" Senate passes war spending bill with withdrawal deadline"

[HueyCobra8151]

Senate passes war spending bill with withdrawal deadline

AP reference deleted; not kosher under copyright protection

---

...bill providing $122 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...

Actually, the bill only provides about $102 billion for military spending, the rest is complete and utter pork.

* $14 billion for Katrina Hurricane Relief

* $4 billion for Farm Relief

-$13 million for "ewe replacement and retention"
-$24 million for sugar beet growers
-$95 million for dairy producers
-$3.5 million for the Capital's guided tour program
-$20 million for Insect Infestation control in Nevada

* $100 million for the two major parties upcoming political conventions

 

[mts4602]

He said he's going to veto it right?

Doesn't it then go back to the house/senate where they can override him if they get an overwhelming majority (I forget the number)....which won't happen?

My political science class escapes me at the moment...

 

[KSUFLY]

Are you smarter than a fifth grader?

 

[Flash]

Senate passes war spending bill with withdrawal deadline



---

...bill providing $122 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...

Actually, the bill only provides about $102 billion for military spending, the rest is complete and utter pork.

* $14 billion for Katrina Hurricane Relief

* $4 billion for Farm Relief

-$13 million for "ewe replacement and retention"
-$24 million for sugar beet growers
-$95 million for dairy producers
-$3.5 million for the Capital's guided tour program
-$20 million for Insect Infestation control in Nevada

* $100 million for the two major parties upcoming political conventions

Both parties are equally as guilty, this looks as bad as the bills that came out of Congress for the past few years......The more things change the more they stay the same.......

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Yeah, the Republicans over the past few years have definitely not been the "small government, limited spending" types.

Keynesian economic theory aside, I have been kinda waiting for the ball to drop as they push through tax cuts while raising spending.

Although, I will place the "deadline for defeat" ethos squarely on the shoulders of the party of the jackazz.

What I really appreciate are how the same people who were rabidly pro-war and making speeches about the evils of terror and WMD and the absolute necessity of going to War are the same people who are now trying to point the finger of blame at the current administration.

"We voted for you to go to war....HOW DARE YOU GO TO WAR!!!"

Also, despite the fact that the President will veto, and Congress will most likely be unable to pass it through w/ a 2/3 majority, it definitely sends a message to our enemies that they just have to wait and see in 2008 and America will probably lose our nerve and back out at the soonest possible chance for political gain for one or other of the parties.

 

[Kickflip89]

Yes, he will veto it.

What will be interesting is when it gets passed again / vetod again / passed again / vetod again, etc. White House blames Congress for not funding the troops, Congress blames White House for not funding the troops, meanwhile the troops have no money.

While that probably won't happen...we could be heading in that direction. Anyone remember Gingrich et. al v. Clinton??

 

[Brett327]

What I really appreciate are how the same people who were rabidly pro-war and making speeches about the evils of terror and WMD and the absolute necessity of going to War are the same people who are now trying to point the finger of blame at the current administration.

Can you really blame them though? Now, I'm definitely not in the "Bush lied to the American people" crowd, but the more I read on this subject, the more I'm convinced that the administration's goal was to find a pretext for war that would satisfy or at least placate domestic and international audiences. In that vein, they saw what they wanted to see WRT WMD in the intelligence, despite the obvious realities staring them in the face. I know all the arguments, and of course hindsight is 20/20, but you can hardly blame some lawmakers for refining their positions based on what we now know to be true. In theory, there are a lot of reasons why regime change in Iraq was a good idea (and a lot of reasons why it was a bad idea), but since the thrust of the administrations argument was the necessity for preemptive action based on the imminent threat posed by WMDs, I think we can be more understanding of why some people's positions (including my own) have changed since that premise has since proven to be false.

Brett

 

[skidz]

I watched this go through on C-Span this morning. A few republicans voiced their objection to the bill, but as many of you know, most of the seats were empty and the democratic senator from New Jersey just objected to everything they said, and because they are the majority, it pushed them down. I dislike politics and especially how things like this are currently run, but I hate democrats more. Pathetic. They no longer represent the people, as if they ever did in the first place.

I learn more about politics from all yall, as I am not very educated in that area. Thanks for everything yall do here, this place is a wealth of knowledge for us learning as we move forward.

 

[squeeze]

I dislike politics and especially how things like this are currently run, but I hate democrats more. Pathetic. They no longer represent the people, as if they ever did in the first place.

And Republicans do? They're two sides of the same coin. Self and Party are far ahead of The People.

 

[Cate]

I dislike politics and especially how things like this are currently run, but I hate democrats more. Pathetic. They no longer represent the people, as if they ever did in the first place.

Not that I'm trying to endorse politics by majority rule, because there are plenty of examples of when that's worked out badly, but in this particular case, the "will of the majority" supports the bill. Recent polls have had 59 percent of Americans supporting pullout by September 2008. Again, not saying that public opinion should be the ultimate arbiter of military policy, but that's what the polls are saying.

That having been said:
- I am so very, very sick of pork.
- There actually has been some evidence to show that whenever Congress starts talking about redeployment, the Iraqi government starts hustling to get their stuff together, and I will provide a link as soon as I can find it.
- Accusations of "flip-flopping" aside, I think that anyone who can take new evidence into account and change their position on a subject accordingly is an asset to government, not a liability.
- There's no way the Dems will be able to drum up a veto-proof majority.

 

[skidz]

And Republicans do? They're two sides of the same coin. Self and Party are far ahead of The People.

I guess I should have put more in there to make more sense. The "they" referred to both parties, and generally everyone in politics, not solely the democratic party.

 

[Brett327]

I think that anyone who can take new evidence into account and change their position on a subject accordingly is an asset to government, not a liability.

Why, thank you.

Brett

 

[hscs]

I would wager that the bill also has provisions to only pull the majority of the conventional folks out. We will still have other folks there and a small portion of conventional folks for support.

 

[The Chief]

... Anyone remember Gingrich et. al v. Clinton??

Hey, Hey, OVER HERE, I REMEMBER, I REMEMBER.

Actually remember both versions, the Clinton spin machine version and what actually happened. Remember the long vacation I had when the Gov'ment was shut down, but alas I had to work as I was an Office Director. Kept 5 of my key folks at work, sent the other 211 home, paid vacation. Had to sign a waiver that I knew I might never be paid for working.

BUT, real question: Who remembers that the Democrats controlled the Senate when they passed the authorization to go to war?

Who remembers that Saddam was shooting at UN Mandated aircraft patrolling the No Fly zone (mostly ours). Do not think he got any, but just a matter of time, IMO. Remember some in the leftist press saying that, since all of our airmen were volunteers, it was quite ok if they were to be shot down. I remember that.

 

[Brett327]

Who remembers that Saddam was shooting at UN Mandated aircraft patrolling the No Fly zone

I remember it personally.

Brett