I really didn't think it was possible, but the Democrats are finally begging to become actual accomplices to murder of the fighting men and women of the USA. Want to know why "The Emergency Supplemental Bill" was vetoed? Have a gander at a part of Senator Jim Bunning's Floor Speech on this bill.
""Mixed in with the defense spending is a complicated list of earmarks, legislative language, and program expansions. Let me walk you through parts of the bill.
The hurricanes of 2005 were truly devastating and I have supported the government's rebuilding effort in the region. But the bill before us today includes $1.45 billion in unrequested and unnecessary funding for the Corps of Engineers. It also eliminates a 10 percent local matching requirement for FEMA funds and eliminates the prohibition on forgiving community disaster loans.
These are two provisions Congress has supported in the past to ensure responsible spending. These provisions are not only inappropriate for a wartime supplemental, but also bad policy.
Another area of extra spending relates to agriculture. I have been a strong supporter of American farms, but the programs in this bill are routinely funded through the regular process. I can not justify supporting $3 million for a Hawaiian sugar cane co-op or $20 million for insect damage in Nevada on a wartime supplemental bill. This bill is about our troops, not our farmers.
There are even more glaring examples in this bill. There is $3.5 million for the Capitol Guide Service to provide services in tourists in this building. It adds $100 million for dairy production losses. $13 million for a lamb replacement and retention program. $40 million for the tree assistance program. $6 million for flooded crop land in North Dakota. $25 million for asbestos abatement at the Capitol power plant. $23 million for geothermal energy research.
The list goes on and on. I can not support requests like these on the backs of our fighting men and women. will support every effort to strip all the non-defense funding out of this bill. It is time to show fiscal restraint and use emergency wartime spending legislation for precisely that purpose – to pay for the war.
Finally, I want to address the single most important issue in this supplemental: the shortsighted and political call for troop withdrawal.
This bill includes similar language which was rejected by the Senate two weeks ago. It calls for the withdrawal of troops starting 120 days after passage of the bill and sets an arbitrary goal of full withdrawal from Iraq by March 31, 2008."
This was originally written as a comment by me on an article written by David Anderson entitled "A Response To The President's Veto," but I wanted to be sure as many people as possible know the truth as to why the bill was vetoed.
Â
According to this speech, the arbitrary date is for full withdrawal, but the date of mandatory withdrawal, and it doesn't state how many, is just 4 months from now. This bill is so filled with useless pork that the Democrats should be worried about hog conservation next. Looks like they have managed to weasel in their usual big spending plans at the cost of taxpayers, but more loathingly, at the expense of troops that need the funding to save their lives! How despicable and low can they get or have they finally reached bottom?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 51
However, I do not consider money for the Army Corps of Engineers as "unrequested and unnecessary funding", the levees are in some place below or at the same level of protection prior to Katrina, the time to improve them to prevent another catastrophe is not when a hurricane is sitting in the Gulf ready to hit again.
Democrats need to understand that the public is putting everyone under examination, we're tired of the usual politics as usual and we'll give you the boot if you violate the trust we instilled. They should rewrite the bill, take out the pork and get it done. On the flip side of the coin, Bush needs to stop acting like a little kid who takes the ball home when he doesn't like the game and show some of this so-called bipartisanship that he said he was capable of after the November elections.
Troubling when the pork doesn't go your direction? My take on this is that you are a good(?) Republican. This bill is representative of the way things are always done in such situation and by both parties and for a long time! To decry this on one side only simply lists one as partisan! If there were any need for the democrats to learn dirty politics all they had to do was watch the republicans for the past 12 years!
Like I said, it's the way the founding fathers set our country up to operate and recognize that its hard to form a bipartisan effort with someone who does not believe in bipartisanship!
Thanks for your article, Sue. Although I don't agree with it all, it's nice to see people who actually know something about politics!
Sue, that's kind of a funny argument you put on the President's behalf. Look at it like this if you will:
Pres. GWB: Now I've gone and put the troops in harms way over and over again, tour after tour. Therefore you should fund my war.
That sounds more like a hostage situation to me.
So, are you saying that the Democrats should give in to the demands of a terrorist?
The Supplemental Funding Bill (they are passing this Bill because Bush refuses to disclose the cost of his wasteful war in the annual Budget, and forces Congress to pass these emergency allocations) is about holding people accountable for this war.
Either we achieve some of the things we say we are trying to accomplish (and the AWOL in Chief has flip-flopped all over the place as his lies have been revealed), or we start bringing the troops home.
No one is put in harm's way by this bill.
It is the ignorant bully in the White House who has wasted American lives and treasure in a stupid war that is/was/will be unnecessary and counter-productive.
It is very much like Viet Nam.
There can't be a single person in America who doesn't laugh out loud when Republcans wring their hands about "pork."
This is nothing new.
We're all sick of it.
We want bills to be more simple and deal with topics that make sense as a group.
I'm no historian, but I'd bet things were once that way. Here's a graph that show the total vetoes by some presidents: http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/12767491. FDR vetoed 635 bills!
I doubt if recent Congresses (if there is such a word) could pass 635 bills no matter what their content! For FDR to veto 635, they must have been a lot simpler and each dealt with less topics.
As to Bush acting like spoiled little kid, he continues to do it because it's always worked for him. This guy has some strange ability to get what he wants, up to the highest office in the land, even against a Democratic Congress.
Francis H.: What in the world are you talking about? If that is a GWB quote then have the decency to use some punctuation to indicate so. Also, where in this article have I defended GWB?
So your solution is to give GWB a blank check to continue whatever misadventures throughout the world as he alone might see fit with no accountability? Remember that we left England because of a King George!
Where does any president get the wholesale right to ignore the American people and engage in imperialistic wars with small countries half way around the world!
I strongly supported GWB in going into Afghanistan when he did but when he cut and run on chasing the terrorists to invade Iraq for other reasons I objected strongly!
What does a stupid remark like that mean?
Demiocrats did not put our troops in harm's way in this pointless war -and Bush refuses to consider the steps that the best bipartisan minds recommended in the Iraqi Study Commission.
Of course it is a political struggle - Americans are sick of this war ans want to find the best way out.
Your complaints about pork are ridiculous in comparison to the vast sums wasted by the last Republican Congress (bridge to nowhjere, anyone?).
Yeah. Right. Accomplices to the actual murderers--named Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, et al.
What about all those people Clinton either killed or had killed?? This makes about the same amount of sense as that old thing did and is just about as accurate and alarmist.
It never ceases to amaze me that what was fine for one group is somehow something that should be NOT fine now that the benefit extends to the other group.
So, it's a shame when a little pork gets in the way of supplying the soldiers . . . but if you can blame the Democrats for not getting past it, can't we also blame the Republicans too . . . ? The soldiers are hostages to politics . . . but who's holding them hostage? Who cares enough to give in first?? I don't think you need to worry. Republicans will get the timetable out because, frankly, they're willing to pull the trigger on the soldiers . . . and they know the Democrats won't.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
If the Republicans cared about protecting the troops they would have passed this bill. It did, after all, provide more than the money the military asked for to fund the troops. The timetables could always be re-negotiated later.
As for some of the supposed 'pork' mentioned; anything that helps rebuild New Orleans and helps the the victims of Hurricane Katrina is okay with me. Talk about your national shame; It's long past time that we should have cleaned up that mess.
In the wake of 9-11 I don't think that there was anyone with even an ounce of humanity that cared whether the people that lost their lives were Republicans or Democrats, whether they were Black, White, Yellow, Red, or Purple. Now I did say with an ounce of humanity, so I do realize that there are some of you that differentiated, though I would like to think as few as possible. Did we learn anything from this? No, humans are a stupid lot, as a whole. As soon as the psyche even begins to mend we act like dogs going back to their vomit. That day should have ended the kind of partisanship devoid of character and morality that, instead, has since increased.
Yes, Doyle, both sides are to blame. I never said otherwise. The Democrats just happened to dramatize the most recent despicable portrayal of insentient concern for the very people they SAY they are trying to help.
This wasn't an A.Cooper article, Audrey, but the one on Imus was. Anderson is wonderful though, isn't he? Glad you like him too. I'm going to write an article blasting the other side next week. Stop in and watch them hate me! It'll be fun! Have a great week-end!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
The entire thing is not a partisan matter! It is an American matter! That I want to bring our troops home and get out of things that are not our legitimate business does not make me a member of any party! Which I am not. All Americans should be concerned about this mess and the administration certainly has the option of bringing those troops home if they think they are in danger. No one is holding a gun to Bush's head forcing him to keep troops over there! But no, it is imperative that they remain to consolidate the wealth of Halburton and Exxon, regardless whether we belong or the American people want them there!
If this administration cared one whit what the people wanted there would be no dilemma for congress to overcome! If the Republicans weren't trying to be loyal to the party and the administration there would be no problem. Those congress persons know the truth and what the people want. So don't try to make a partisan issue out of something that is not. Is it an emotional issue? Of course! When American lives are daily at risk it can't help but arouse emotions.
The democrats need a bargaining chip. The add ons are the bargaining chip. The timetable is GOING to pass. If it does not pass this year, it will pass next year. If it does not pass next year, a new President will demand it of a new congress.
Bush has two choices. DESTROY the Republican party for the next generation, or get the American forces out of Iraq. The longer he delays the higher the risk that after getting out of Iraq we will be forced out of Europe and the Far East.
Even his rhetoric about this bill says he has not given in to the common sense of the American People. His Doctrine of Domination is under attack by American Patriots. People who believe in the fundamental principal that when everyone gains, EVERYONE GAINS, and when anyone looses EVERYONE looses.
Domination is always resisted. It is never accepted easily. A whip may drive a mule to move, but only if the mule is alive.
Those defending the Army Corps of Engineers and funds for levees, dikes, and dams may have their hearts in the right place but the Corps of Engineers hasn't applied for extra funds yet, so it is an unrequested item. The point that seems to be getting lost is, if this bill and the troop withdrawal criteria were so damn important to the Dems, why did they load up the bill with all the pork? The reason: so they can grandstand first on presenting the withdrawal that they think will help them win votes in 2008, and second so they can bitch about the veto, a veto they knew was coming partly because of the pork and partly because of their ill-conceived constraints for withdrawal.
I am laughing about the "Nevada bug abatement" addition, the biggest bug we need abated in Nevada is Senate Majority Leader Reid! I'm not sure if $20MM will do the job. Both parties are known for loading up the pork on almost every bill that comes down the pike. I detest Republicans almost as much as Democratics, neither one is concerned about anything other than lining their pockets.
Considering that almost 50% of eligible voters are not aligned with either of these political parties and do not participate in the quadrennial masquerade that poses as an election of leaders for our country, all you self-righteous Democrats and Republicans need to realize that neither of your parties represent the majority of Americans! All it takes is a clown like Perot to completely skew an election!
Sue, your article gets a "10" for prompting more knee-jerk comments today than any other article!!!
"No one is put in harm's way by this bill."
It is the ignorant bully in the White House who has wasted American lives and treasure in a stupid war that is/was/will be unnecessary and counter-productive.
It is very much like Viet Nam.
There can't be a single person in America who doesn't laugh out loud when Republcans wring their hands about "pork."
Well said....Bravo, Bravo!!!!!!
Perhaps you could enlighten me. How many Iraqis were actually involved in the WTC thing? Perhaps I've been laboring under a misconception but I had heard of none!
Perhaps there are a few people in America with no sense of humor?
Here is an interview that should enlighten many on a side of the war that gets avoided by most of the media.
Minnesota National Guard member and wounded Iraq War veteran Sgt. John Kriesel. A great man with a great attitude talks about the war and a function being thrown for his family to raise money
http://www.ktlkfm.com/cc-common/podcast.html
Take the time whether you agree with the war or not. This is someone who can truly speak to the issues.
The only murderer of our young men and women is BUSH.
"This bill is representative of the way things are always done in such situation and by both parties and for a long time!" James C.
"Well said, James!" Jorja L.
"I have to agree with the 1st comment by Stacy." Gary S.
The people quoted above have evidenced by their comments the sanctioning of status quo politics. Just an observation.
Bill Clinton's line item veto was a mirage! As soon as it was exercised the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional. Apparently the founding fathers didn't want to vest that much power in the executive branch! Those boys showed a lot of foresight!
If you wish to end status quo politics then you must find a way to take the massive financial influence out of the election of the people who represent us! When those people don't have to answer to anyone but the voters, you will have effected massive beneficial change and the people can be represented!
Can you imagine a USA of the people, run for the people and by the people instead of Halburton, Exxon and the banking/insurance industry? Now that would be a return to what was envisioned by our founding fathers!
"Besides, when are your kind going to start crying out for the lives of the Iraqi ppl that are wasted everyday for nothing?" Tony S.
If you read my most recent article, perhaps you will understand, (though doubtful), that the problem is that there are too few of my kind.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
In case you don't know where to look first, Doyle, I have copied and pasted my response in this article as well.
I never said that I was going to give equal time saying the veto was wrong. Perhaps you are too used to the flip flopping of politicians who say one thing on an issue one day and another as suits them politically on another. I blame both sides for the catastrophe this country is in because both sides have contributed, but I'm not schizophrenic. They both bear blame on different things that they have done on the same issue, and that is the security of everyone in this country, both troops and civilians.
Quotes from the other article and responses are below:
"Yes, Doyle, both sides are to blame. I never said otherwise. The Democrats just happened to dramatize the most recent despicable portrayal of insentient concern for the very people they SAY they are trying to help." Sue B.
"Okay so then tell me what, in your opinion, the republicans are to blame for." David Basora
"I'll write another article, probably on Monday. Want to give both sides equal time. Stay tuned... " Sue B.
Referring to the latest article:
Let me thank you, however, for allowing me a segue on the parenthetical in this article. If the Democrats were so hell bent on getting this bill passed, perhaps reasonable Americans would have thought the veto less appropriate if the Democrats had substituted funding for their eco agenda for increasing the funding for border patrol and border division building as well as increasing funding for a thorough investigation and revamping of the government agencies reviewing VISA applications.
I DO 'get it' though. Equal time did not mean an you were going to go and unfairly attack the Republicans like you did the Democrats. It meant that after the unfair attack on Democrats you would write a nuanced article which calls into question some of the issues Republicans might need to address . . . issues both parties could have handled better.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
One more time, Doyle...
"Okay so then tell me what, in your opinion, the republicans are to blame for." David Basora
"I'll write another article, probably on Monday. Want to give both sides equal time. Stay tuned... " Sue B.
My response was to David Basora's comment. He asked me what I thought the Republicans were to blame for. This is my answer. Sorry you don't like it. [End copy and paste]
[Edit for this article] Actually, I don't particularly care if you like it or not.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
"SOME- WHEEERRREEE . . . OVER THE RAIN . . . " Oooops. The singing was probably a bit too much. Sorry. :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Regards,
Sue B.
ItÂ’s just another Thursday.
;o) IÂ’m smiling at my gather friends
WhoÂ’ve got a lot to say
This is to let you know that your content has reached at least 20 comments and therefore has been removed from I want it All
Please be sure and post all of your photos, posts and videos to the group and don't forget to stop by and comment on group content!