Do the Democrats in Congress value Peanut Crops more than our Troops?

Question

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush, seeking to one-up Congress' Democratic majority in a showdown over the Iraq war, suggested Saturday that lawmakers should be ashamed that they added non-war items to an Iraq spending bill.

"I like peanuts as much as the next guy, but I believe the security of our troops should come before the security of our peanut crop," Bush said in his weekly radio address, referring to a provision in the war funding legislation that earmarks $74 million for secure peanut storage.

The Senate has passed a bill calling for most U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008, while the House version demands a September 2008 withdrawal. In both houses, the timelines are attached to legislation providing money to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year.

Bush repeated his promise to veto the bills if the timelines stay in -- and if the unrelated earmarks stay in as well -- because they "undercut our troops in the field."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/31/radio.addresses.ap/index.html

Answer 1

Of course they do. Peanuts, shrimp, pigs anything but our troops! How said that Pelosi and Reid had to bribe their own people to vote for their pork filled bill. Even sadder is the fact that many of our government officials will trade the life of a service member for a whole bunch of cash for their states. Bribery at it's highest levels!

Answer 2

This is a ludicrous question, more akin to what I would expect to see off a right-leaning TV show than a real question.

To wit, I'm sure many are familiar with the PATRIOT act. One of the earmarks (by a replican senator) did very much the same thing, except this senator got up and stated we needed to spend this money for peanut farmer for "national security".

If you don't like earmarks (better known as "pork"), you have the republicans to thank. You see, Clinton had established the line item veto. However, the republican congress didn't like the fact that a democratic president could cross out their pork, so thy took it to the supreme court which got the line item veto thrown out.

So now, both sides are free to add as much pork as they want to any bill.

Which, of course, brings us to where we are today. Anyone who cares enough can look back through the congressional record and gag on the amount of pork that has been passed by this administration. This is what happens in one party has too much power.

A true supporter of our troops would bring them home, as there not doing much good in the heart of a region that has been at war pretty much for the last 2000 years, not to mention that we should have never gone in the first place.

~X~

Answer 3

Those dang Democrats when will they learn? Putting earmarks on a bill for farmers hit with an e-coli breakout, helping peanut farmers and other industries hit by natural disasters or mishaps. They should use that for important things like 120 million for a bridge leading nowhere in Alaska or 40 million for a rain forest exhibit in La's Vegas or probably the most important is 4 million to promote golf in Florida. All earmarks put on earlier bills by the REPUBLICAN congress now we see that the demo crates want to help the people that need assistance and the Republicans just like to spend on nothing.

Answer 4

Bush didn't happen to mention the record pork barrel spending by the Republicans the last six years did he? No, didn't think so. Pork is wrong, and even though wrong, both parties use it to pad bills all the time for support. Sorry, but even Bush can't lay this b.s. on the Democrats without answering to..say...the pork attached to the Patriot Act. It's all rather silly, as they all do it, right or wrong.

It is clear though that you do not have the faintest grasp on what this funding entails. The troops already on the ground are provided for and they will continue to be provided for - there is no danger to them through lack of funding. The funding is for FUTURE operations, which if Bush wants to conduct, he's going to have to reach some compromise with the Democrats and more than a few Republicans. The ball is in his court. If he wants more funding to continue operations he's going to have to give something in return. If he vetoes it, he loses his funding and will have to bring the troops home even sooner than the bill stipulates due to lack of funds. Again, NO SOLDIERS WILL BE DENIED FUNDS FOR CURRENT OPERATIONS AND NO SOLDIERS ARE BEING PUT IN DANGER BY THIS BILL.

If you keep listening to Bush's rhetoric without putting critical thinking into use your brain will explode.

EDIT: We're going to have to agree to disagree Shrink. The Democrats are doing what they were elected to do, the majority of Americans want to see a timeline, and there is no other way for Congress to do that save withholding funding. They have repeatedly pointed out that our troops overseas will not suffer danger from lack of funding and they will not let that happen. If Congress holds back the funding, then the President will have to use current funding to start bringing home the troops. That doesn't mean our troops will be harmed or put in harm's way. It does mean Congress is willing to pull the plug. It seems to me that Bush would be getting a better deal from Congress if he would just sign the bill. It gives him the money he wants and a fairly long timeline to wrap things up in Iraq. What's the alternative?

Answer 5

The Republican do nothing congress set a record for the most pork put into bills (look that up sweetie). I wonder, why with our media so effing liberal as it is, didn't report on that, but this is under a microscope! Adding pork is a political game that BOTH sides play.

And no, Democrats doing care about effing peanuts more than our troops. What a thoughtless and careless thing to say. We're trying to play by your political games so to speak so we can get those troops that we care so much about HOME instead in the middle of a civil war. HeII - maybe they can even go into Afganistan them to fight those actual people who attacked us. Who we they again? Right - al-Qaeda!

But, I've looked at your questions and you really seem more concerned with spewing your own political agenda, of course, so I doubt you actually spend time thinking about these things - or you wouldn't be asking such ridiculous questions. You probably just type these in then look at all the right wingers who agree with you then feel all warm and fuzzy about yourself.

Answer 6

I can't believe more Americans aren't outraged at all the pork the Democrats stuck in that bill.

Gives Bush that much more justification to exercise the veto option, imo.

I cannot agree with you Elway, when Pelosi is threatening to cut Iraq spending if Bush vetoes this bill. It amounts to the same thing.

Answer 7

Don't be ridiculous. Yes, it was stupid and underhanded for the Democrats to put non-Iraq things in an Iraq bill.

But it was the President himself who attached riders to scads of other bills, most notably the Patriot Act, that give him unbelieveable powers, such as the power to open your mail, the power to appoint Attorney Generals without having confirmation hearings, and (he hopes) the power to search through your library records.

I recognize that you are pretetnding that your question is an actual question. But it isn't -- it's a political statement with an agenda -- and it is an attack on Democrats for the very same thing Republicans do.

It's systemic. It's bad, and I don't really think the Democrats are much better at it than the Republicans, but it's certainly systemic.

Answer 8

First of all it is an Emergency spending Bill and in that vein they are proposing legislation for helping many emergencies!

Subsidizing US farmers is important and necessary to ensure our agricultural markets as well!!

Do you have something against American farmers?
Do you grow your own food?

Let's just leave them all struggling and bankrupt!
That's better!

What's wrong with dealing with many issues and don't forget.....Bush still gets his money!

That's what many of you don't say!
Bush still gets his money!

If he doesn't like the conditions he won't sign it and either way our troops will be coming home!!
If he wants them funded until then...he should sign the bill and support the troops!

After all he is "The Decider"!

Answer 9

YES

When given the choice Peanuts or Veteran. People choose the peanuts 99.9 to .1

Face it I'm a Veteran and know most people are a little uncomfortable spending quality time with a murderer. It goes with the job.

It's easy to support the troops abstractly in a distant location. But when a Combat Vet moves in next door and is out side washing the blood from his hands with a Harley project Bike. Yikes grad the kids and rescue the family pet.

I know America hates what I have done but loves what I did. It's a job that does not let you retire.

Answer 10

Dems hate the troops!!!!! Remember when Clintoon cut the military budget in 1993?( I sure remember, I was in the Army at the time.) They are all sorry pieces of crap who hate our military. They want nothing more than for our troops in Iraq to loose the war, so they can say they were right!