PDA

View Full Version : Where will Bush get funds?



studly hungwell
03-29-2007, 10:02 PM
The Dems have made good on their campaign promises to some degree...money + pork for a withdrawal date. I can respect politicians trying to fulfill their promises and I have no problem with that. My problem is why would Bush play so strong with a 'deadline' of early April? On the surface it appears that either the Dems will cave or Bush will have to back down. Is this truly the case? Does Bush have a way to circumvent congress to acquire funds? I really don't know....would explain the strong stand. Does congress really want to compromise the troops on the ground with a lack of supplies? Or do they know that this will not happen? Politics is a show and no skilled politician backs themselves in a corner.....they always make sure they have a way out. I can't imagine what those "back doors" are for either side. Can you?

Steve Savicki
03-30-2007, 06:28 AM
Bush will get funds from rich greedy corporate owners.

Nitro Express
04-03-2007, 03:10 AM
Print more money.

Nitro Express
04-03-2007, 03:19 AM
The troops will just continue to write home for body armor, better boots, eye wear. As far as weapons go, Iraq is full of them. I hear a Kaloshnikov with a folding stock is preffered over the M-16 for urban fighting and if mom can send a scope mount and a EOTech weapons site and a good muzzle brake, that's the ticket to get the drop on Rashide and Muhammed in a tight urban fighting situation.

Steve Savicki
04-03-2007, 03:52 PM
Since when did the chimp or his cabinet ever had the know how to manage money?

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,131000,00.html
President George W. Bush on Tuesday called Democrats in Congress irresponsible for approving war bills that order U.S. troops to pull out of Iraq by certain dates. He said their efforts will backfire and end up keeping some troops in battle even longer.

"In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds," Bush said in a White House news conference.

"The bottom line is this: Congress' failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines," Bush said. "Others could see their loved ones heading back to the war sooner than they need to."

Bush's comments underscored his standoff with Congress. Democrats won power in November, fueled in large part by national anti-war sentiment. They are intent to use their power over money to force Iraq to take more responsibility, and prod Bush to wind down the war.

The president renewed veto threats on both a Senate-passed bill calling for most U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008, and an even stronger House-passed bill demanding a September 2008 withdrawal. He said both bills "undercut the troops."

Bush bluntly said that such a veto could not be overridden in Congress.

The president's remarks come one day after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he would try to eliminate money for the war if Bush rejects Congress' proposal to set a deadline to end combat.

Reid said Tuesday that Democrats will give troops "the resources they need and a strategy in Iraq worthy of their sacrifices."

"If the president vetoes this bill he will have delayed funding for troops and kept in place his strategy for failure," Reid said in a statement.

Republican leaders said they planned to stick with Bush.

"I think our Democratic friends have decided the war is lost," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

"It's interesting that Harry Reid, leader Reid, spoke out with a different option," Bush said. "Whatever option they choose, we hope they get home, get a bill, and get it to my desk," Bush said. "And if it has artificial timetables for withdrawal, or cuts off funding for our troops, or tells our generals how to run a war, I'll veto it."

The Senate is in recess this week; the House is on break for two weeks.

The House and Senate are preparing to send Bush a bill by the end of the month that would approve of some $96 billion (euro71.8 billion) in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also set an end date to combat in Iraq. The House wants to order troops out by September 2008, whereas the Senate wants troops to begin leaving right away and set a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations on March 31, 2008;

"If the president vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period," Reid said in a statement before Bush's comments.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the bill to cut off funds for the war would likely be introduced as standalone legislation and would not be tied to the supplemental spending bill.

Reid's proposal would be the most extreme and divisive measure to be considered by Democrats to try to force Bush's hand on the war.

Most Republicans and many conservative Democratic senators, including Ben Nelson, have been reluctant to embrace a timetable in Iraq. Nelson agreed last week to swing behind the Senate spending bill, which calls for troops to leave by March 31, 2008, only because the date was nonbinding and not a firm deadline.
<center>http://images.military.com/pics/lead_070403.jpg
That looks like a bewildered Chimpy.
<center>http://video.clipsyndicate.com/cs-video/4/3/816630c6-0e7b-4b34-9a3c-a57694afcce1.jpg
That looks like a sad pathetic Chimpy.</center>