Those Who Voted "No"

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Wrong! He used the veto to deny a bunch of greedy legislators billions in pork that had absolutely nothing with supporting the troops.

You need to warn me 'cause you made me shoot diet coke out of my nose on that one. Right wingers bitching about pork......yea....pull the other one
What's the matter, didn't they add enough?

[billvon 3,107]

>But I thought they were in control in the house now?

They don't command the troops. Only one person can do that, and they are willing to see our troops die for lack of funding rather than allow congress to do its job.

That being said, I am disappointed to see the dems cave in so easily.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

>But I thought they were in control in the house now?

They don't command the troops. Only one person can do that, and they are willing to see our troops die for lack of funding rather than allow congress to do its job.

That being said, I am disappointed to see the dems cave in so easily.

I would have loved to see a provision written in that stated "you can have all the money you're asking for in this umpteenth EMERGENCY request if you show us precisely how the funds going to the Pentagon are going to be allocated. I'd like to see how much is "for the troops" and how much is going to KBR et al. so they can burn up brand new computers and blow up tanker trucks so they can buy a new one instead of changing a tire. That's the kind of crap that needs immediate de-funding.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I am disappointed to see the dems cave in so easily.

Hopefully they'll stop caving in once AQ is in, oh.. New Jersey.

I'd much rather we fight them there (Middle East) than fight them here (United States).

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[pop 0]

Quote

>There were some very prominent members who chose not to support the men in the field.

So vetoing funding is supporting men in the field, but not voting for unlimited funding is NOT supporting men in the field. OK then.

I am glad that there are people in the US government willing to buck the failed policies of our president and try to get our people back from a meat grinder of a civil war. They are the only ones supporting our troops nowadays. Unfortunately, there were more "keep em there until they're dead" types, which is disappointing. The democrats were elected to end the war; I hope they find the stones to do what we elected them to do.

The rhetoric worked for a long time, but I think people are finally realizing that sending a man to his death is not supporting him - bringing him home to his family is.

I dont normally agree with you Bill, but I do today.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Hopefully they'll stop caving in once AQ is in, oh.. New Jersey.

You don't think there are AQ cells in New Jersey right now? Do you think the war in Iraq is making it any more difficult for AQ cells to operate in New Jersey?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,107]

>I'd much rather we fight them there (Middle East) than fight them here
>(United States).

Perhaps you missed the attempted attacks on Fort Dix. This war is making things worse, not better. Your choice is to fight them here or to fight them here AND there. One way we get better protection; the other way we get thousands of dead US soldiers. Most people have decided which one they prefer.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Hopefully they'll stop caving in once AQ is in, oh.. New Jersey.

You don't think there are AQ cells in New Jersey right now? Do you think the war in Iraq is making it any more difficult for AQ cells to operate in New Jersey?

Some people have a hard time grasping concepts that they don't want to accept, such as the reality that the 9/11 terrorists trained here in the US but not in Iraq. Or that al-Qaeda was not welcome in Iraq until we let them in. Or that we're currently sending $millions/month in aid to a country who harbors the terrorists who attacked us and was until recently a significant nuclear technology proliferator. Must just be too much truthiness for some people to handle. Unsubstantial chest thumping sound bytes must be easier to remember.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Right. When the president threatens to defund the troops, he's a hero. When congress threatens to do it, they "hate the troops."

It isn't the President who controls the funds. His previous veto stood because even the Congress didn't have the strength to follow through. Senator Obama said it right in one of the debates they had recently. He was the only honest one about the issue: "Let's defund the troops" is pretty much what he was saying.

The President isn't supposed to have exclusive power over war making either, but here we are.

The majority of Congress believes we should end this war, but the only practical approach they have right now is to cut off all funding until the President yields. They veered first in the game of chicken iwth the lives of the troops. Unlike Bush, they are not actually willing to get them hurt as a consequence of the partisan fight.

The President, otoh, will get nearly 2000 (at current rates) more soldiers killed and tens of thousands wounded rather than admit his policy has failed. Only the arrival of a replacement will end this stubborness.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Right. When the president threatens to defund the troops, he's a hero. When congress threatens to do it, they "hate the troops."

It isn't the President who controls the funds. His previous veto stood because even the Congress didn't have the strength to follow through. Senator Obama said it right in one of the debates they had recently. He was the only honest one about the issue: "Let's defund the troops" is pretty much what he was saying.

The President isn't supposed to have exclusive power over war making either, but here we are.

The majority of Congress believes we should end this war, but the only practical approach they have right now is to cut off all funding until the President yields. They veered first in the game of chicken iwth the lives of the troops. Unlike Bush, they are not actually willing to get them hurt as a consequence of the partisan fight.

That's why I posted this information...the majority of Congress does not support a political end to the war, as was attempted in early May. The only honest brokers in the deal have been Senator Obama (who makes no bones about wanting to outright defund the war) and the President who said that he would not sign a bill with hard dates in it. Now, Sen. Clinton can do a "Kerry" and say, "I was in favor of the funding, before I voted against it."

This campaign had everything to do with the political will and nothing to do with the troops. They ran the risk of hanging the troops in the breeze. They aren't concerned about the funding, if they were, they would have approved it regardless of timelines. The would have approved it and listened to Gen. Petraeus (Speaker Pelosi wouldn't see him last time he was here).

The

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

That's why I posted this information...the majority of Congress does not support a political end to the war, as was attempted in early May.

No, you posted some BS about how certain Democrats proved they hate the troops by not supporting unlimited funding anymore. They passed the bill they wanted with a pullout and Bush vetoed it. Lacking any ability to get more than a couple dozen GOP votes, they knew they had lost.

I don't fault any of them for voting against Version 2. The only offense was in adding other funding (pork) to this key bill.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

That's why I posted this information...the majority of Congress does not support a political end to the war, as was attempted in early May.

No, you posted some BS about how certain Democrats proved they hate the troops by not supporting unlimited funding anymore. They passed the bill they wanted with a pullout and Bush vetoed it. Lacking any ability to get more than a couple dozen GOP votes, they knew they had lost.

I don't fault any of them for voting against Version 2. The only offense was in adding other funding (pork) to this key bill.

No, I posted the names of those who voted against funding the troops. It turns out that the majority of them are democrats. I then posted the links to the votes preceding this measure (the "surrender" bills, or the "hard-date" bills). The list of those that voted yes on that measure was even bigger, but again, the majority of those playing games with time lines was mostly from the left again. If they really wanted to politically end the war, they should have sought to defund it, we all know they don't have the wherewithal to do that though...right?

I even stated in my OP that I was advocating nothing, I was pointing out those that get on your TV everyday that talk about "support this!" and "strength" and "victory" are now subject to their own rhetoric. It's not a summary number any more.

Now is your time to see who is really walking the talk and what better way than to measure that up against a bill where the risks are funds for troops in a combat zone. Talk about a litmus test.

I'll admit I didn't present it (in the title anyway) in the most balanced fashion, I've made it pretty clear about where I stand. Does that really surprise you?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

I posted the names of those who voted against funding the troops.

I believe you left the most significant member of that group off that list.

It is unbelievable to me that people squabble so endlessly over whether the skunks are black on white or white on black. They're still all skunks. The important people are out there in green with guns. Every day I read SC I am amazed how forgotten they truely are in the endless sea of sophmoric nicknames and insults.

[billvon 3,107]

>It is unbelievable to me that people squabble so endlessly over
>whether the skunks are black on white or white on black.

Yep. Great piece on this issue:
------------------------------------------
I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty.

By Andrew J. Bacevich
Sunday, May 27, 2007

Parents who lose children, whether through accident or illness, inevitably wonder what they could have done to prevent their loss. When my son was killed in Iraq earlier this month at age 27, I found myself pondering my responsibility for his death.

Among the hundreds of messages that my wife and I have received, two bore directly on this question. Both held me personally culpable, insisting that my public opposition to the war had provided aid and comfort to the enemy. Each said that my son's death came as a direct result of my antiwar writings.

This may seem a vile accusation to lay against a grieving father. But in fact, it has become a staple of American political discourse, repeated endlessly by those keen to allow President Bush a free hand in waging his war. By encouraging "the terrorists," opponents of the Iraq conflict increase the risk to U.S. troops. Although the First Amendment protects antiwar critics from being tried for treason, it provides no protection for the hardly less serious charge of failing to support the troops -- today's civic equivalent of dereliction of duty.

What exactly is a father's duty when his son is sent into harm's way?

Among the many ways to answer that question, mine was this one: As my son was doing his utmost to be a good soldier, I strove to be a good citizen.

As a citizen, I have tried since Sept. 11, 2001, to promote a critical understanding of U.S. foreign policy. I know that even now, people of good will find much to admire in Bush's response to that awful day. They applaud his doctrine of preventive war. They endorse his crusade to spread democracy across the Muslim world and to eliminate tyranny from the face of the Earth. They insist not only that his decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was correct but that the war there can still be won. Some -- the members of the "the-surge-is-already-working" school of thought -- even profess to see victory just over the horizon.

I believe that such notions are dead wrong and doomed to fail. In books, articles and op-ed pieces, in talks to audiences large and small, I have said as much. "The long war is an unwinnable one," I wrote in this section of The Washington Post in August 2005. "The United States needs to liquidate its presence in Iraq, placing the onus on Iraqis to decide their fate and creating the space for other regional powers to assist in brokering a political settlement. We've done all that we can do."

Not for a second did I expect my own efforts to make a difference. But I did nurse the hope that my voice might combine with those of others -- teachers, writers, activists and ordinary folks -- to educate the public about the folly of the course on which the nation has embarked. I hoped that those efforts might produce a political climate conducive to change. I genuinely believed that if the people spoke, our leaders in Washington would listen and respond.

This, I can now see, was an illusion.

The people have spoken, and nothing of substance has changed. The November 2006 midterm elections signified an unambiguous repudiation of the policies that landed us in our present predicament. But half a year later, the war continues, with no end in sight. Indeed, by sending more troops to Iraq (and by extending the tours of those, like my son, who were already there), Bush has signaled his complete disregard for what was once quaintly referred to as "the will of the people."

To be fair, responsibility for the war's continuation now rests no less with the Democrats who control Congress than with the president and his party. After my son's death, my state's senators, Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, telephoned to express their condolences. Stephen F. Lynch, our congressman, attended my son's wake. Kerry was present for the funeral Mass. My family and I greatly appreciated such gestures. But when I suggested to each of them the necessity of ending the war, I got the brushoff. More accurately, after ever so briefly pretending to listen, each treated me to a convoluted explanation that said in essence: Don't blame me.

To whom do Kennedy, Kerry and Lynch listen? We know the answer: to the same people who have the ear of George W. Bush and Karl Rove -- namely, wealthy individuals and institutions.

Money buys access and influence. Money greases the process that will yield us a new president in 2008. When it comes to Iraq, money ensures that the concerns of big business, big oil, bellicose evangelicals and Middle East allies gain a hearing. By comparison, the lives of U.S. soldiers figure as an afterthought.

Memorial Day orators will say that a G.I.'s life is priceless. Don't believe it. I know what value the U.S. government assigns to a soldier's life: I've been handed the check. It's roughly what the Yankees will pay Roger Clemens per inning once he starts pitching next month.

Money maintains the Republican/Democratic duopoly of trivialized politics. It confines the debate over U.S. policy to well-hewn channels. It preserves intact the cliches of 1933-45 about isolationism, appeasement and the nation's call to "global leadership." It inhibits any serious accounting of exactly how much our misadventure in Iraq is costing. It ignores completely the question of who actually pays. It negates democracy, rendering free speech little more than a means of recording dissent.

This is not some great conspiracy. It's the way our system works.

In joining the Army, my son was following in his father's footsteps: Before he was born, I had served in Vietnam. As military officers, we shared an ironic kinship of sorts, each of us demonstrating a peculiar knack for picking the wrong war at the wrong time. Yet he was the better soldier -- brave and steadfast and irrepressible.

I know that my son did his best to serve our country. Through my own opposition to a profoundly misguided war, I thought I was doing the same. In fact, while he was giving his all, I was doing nothing. In this way, I failed him.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It isn't the President who controls the funds. His previous veto stood because even the Congress didn't have the strength to follow through. Senator Obama said it right in one of the debates they had recently. He was the only honest one about the issue: "Let's defund the troops" is pretty much what he was saying.

So much as people say that Bush is an idiot, he and his advisors have obviously studied history. I posted this a couple of months ago:

Teddy Roosevelt crusaded against trusts. He did many things, but among them was something that has close parallels to what we see today. As a show of American Navy Force, he acted as Commander-In-Chief, to send a tour of battleships ("The Great White Fleet") to head from the Atlantic out to the Pacific to demonstrate to the world - and the Japanese, in particular - that the US shouldn't be messed with because we could patrol the Pacific, too.

Congress didn't like the idea. While the recognized Teddy's ability to dispatch the fleet, they alleged that only they could fund it and would not do so. So Teddy, being a grand strategist, dispatched the fleet, anyway. This left Congress with two options: 1) give in and fund the journey; or 2) not fund it and leave the American ships and sailors stranded in Yokohama - whereupon teddy would blame Congress for hanging the sailors and ships out to dry.

Congress gave in. Same thing here. Congress simply had insufficient balls to call Bush on it.

Oh, and who here knows that the federal minimum wage is rising to $7.25 per hour? Yep. This is thanks to the same war funding bill.

It makes you wonder...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Oh, and who here knows that the federal minimum wage is rising to $7.25 per hour? Yep. This is thanks to the same war funding bill.

well, in CA, it's no change.

But yeah, this was the deal with the devil the Democrats made. Gave up the deadline, got the min wage raised. Not exactly material for the next Profiles in Courage, is it?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Not exactly material for the next Profiles in Courage, is it?

Dog bites man. This is about politicians.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Oh, and who here knows that the federal minimum wage is rising to $7.25 per hour? Yep. This is thanks to the same war funding bill.

It makes you wonder...

I don't have the time right now but I may follow this up in a day or two, unless someone else does it. Anyone else want to dig up the nature of the pork in the previous defense spending bills? I'll bet the beneficiaries aren't considered "working poor". My guess is "lobbying wealthy". And no, it doesn't make me wonder anymore.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh, and who here knows that the federal minimum wage is rising to $7.25 per hour? Yep. This is thanks to the same war funding bill.

It makes you wonder...

I don't have the time right now but I may follow this up in a day or two, unless someone else does it. Anyone else want to dig up the nature of the pork in the previous defense spending bills? I'll bet the beneficiaries aren't considered "working poor". My guess is "lobbying wealthy". And no, it doesn't make me wonder anymore.

Psst...higher wages equals a net gain in payroll taxes...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Oh, and who here knows that the federal minimum wage is rising to $7.25 per hour? Yep. This is thanks to the same war funding bill.

It makes you wonder...

I don't have the time right now but I may follow this up in a day or two, unless someone else does it. Anyone else want to dig up the nature of the pork in the previous defense spending bills? I'll bet the beneficiaries aren't considered "working poor". My guess is "lobbying wealthy". And no, it doesn't make me wonder anymore.

Psst...higher wages equals a net gain in payroll taxes...

Damn it. There they go again, paying for things. Don't they know that "spend, borrow and spend some more" is the path to fiscal responsibility?