funding crunches, we're still doing missions, I've got plenty of bullets, and I keep right on eating and getting paid. I'm not overly worried. They'll figure it out. The Democrats will bitch and moan, and they'll compromise a tiny bit from the admin's position, and whatever bill is needed will get passed. SSDD.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)Spc Nobody Special



i deny that you are nobody special


Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Friday, November 16, 2007They do have the authority to stop funding the war, and the right. But that's not what they tried here is it. All they have to do to end the war is to say, "no, not another dime". But they don't do that, do they. No! Instead they play unconsitutional games with the funding and slime like you applaud them for it.


Nothing that Congress has done is unconstitutional. They have provided funding for the war and the terms of use. That is their responsibility. The same thing is taking place with the other appropriation bills. The Congress is not following what Bush would like and he and the GOP want. Bush is NOT the DECIDER and if Bush or the GOP members of Congress try to force a change in the funding levels that the majority of Congress approved or block a vote in the Senate as they did with the war funding bill, the lack of funding will be on the head of Bush and the GOP members of Congress. The time has come for the Congress and the spending process to work as the Constitution provides.

The actions of the Majority of Congress is not a PLOY. It is the GOP in the Congress and the President that are using a PLOY to prevent what the MAJORITY of Congress want.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nothing that Congress has done is unconstitutional.


except that congress does not have control over how the troops are used or when they come home. the only thing that they can do is pay or not pay.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
The actions of the Majority of Congress is not a PLOY. It is the GOP in the Congress and the President that are using a PLOY to prevent what the MAJORITY of Congress want.


oh and this is constitutional.

it is called checks and balances.

and if the majority of congress wanted this it would PASS. and they would be able to over ride the presidents veto.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush is NOT the DECIDER


and he is to the decider. that is why the president was given the power of the veto. and congress has the right to over rule him. it is called a veto over ride.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Saturday, November 17, 2007Bush is NOT the DECIDER and he is to the decider. that is why the president was given the power of the veto. and congress has the right to over rule him. it is called a veto over ride.


Better read the Constitution. Congress NOT the President has the final say on the Budget. The problem we have is that Bush does not understand the meaning of some very basic words. He sent a REQUEST for funding to Congress. That does not mean DEMAND. Bush got use to having Congress act like his requests were demands during the first six years of his administration. It is TIME TO END that process!!
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Saturday, November 17, 2007The actions of the Majority of Congress is not a PLOY. It is the GOP in the Congress and the President that are using a PLOY to prevent what the MAJORITY of Congress want. oh and this is constitutional.it is called checks and balances. and if the majority of congress wanted this it would PASS. and they would be able to over ride the presidents veto.


If Bush and the GOP prevent the MAJORITY in Congress from setting the spending then let Bush and the GOP members in Congress cut off funding and see just how long that will fly!!!

The current process is like the "Tail waging the Dog".
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
what ever