Oh, I was reading the news today (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070427/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush) and noticed that "Democratic leaders said they hoped to have [a new Iraq bill] ready by June 1." June 1st!? What is there to change for a new bill appropriating money for the Defense? All they have to do is take off the timetables and the wasteful pork that they proclaimed to be against.
How can the party that claims "America has spoken" spend a month and a half to refine a pointless bill and waste money they promised not to waste on earmarks?
2007-04-27 11:38:46 · 12 answers · asked by ? 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Sorry the link doesn't work. Here it is
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/04/27/ap3663864.html
2007-04-27 11:42:10 · update #1
The bill is pointless because the Democrats know full well that Bush will veto it and they don't have a large enough majority to override his veto.
2007-04-27 12:09:08 · update #2
Because for Dems nothing is more important than politics and the 08 election.
Pelosi is so concerned and understands the importance of the largest issue facing Americans, the war (battle) in Iraq that she SKIPS the briefing by the Commanding General in Iraq..
2007-04-27 11:41:20 · answer #1 · answered by jonepemberton 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
They are hoping to create any kind of stink, real or not, that will last until they think they can con everyone in America to vote their way. What's it to them if Soldiers get killed for lack of money because they are trying to show they have nads.
Their run for power is the most important thing in the world. Just ask them.You cant have hundreds of politicians running a war and that's why the Constitution is the way it is. If they can get the votes, they will get their way. And there are plenty of Republicans that are so hungry for power, they will toss their party for a promise to get in on the ground level of an all Democrat government.
2007-04-27 20:26:04 · answer #2 · answered by Ret. Sgt. 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In 2006 Bush signed an emergency appropriations bill with more pork and less money for the troops in Iraq, than this one. Bush will sign a bill to fund the troops before the funding runs out in July. I wouldn't say that a bill to fund the troops is pointless.
2007-04-27 18:49:41 · answer #3 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because the Republicans can't see the forest for the trees.
Bush will veto funding for the troops and be recognized for the traitor that he is.
2007-04-27 18:42:28 · answer #4 · answered by andy r 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Comedian Lewis Black said it best: "The Repulicans are a party of bad ideas, the Democrats are a party of no ideas. Rep: I have a $#**&% idea
Dem: And I can make it $#**%er"
2007-04-27 18:48:12 · answer #5 · answered by Gunz 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That is just their way.
They wouldn't want to tick off their MoveOn crowd, they may lose votes in the next elections.
Holding power is all they want. They could care less about whats really important.
2007-04-27 18:42:39 · answer #6 · answered by scottdman2003 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The MAJORITY of Americans want us out of Iraq, are you in favor of a Representative Government?
2007-04-27 18:46:36 · answer #7 · answered by somber 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
They need to posture a lot in the months leading up to a big election cycle...
Edit!
OH, and pork buys votes...
2007-04-27 18:42:20 · answer #8 · answered by BigPappa 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because their "only" concern right now is to make Bush look bad because that will greatly benefit them.
2007-04-27 18:42:08 · answer #9 · answered by Billy 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because they are demoncrats!
2007-04-27 18:42:47 · answer #10 · answered by dumbuster 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋