Pelosi does more damage....

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Either way, YOU seem awfully willing to let the troops pay the price.

Since the Dems now realize that Bush will veto anything short of the funds required to keep our military healthy, the onus is on them to allow those funds to get to the troops. Too many of them, and you, are willing to let the soldiers pay a larger price than necessary, just to prove various political points. Too many of them, and you, are busy pointing fingers and placing blame - while doing so does nothing for the troops in harms way.

And, quite frankly, that's make me sick of the whole lot of you and them.

So in other words, Bush's utter refusal to consider anything other then complete capitulation to his own point of view makes it the Democrats' fault for not giving in to him? Interesting.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The DoD has already been forced to shift monies around to compensate for the delayed supplemental funds; and it is getting worse every day. That is entirely unacceptable.

And I am one of those troops, so don't try and tell me what we have a need for.

Oh god, I didn't see this when I posted before. Give me a ****** break.

First of all, by the DoD's own statements they have plenty of money to last through the middle of June at least... so don't try to play that card.

Second of all, to say that you have the SLIGHTEST idea about the needs of the DoD because you are an enlisted man in it is the height of arrogance and a complete misrepresentation of your place. You might fool other people around here, but you can't fool me because I've been there. Would you ask the janitor at starbucks for the company's global business strategy? That's about how much idea an infantryman has as to what the army's needs are in a global operational sense such as one that congressional appropriations cover. In fact, I've found people in the military are actually less knowledgable about what is going on because the rumor mills inside of units are of such a caliber that they would put any small town sewing circle to shame.

So enough. Stop with your stupid grandstanding. If you have some ideas as to what is going on, and what should be done about it put them out there... and support them. Let your ideas stand on their own instead of hiding behind righteous indignation that you always spew out any time someone criticizes the military. It's crap... and you know it's crap.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Corbett
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/05/16/20070516_184710_flash.htm

After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority.

The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822.

In protest, the House Republicans are going to call procedural motions every half hour.

Of course, no mention of this on ATPN yet...

So what ever happend to all the crap about bringing back bipartisanship and "It's all about the children" like Pelosi was spewing out when the dems retook the house and senate?

I realize she has since withdrawn the motion but what was she thinking in the first place?

Link

 

[Jhhnn]

Alright Mr. Clinton, easy with the military cutbacks, ok? One of the reasons we are stretched so thin today is due to the massive cutbacks initiated by President Clinton during the 90's. They were not a good thing given the new global threat level.

Heh. Thanks for the compliment. The reasons we're "stretched so thin", as you put it, are many, but it's largely due to maintenance of cold war hardware and a cold war presence around the globe when there's no cold war, and to the fact that US forces aren't designed to act as occupiers, but rather as a deterrent to aggression against us and our allies. It's the Rumsfeld doctrine, remember? A lean, mean, high tech fighting machine...

"New global threat level"? Is that some new catch phrase, some new amorphous boogeyman reference? Threat from whom? Be specific.

One of the biggest problems with having a large military standing around, acting as a deterrent, is that sooner or later some damned fools will think to use it for some other purposes, which is precisely the problem today. If America's young men and women wanted to be imperialists, to "spread freedom and democracy" at gunpoint, they'd be flocking to the recruitment stations in droves, but they're not. In truth, it's tough to meet the recruitment goals, even though they're continuously revised downward to keep things lookin' good... another manifestation of creating a separate reality via revisionist history...

And your handwaving, Googer, is a manifestation of rightwing paranoia- no such motion was ever introduced, and is a facet of the general theory of distraction and obfuscation currently practiced by the rather desperate repub leadership...

Nor has anybody shown how such a motion would violate House rules, you know, like the repub threat of the "nuclear option" in the Senate...

It's becoming rather amusing to watch the Righties flinch every time they hear a twig break....

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: sierrita
What I objected to was that you accuse the Dems of playing politics with troop funding, forgetting that the same argument could be made about the Bush administration.

Wrong. It is not Bush's job to get the funding to the troops. That responsibility lies solely on Congress and the Pentagon's finance programs.

Furthermore, you accuse Jhhnn of "pointing fingers and placing blame", when that is exactly what you yourself are doing. :disgust:

Let's be fair here.

I am being fair. The responsibility for funding lies solely on Congress. Period.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The DoD has already been forced to shift monies around to compensate for the delayed supplemental funds; and it is getting worse every day. That is entirely unacceptable.

And I am one of those troops, so don't try and tell me what we have a need for.

Oh god, I didn't see this when I posted before. Give me a ****** break.

First of all, by the DoD's own statements they have plenty of money to last through the middle of June at least... so don't try to play that card.

Four more weeks!? gee, you're right, Congress has all the time in the world!... umm, ya. right.

Second of all, to say that you have the SLIGHTEST idea about the needs of the DoD because you are an enlisted man in it is the height of arrogance and a complete misrepresentation of your place. You might fool other people around here, but you can't fool me because I've been there. Would you ask the janitor at starbucks for the company's global business strategy? That's about how much idea an infantryman has as to what the army's needs are in a global operational sense such as one that congressional appropriations cover. In fact, I've found people in the military are actually less knowledgable about what is going on because the rumor mills inside of units are of such a caliber that they would put any small town sewing circle to shame.

I know that the entire force needs funds to continue functioning; and, working at the strategic level, I have a pretty decent idea as to how those funds get allocated. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not just some random enlisted grunt. (I was at one point, but I am no longer). I'm not at the top, by any means, but I'm certainly in a position to see the big picture and understand the real impact this debacle is having on our military.

So enough. Stop with your stupid grandstanding. If you have some ideas as to what is going on, and what should be done about it put them out there... and support them. Let your ideas stand on their own instead of hiding behind righteous indignation that you always spew out any time someone criticizes the military. It's crap... and you know it's crap.

It's not crap to criticize Congress for attaching too much pork to our military budget. It's not crap to criticize them for withholding our funds in order to make some political point. It's not crap to see the effect all of this bullsh*t on the Hill is having on the troops on the ground - the ones I know and work with see it as a complete clusterf*ck designed to place them in even more jeopardy than they already are!

Bottom line: They need to release the funds NOW and debate our involvement in Iraq separately. They have no business using the wellbeing of the troops as leverage in their bullsh*t political chess match with Bush. The whole "power of the purse" nonsense is enough to make any soldier realize that they are being used as political pawns.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: sierrita
What I objected to was that you accuse the Dems of playing politics with troop funding, forgetting that the same argument could be made about the Bush administration.

Wrong. It is not Bush's job to get the funding to the troops. That responsibility lies solely on Congress and the Pentagon's finance programs.

Furthermore, you accuse Jhhnn of "pointing fingers and placing blame", when that is exactly what you yourself are doing. :disgust:

Let's be fair here.

I am being fair. The responsibility for funding lies solely on Congress. Period.

If that's the case, then Bush should not be vetoing the bills. When he vetoed the funding, he took some of the responsibility.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: sierrita
What I objected to was that you accuse the Dems of playing politics with troop funding, forgetting that the same argument could be made about the Bush administration.

Wrong. It is not Bush's job to get the funding to the troops. That responsibility lies solely on Congress and the Pentagon's finance programs.

Furthermore, you accuse Jhhnn of "pointing fingers and placing blame", when that is exactly what you yourself are doing. :disgust:

Let's be fair here.

I am being fair. The responsibility for funding lies solely on Congress. Period.

Congress already passed a funding bill, Bush vetoed it. A bill requires 2 things to become law, passage by the legislature and the president's signature. The president has refused to add his signature. Now we both know (being reasonable people, right?) that Bush's veto doesn't make the lack of funding 100% his fault. It DOES however mean that the current situation is partially his fault because he is unwilling to change his priorities to get funding to the troops in the field. The same can be said of congress.

When you say it is congress' fault... period you are in effect saying that when Bush throws a temper tantrum and refuses to pass any bill except exactly the one he wants it is congress' fault for not giving him what he demands. Is the legislature responsible for giving the executive branch exactly what it wants at all times? That doesn't sound like the government I learned about in civics class back in 8th grade.

Anyways, if the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan actually run out of money then you will have something to complain about. We both know that has exactly a 0% chance of happening, so I don't even know why it is an issue. Why the hell would they pass funding bills and then debate Iraq separately? What purpose would that serve? Doesn't everyone here just make fun of congress when they pass nonbinding resolutions about Iraq or whatever? If they give the president exactly what he wants and then go and debate the war, whatever the resolution of that debate is would be exactly that. They have the 'power of the purse', and this is EXACTLY how you exercise it. To give the president the money he wants would be just acting like the rubber stamp congress that preceded them... and I don't think anyone wants another congress that acts like that one did ever again. They will get some sort of benchmarks for progress or withdrawal from this, and that's a very good thing... finally we will get the first step towards sanity in more then 4 long years.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp
If that's the case, then Bush should not be vetoing the bills. When he vetoed the funding, he took some of the responsibility.

He vetoed the extra pork and strings that the Dems attached to the funding. They knew that adding that bullsh*t would result in a veto, yet they still submitted the bill to Bush. In other words, they are playing political games with the funding.

If they wish to add a timeline for withdrawal, or ask for a ton of pork, then they should do so separately from the funding bill. period

Heck, they could even add that crap to the horrible immigration bill they're throwing together now. After all, Bush has already signed off on that pile of bull excrement!

Anything else is a waste of time and the end result may hurt the troops in the field. That is simply unacceptable.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
If that's the case, then Bush should not be vetoing the bills. When he vetoed the funding, he took some of the responsibility.

He vetoed the extra pork and strings that the Dems attached to the funding. They knew that adding that bullsh*t would result in a veto, yet they still submitted the bill to Bush. In other words, they are playing political games with the funding.

If they wish to add a timeline for withdrawal, or ask for a ton of pork, then they should do so separately from the funding bill. period.

Anything else is a waste of time and the end result may hurt the troops in the field. That is simply unacceptable.

The point is he blocked the funding from getting to the troops, it's his responsibility now.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp
The point is he blocked the funding from getting to the troops, it's his responsibility now.

But he did so because of the unnecessary pork and ridiculous strings that the Democrats put in the bill even when they knew ahead of time that those items would lead to an automatic veto... so whose fault is it again?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
The point is he blocked the funding from getting to the troops, it's his responsibility now.

But he did so because of the unnecessary pork and ridiculous strings that the Democrats put in the bill even when they knew ahead of time that those items would lead to an automatic veto... so whose fault is it again?

There is no such thing as an automatic veto. Bush vetoed the funding to the troops that he himself put in harm's way. I understand that the concept of responsibility is unfamiliar to Republicans, especially Bush supporters who think he isn't responsible for anything, but to a normal person, Bush blocked the funding from getting to the troops, and is thus responsible for it. The strings that you call ridiculous are common sense to Americans who voted to send Democrats to Congress for the specific reason of dissatisfaction with Bush's handling of the war. Of course, you probably think he isn't responsible for that either.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
The point is he blocked the funding from getting to the troops, it's his responsibility now.

But he did so because of the unnecessary pork and ridiculous strings that the Democrats put in the bill even when they knew ahead of time that those items would lead to an automatic veto... so whose fault is it again?

Congress passed a bill to fund the troops with certain conditions that it wanted for it. Bush wanted a completely free hand to do whatever he wanted. Apparently the two sides did not agree. This does not make it the legislature's fault. Bush is not a king.

I'll ask it again, just because Bush refuses to accept anything but complete surrender to his viewpoint... why is it congress' fault for not capitulating to him? When your kid throws a temper tantrum and refuses to come out of his room until you take him to Chucky Cheese, is it your fault for not doing it?

 

[dmcowen674]

It's long past time to try this man for treason.

5-18-2007 Progress on Iraq funding bill stymied by President Bush

WASHINGTON - Democratic congressional leaders on Friday offered the first concessions in a fight with President Bush over a spending bill for Iraq, but the White House turned them down.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
The point is he blocked the funding from getting to the troops, it's his responsibility now.

But he did so because of the unnecessary pork and ridiculous strings that the Democrats put in the bill even when they knew ahead of time that those items would lead to an automatic veto... so whose fault is it again?

Congress passed a bill to fund the troops with certain conditions that it wanted for it. Bush wanted a completely free hand to do whatever he wanted. Apparently the two sides did not agree. This does not make it the legislature's fault. Bush is not a king.

I'll ask it again, just because Bush refuses to accept anything but complete surrender to his viewpoint... why is it congress' fault for not capitulating to him? When your kid throws a temper tantrum and refuses to come out of his room until you take him to Chucky Cheese, is it your fault for not doing it?

Why can't congress pass a bill without billions of dollars worth of completely unrelated special interest funding?

Would you expect Bush to sign a war spending bill if there was say $300 billion for the war, and $300 billion for say... new highway construction projects?

The Democrats are trying to use this war funding bill as an excuse to get a blank check for everything else that they want. This is expecially ironic because they campaigned on the platform of getting rid of all the earmark spending that they are now abusing.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Why can't congress pass a bill without billions of dollars worth of completely unrelated special interest funding?

Would you expect Bush to sign a war spending bill if there was say $300 billion for the war, and $300 billion for say... new highway construction projects?

The Democrats are trying to use this war funding bill as an excuse to get a blank check for everything else that they want. This is expecially ironic because they campaigned on the platform of getting rid of all the earmark spending that they are now abusing.

About 5/6ths (100 out of 124 billion) of the funding in the bill was for Iraq and Afghanistan, some of the rest of it was for normal expenditures, and some was for pork.

So what you're really asking is that should Bush live in a bizarro world of insane hyperbole in which he were to receive a bill completely unlike the one he got from the democrats, that was 6 times as expensive and had more then 10 times the unrelated spending should he veto it? Sure.

So now you are accusing the democrats of holding out until they get exactly what they want. This is the same thing Bush is doing. If both parties are holding out, then both parties are at fault. That's all I'm trying to get you guys to see... that just because the democrats don't capitulate to bush like the old republican congress always did, doesn't mean that they are wrong for not doing it. Same goes for bush, he's not wrong in standing up for what he wants. He even seems to be making some noises about being willing to compromise... good for him. To blame the democrats solely for this situation is simply false however, as it takes two to tango.

 

[theeedude]

Exactly, noone believes that Bush vetoed a bill because there is too much pork. He hasn't vetoed a single spending bill with a lot more pork before then.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Exactly, noone believes that Bush vetoed a bill because there is too much pork. He hasn't vetoed a single spending bill with a lot more pork before then.

It was vetoed because the Dems/Congress want to impose restrictions on how he should conduct the conflict.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: senseamp
Exactly, noone believes that Bush vetoed a bill because there is too much pork. He hasn't vetoed a single spending bill with a lot more pork before then.

It was vetoed because the Dems/Congress want to impose restrictions on how he should conduct the conflict.

The truth of the matter is that without outside intervention, there is no pressure for him to do anything about establishing goals for Iraq. To me that's more of a disservice to our troops than anything else.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: senseamp
Exactly, noone believes that Bush vetoed a bill because there is too much pork. He hasn't vetoed a single spending bill with a lot more pork before then.

It was vetoed because the Dems/Congress want to impose restrictions on how he should conduct the conflict.

He who pays the piper calls the tunes.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: senseamp
Exactly, noone believes that Bush vetoed a bill because there is too much pork. He hasn't vetoed a single spending bill with a lot more pork before then.

It was vetoed because the Dems/Congress want to impose restrictions on how he should conduct the conflict.

He who pays the piper calls the tunes.

And there is also the problem of seperation of powers.

Congress has the authority to fund, not to prosecute.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: senseamp
Exactly, noone believes that Bush vetoed a bill because there is too much pork. He hasn't vetoed a single spending bill with a lot more pork before then.

It was vetoed because the Dems/Congress want to impose restrictions on how he should conduct the conflict.

He who pays the piper calls the tunes.

And there is also the problem of seperation of powers.

Congress has the authority to fund, not to prosecute.

With the authority to fund should also come the authority to expect some sort of return on investment. If you pump money in to a plan that is a failure, is it wise to keep putting money in to it if nothing changes?

 

[fskimospy]

Blah blah blah. Lets have the stupid "separation of powers" argument again. Here, I'll run through it really quick.

RW: Blarrggh! The commander in chief! THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF!!!!!!!!

LW: Aggghhh! Power of the purse!! HURFFf..BLURfff..

We done now? What is even the big discussion here? It's both sides' fault. Congress put forth a bill to fund the troops and start ending the war, and bush vetoed it because to him the parts he didn't like were greater then the parts he did. The fact remains that congress put forth a bill that would have given him the funds he wanted, but he decided he didn't like it. That means it's congress' fault for not putting forth a bill that bush would find more acceptable, and it's bush's fault for refusing to sign a bill that was anything short of a total surrender to him. This really isn't that complicated.

Don't worry guys, you can still claim that whichever side you are backing is right and Supporting The Troops the most if you admit to this basic truth. The other side will remain just as treasonous and America Hating as they have always been, and they will undoubtedly get back to A.) Surrendering to the terrorists or B.) Turning America into a fascist theocracy before you even know it.

 

[palehorse]

Ok, fine, both sides share the blame. Let's just hope that they can compromise effectively so that the troops don't pay a bigger price than they already have.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: senseamp
Exactly, no one believes that Bush vetoed a bill because there is too much pork. He hasn't vetoed a single spending bill with a lot more pork before then.

It was vetoed because the Dems/Congress want to impose restrictions on how he should conduct the conflict.

He who pays the piper calls the tunes.

And there is also the problem of separation of powers.

Congress has the authority to fund, not to prosecute.

With the authority to fund should also come the authority to expect some sort of return on investment. If you pump money in to a plan that is a failure, is it wise to keep putting money in to it if nothing changes?

Then one does not throw good money after bad.

Congress will not cut off funds (political suicide) and therefore is stuck with decisions made previously (that they do not want to honor).

They authorized the conflict, allocate funds to send the troops over there, provided supplemental funding to continue the conflict.

Now they can stop the funding or provide the funds.

Anything in between is typical political meddling when they do not have the knowledge to direct the situation, nor the political will to stop.