two parties can play this stupid game
Don't you dare say pork, or we'll take a look at past troop funding bills that republicans have voted for.
2007-04-26 07:23:43 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
since when is a non-binding date to begin reducing troop numbers a "retreat date"?
2007-04-26 07:33:33 · update #1
-they didn't have a problem funding troops in 2004 with 11.5 billion in pork
-or 2005 with 12.7 billion in pork
-or 2006 with 14.9 billion in pork
2007-04-26 08:41:38 · update #2
Answering the question specifically. Most probably had to endure some political arm twisting from the white house. It is unfortunate that these votes are divided so closely along party lines when the vast majority of the American public (whom they are supposed to represent) wants Iraq to be over with.
So these votes turn into a political arm wrestling game. (If you want your agenda passed you'll have to support mine or vote with the dems and I'll see that you never get on the appropriations comittee). In other words, politics at it's worst.
2007-04-26 07:56:06 · answer #1 · answered by David M 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Mainly that it included that "date" the troops would
be pulled back home. Bush or the Republicans
could not allow a bill that would tell the enemy how
much more time they have before the US troops
hang their heads, wave white flags, and admit
they are defeated. I can't believe Democrats would
even come up with a bill that set a date. Oh, and by
the way, wasn't it stupid of them to include over a
billion (with a B) dollars worth of pork (that you didn't
want mentioned)? That's a pretty hefty amount of pork
barrel spending when you Democrats are so worried
about our budget and the deficit. Now you see how it
gets in the red.
2007-04-26 08:03:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Those 45 Republicans are finally seeing the light! I hope that even more of them see that what Bush has really done is...Commit this Country to a War that can't be won!
There has always been terrorism and there will always be terrorism. What should have been done after 9/11 is...we should have used all of the troops we sent to Iraq here in our own Country to guard our borders, protect our seaports, protect our airports and so on.
Bush has stretched all branches of the Military to their limits. On top of that, the equipment they were given is not sufficient to stabilize Iraq. This was a very poorly planned Military operation from the beginning...as far as Iraq!
Most of this Country has realized that Iraq was a mistake and now little by little, the Republicans are realizing it too!
The stupid game being played here, is Bush and his cronies still believing Iraq can be won...just like Johnson felt that Vietnam can be won.
2007-04-26 07:43:30 · answer #3 · answered by MSJP 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To hell with pork! Both sides do it..They always will. The reason for the down votes is they don't want our troops to quit and run away. The Democrats want to get out before victory. They can't afford the USA to win. They are too invested in defeat. The congress is trying to take power from the commander and chief so they can dictate troop movement. Why are the Democrats doing that?
2007-04-26 07:36:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Mainly because this bill has really become The setting a timetable for getting our troops out of Iraq bill.
They wanted to show their support for Bush, who is promising to veto it anyway. Even though 74% of the voting American public want it signed.
2007-04-26 07:34:28 · answer #5 · answered by asmikeocsit 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they are still trying to kiss Bushies A** and try to keep their constituents happy. It is the usual Republican tactic of trying to walk a fine line while not actually accomplishing anything...they ahve been doing it for years.
They will be sorry the next time they are up for re-election in their home states....
2007-04-26 07:52:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Haliburton grew to become into used via Democrats in the process the 1990's, the no bid settlement that grew to become into utilized in Iraq grew to become into positioned into consequence interior the 1990's. The examine grew to become right into a exposure stunt. we'd desire to constantly be utilising Haliburton in New Orleans, this way the govt.corrupt govt) down there might desire to not get there palms on the money, and something might get performed.
2016-10-30 09:02:29 · answer #7 · answered by hric 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they have a conscience unlike the Democrats who put the time-line in the bill knowing that anyone with a conscience would veto. A time-line means innocent Iraqi's will be slaughtered.
Democrats are shameless in pushing this bill with a time-line. I have never seen a more shameful act of politics in my lifetime. Anyone who supports the Dem's playing politics with innocent lives for power is sick!
2007-04-26 07:33:39 · answer #8 · answered by Who's got my back? 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because that's the way they support our troops by not funding them and keeping them in harm ways...
2007-04-26 07:32:56 · answer #9 · answered by Jose R 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They see the handwriting on the wall, and elections are right around the corner
2007-04-26 07:29:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋