King George Stops Funding for Troops

King of the BullPresident Bush has just vetoed a $124 billion war funding bill recently fassed by the House and Senate.
His failure to sign the funding bill effectvely leaves our troops stranded in Iraq without the money and resources they need.

So much for his assurances that he supports the men and women of our armed services.

As Senator John Edwards said at the California Democratic Convention on Sunday; congress needs to send thewe same legislation back to him as many times as it takes to get him to sign it. It is George W. Bush who is unwilling to support the troops he sent on a fools errand, not the Democrats in congress.

  10 comments for “King George Stops Funding for Troops

  1. May 1, 2007 at 4:01 pm

    Chris, last year you were comparing the Iraqi terrorists with the soldiers of the American Revolution — and now your weeping crocodile tears over funding for them.

    Saying Bush doesn’t want to support the troops and the Democrats in Congress do is a lie. The Dems are just “effing” with the Administration — and they’re putting smiles on the faces of the Iraqi terrorists. Which side do you think the Iraqi terrorists are rooting for?

  2. Dan Chmielewski
    May 1, 2007 at 4:03 pm

    What’s the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. It’s been 4 years since “mission accomplished” and just how does Bush think he will win this war militarily? What is he going to do differently than before?

    The next bill Congress passes should have an even more stringent and more aggressive timeline for withdrawl.

  3. Dan Chmielewski
    May 1, 2007 at 4:22 pm

    Matt –
    you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    The bill use timelines based on the President’s own guidance for “progress in Iraq” in a speech delivered last January. Vetoing the bill means what Bush says on progress in Iraq can’t be trusted.

    The bill says only troops who are fully trained can be deployed in battle in compliance with defense department regulations. Sending in untrained troops to a war zone defies stupidity.

    The bill provide sneeded funding for the wounded soliders in VA hospitals; rehab and retraining to help them return to as normal a civilian life as possible. Plus funding to deal with the large number of PTSD cases this war has hammered on our troops. This is the right thing to do.

    The vast majority of Americans do not support this war; they said as much last November and th emajority of Americans want the Democratic Congress to show leadership on Iraq. The vast majority of Americans do not support the president. The vast majority of Americans believe we were misled into war.

    Here’s a link from the Flash Report: http://www.fresnolincolnclub.org/pdffiles/AARMcCaffreyIraq032607.pdf I don’t think the poster read this report very carefully because it lays out our argument that Iraq is a mess and the war cannot be won militarily.

    Even McCaffrey says the war can no longer be won militarily, but must be won in the political and dipolmatic arena (right, with thoso bozos in the administration, we probably don’t stand a chance there either). Please explain to me how vetoing this bill supports the troops by not providing funding and extending their stays in a country where they are target practice in a civil war.

    The NY Times ran a story on Sunday about projects completed in Iraq deemed a “success story” that are non-worksable and crumbling. Way to go Halliburton.

    You also misread Chris’s earlier comment. If a foreign nation invaded OUR country and occupied it miliarily, wouldn’t those fighting that miltary be called patriots? The Iraqi terrorists are rooting for Bush; he’s the greatest recruiting tool they could ever hope for. To imply that the Democrats support Iraqi terrorists over our own troops in beneath you. And dead wrong.

    First rule: once you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

  4. May 1, 2007 at 6:48 pm

    Matt,

    No lies on this side of the aisle. The facts in this matter are so simple even you should be able to follow.

    Congress delivered legislation to the President that funds military operations in Iraq. The President chose to veto that legislation. Therefore, President Bush has chosen to not support the troops he sent to Iraq.

    The President claims to be “The Decider.” In this instance he is standing true to that principle. He has decided to not sign legislation funding his war. On hundreds of occasions throughout his Presidency, King George has issued signing statements when he has signed legislation. In those statements he has made it clear that he decides whether or not he must follow the instructions of the legislation he has signed. He did this with the “b>Torture Legislation that told him that he could not use torture as an interrogation method and he made it quite clear that he, and he alone, would decide when and if he followed that law.

    If President Bush wished to support the troops that he has assigned to this fools errand that is the occupation of Iraq, then he would have signed the legislation funding of his occupation. Instead, he has chosen to place the lives of the men and women serving our country in danger for lack of his support.

    There is an irony here that needs to be revealed. The President is actually in agreement, by vetoing the funding legislation, with the likes of Dennis Kucinich who believe we should cease funding any military operations in Iraq and bring our troops home.

    There is one significant and sad difference though, King George won’t bring our troops home, he’ll just leave them in Iraq without support.

    Some Commander in Chief.

  5. May 1, 2007 at 7:58 pm

    Congress delivered legislation to the President that funds military operations in Iraq. The President chose to veto that legislation. Therefore, President Bush has chosen to not support the troops he sent to Iraq.

    Chris,

    This is a Democratic game. They knew the president would veto that bill, and now they can make the same accusations you are now gleefully making. And given your lionizing of the Iraqis trying to kill our troops, your j’accuse rings hollow.

  6. May 1, 2007 at 8:03 pm

    The Iraqi terrorists are rooting for Bush; he’s the greatest recruiting tool they could ever hope for.

    Keep telling yourself that, Dan. Funny how the terrorists had no problem recruiting people before Bush became president. But I forgot — there was no problem with terrorism before George W. Bush became President. It was only after his election we were cast out of the Garden of Eden.

    To imply that the Democrats support Iraqi terrorists over our own troops in beneath you. And dead wrong.

    I don’t believe the Democrats support Iraqi terrorists over our troops. And I believe they should be free to criticize the conduct of the war and “eff” with the President over war funding in order to score political points. What the Dems shouldn’t do (but are nonetheless free to do) is pretend their games and demands for withdrawal and deadlines don’t hearten the enemy in Iraq and encourage him to hang in their and continue killing Americans.

  7. May 1, 2007 at 8:18 pm

    Matt,

    Since the President believes he does not have to listen to Congress, it is he who is playing games, not the Democrats.

    The Democrats are supporting our troops, not the President.

  8. May 1, 2007 at 8:43 pm

    Since the President believes he does not have to listen to Congress, it is he who is playing games, not the Democrats.

    Chris, this is a republic, not a parliamentary democracy. Congress isn’t supreme. The President doesn’t have to listen to Congress. Perhaps you have forgotten the Founding Fathers gave the President the veto power to act as a check on Congress. He’s under no obligation to sign legislation. The Founders also gave the Congress to ability to override a veto as a counter-check.

    The Democrats are supporting our troops, not the President.

    Give me a break. The Democratic Congress is an unwitting morale officer for the Iraqi terrorists. This funding bill is a game. The Dem Congress is acting like it’s 1974-75 again. Thanks to Watergate, the Democratic Congress got its way back then — which worked out real well for the South Vietnamese.

  9. Dan Chmielewski
    May 1, 2007 at 9:14 pm

    Matt — Read “Ghost Wars” when you get a chance; it’s a history of terrorism leading up to 9/10/2001 and the CIA under Ronald Reagan’s administration has a starring role in training the mujahadeen (and Osama bin Laden) in terro techniques to fight the Soviets.

    Congress acted appropriately and expressed the will of the majority of the American people. Not a 51 to 49 percent majority but closer to two thirds. This war is no longer about a military victory; the president’s handling of this has assured it. Victory in Iraq is now a political and diplomatic one. Matt, I’msure you cheered when the Berlin Wall fell. We’;re building new walls in Bahgdad; you can’t be proud of what these neocons have done?

    Actually, Matt, the president may not have to listen to Congress but he is not above the law. Congress can stop this war by choosing not to fund it. And you’re right, its a REPUBLIC, not a Kingdom or a Dictatorship. If you want to be in denial about the will of the American people, be my guest. But you have to acknowledge that every reason this administration gacv for going to war, every prediction they have made, and all the progress they report has been wrong. This was all about making Bush a War President because the American peple are loathe to dispose of a war president in times of war.

    Enough. We achieved our victory by taking out Saddam even though we couldn’t find any WMDs. With hundreds of Iraqis dying monthly, along with our soliders, there is no reason for us to stay. Except for….wait for it….OIL.

    The war has cost America close to a half Trillion dollars. Money that could have gone to new roads, better schools, healthcare, social security, or investment in alternative energy sources. The war has cost us honor, allies, prestigue around the world. The war has made it less safe for Americans and their families.

    Tell you what; you’re still a relevative young man in good health who obviously supports this president and this war. Do what hundreds of other soliders have done. Put your life on hold and go enlist. Ask to be assigned a unit going to Iraq. Support this war and this president all you want. But the veto is not supporting the troops. The veto is a sentence to extend this quagmire to satisfy a tyrant president’s stubborness and refusal to admit mistakes.

  10. Aunt Millie
    May 2, 2007 at 4:38 am

    What the Dems shouldn’t do (but are nonetheless free to do) is pretend their games and demands for withdrawal and deadlines don’t hearten the enemy in Iraq and encourage him to hang in their and continue killing Americans.

    This is the latest justification for the ongoing occupation of Iraq, and one that is frankly laughable. Evidence instead strongly suggests that it is the continued occupation of Iraq by foreign troops that gives Iraqi fundamental extremists the recruiting tools they need for the next group of suicide bombers.

    Bush and his inept neocon buddies ignored military advice as they realized their neocon fantasies, staffed the occupation with unqualified political hacks, and continue to use our troops as hostages for their failed policies.

    We have loved ones going back for their second and third tours of duty in the near future, and we don’t trust George Bush with their lives. NOT AT ALL. They’ve lied every step of the way, and been criminally incompetent. Bush and Cheney need to be impeached and tried as war criminals, and their allies should be driven from any participation in public discourse.

Comments are closed.