A vote today in the Senate actually has a closer date for a pullout from Iraq than the House version. Remember - both bills fund the war using Bush's own plan and criteria for success. The House and Senate are just holding him to his own stated goals. Will Bush veto his own plan? Does the phrase "Playing politics with the troops" mean anything to you?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070328/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=AudBhuz.qTqW3qTWKxwcSIKs0NUE
2007-03-27 16:38:32 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
This will put "W" in a catch-22. Does he turn his back on funding for the troops and funding for home causes just because he doesn't want to set time tables? Wait and watch...
2007-03-27 16:47:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
This is not a turning tide in the Senate. The Republicans know that Bush will veto this bill and they know that the appropriations have to be authorized by sometime in April (I forget the exact date). They just want to get this thing crushed and start over to try to get something passed in time.
2007-03-27 23:58:04 · answer #2 · answered by Milton's Fan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Excellent question and I'll be watching to see if President Bush actually veto the bill pass today by the Senate and House.
Nonetheless; those who answered your question with the term Pork Bill; understand this. If it was your relative, wouldn't you support the initiative? By the way; some of the funding will help aid the victims of Hurricane Katrina and many other previously ignored domestic issues. Why are we so quick to help others; and ready to turn a blind-eye to our very own citizens?
2007-03-27 23:51:54 · answer #3 · answered by Swordfish 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm wondering, if the President vetos the bill, will it encourage even those who were on the fence about the bill, to eventually over-ride the veto. The reason I say this is because despite all the threats of veto, the house AND sentate passed it. If it gets vetoed, I wonder if it's only going to make their stance that much stronger.
2007-03-27 23:50:11 · answer #4 · answered by Groovy 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The Senate discussion will be getting farther away from the Bushco the closer it gets to 08 elections. Lame duck Bush policies that have been totally ineffective (other then the embezzling) are being ignored with a push towards diplomacy. The best Bush and Condi can do is wave coming and going, they haven't made any deals, or solved anything.
2007-03-27 23:46:56 · answer #5 · answered by UNDERDOG 2 · 6⤊ 1⤋
One nice thing about the tide. It washes all the garbage out of the harbor.
Bush has become so disgusting the Senate super majority is almost ready to vote him into Leavenworth
2007-03-28 00:37:51 · answer #6 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You wish it was turning, we'll see what state the Democrats are in when the American public backlash against them filling the bills with pork and then forcing a veto begins.
2007-03-28 10:09:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Bush would be a fool to veto the bill. It would cause repercussions for the republican party that could lead to them becoming one of the also ran parties.
2007-03-27 23:46:36 · answer #8 · answered by Al Dave Ismail 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Hours before the vote, it was announced that the Republican's were going to let it go through so that Bush could face the Dem's down directly through the use of the veto.
Essentially, this is another "non-binding resolution" from a "non-working" Democrat controlled congress.
2007-03-27 23:46:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
Please believe what you wish, but kindly do not accuse the President of playing politics with the troops when it is the Congress who is doing so.
And did you notice the two Independents that Liberals were so sure would vote with them? I did. I also remember Pelosi's grand promise to "work with the President."
And Bush's veto is his Constitutional right, and he needs to use it. And Bunz, Chi Guy is much more honorable.
2007-03-27 23:50:14 · answer #10 · answered by Shrink 5 · 2⤊ 6⤋