The Democratic Congress approves over 100 billion for Iraq, will Bush not support the troops by vetoing it?

Question

Congress has given passage to a bill for war funding, and with great insight into how the war has been run to date they have attached reasonable provisions to the funding that holds Bush to the benchmark concept the he himself would have to be followed, so will Bush use only his second veto to slow bleed the troops so he can remain unaccountable for the management of the war?

Poster below questions the provisions, are you freaking kidding me, after we lose $326 billion a whole damn pallet of money, we were told we'd be greeted as liberators, the insurgency is in it's last throes,the war will pay for itself, after all that we're just supposed trust THIS administration to prosecute this war properly, damn have another drink and shut your mind off some more, the kool aid and tinfoil hat must be working for ya

Yes actually we should get out tomorrow, to poster below

So Ted Stevens can ask for a bridge to nowhere, Tom Delay can say "I will personally endorse your son (a candidate for Congress). That's my last offer." for a vote but we offer farm subsidies that at least have a purpose and we get slammmed freaking hipocrites pound sand

So poster say the republicans will kill funding for the troops in the senate then I guess

Answer 1

Bush never supported the troops...PERIOD. If Walter Reed doesn't clue you in on how badly this administration has grossly mishandled our serving men and women--by denying them the help they need--I don't know what will.

Answer 2

Doesn't matter whether President Bush will veto it or not because it will never get through the Senate. Democrats do not have the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to force cloture and end a filibuster. Your question is moot.

Answer 3

even if it did pass the senate, which it probably wont, he'll veto it because he wants to keep the troop there without a timetable.

Answer 4

.Real Estate Para Legal -- obviously you were hiding behind the door when the better brains were handed out.

LeAnne -- even your CIA agreed that there were no terrorists in Iraq. Iraq now is a growing terrorist strong hold because of the Bush/American fiasco. Wouldn't it be wonderfull if your Bush went after the terrorists instead of invading the impotant Iraq? There was nothing there to squable about. Iraq was under control by the UN investigators who were doing a bang-up job.

Answer 5

Bush will use any excuse to go against the wishes of the majority of Americans. He thinks he is a dictator.

Answer 6

He will get the money whether he veto's it or not . The president has the authority to take emergency funds from other programs if he needs it. He should not authorize all the pork the Democrats threw in to pass this bill. This was a silly , immature move by the democrats.

Answer 7

Wow....amazing.

So let me see if I'm understanding you - since Republicans have been very guilty of padding spending bills with pork in the past, it's okay for the Democrats to do it now?

Don't know why I'm surprised. Most of you still think Slick Willie is a swell guy, in spite of that whole perjury thing.

Hypocrisy, thy name is liberal.....

Answer 8

A troop pull out deadline will result in the terrorists circling the date on their calendar for a victory celebration - it gives them a time line for victory. All they'll have to do is hold out for the withdrawal. After which, there is no reason to believe they'll do anything but return to their tactics of terror and murder - and why not if they're successful?
Does that really make sense?

Answer 9

The question is, why was it necessary to attach these "reasonable" provisions. Why couldn't Congress fund the troops without conditions?

Answer 10

They tacked on many thing to this bill just to attract more votes from the Republicans.