is playing politics worth the lives of our troops. the general says he needs the money now. they put together a bill with billions of dollars for peanut subsidies?
anyone that believed :
a) that democrats arent the party of tax and spend; or
b) that they dont want to lose the war and leave the troops without bullets because they hate their own country..
werent paying attention for the last 100 years.
and thats a memo
2007-05-01 12:41:19 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Ya, I'm gonna listen to the girl who thinks "Viet Nam" is two words...hahaha
Holy hell, some of you need to educate yourselves on things like what's in the bill trying to pass, what was added, and Bush's veto and why he did that.
Like quite a few people have said already, the bill did actually fund the troops.
2007-05-01 13:28:36 · answer #1 · answered by Josh 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why don't some of you that are bashing this bill, look it up and see what all the spending contains. Secondly, I agree with some of you who are saying "not having a time line is giving the Iraqi's no urgency". The Iraqi's have not done a damn thing to help get things going. We are at 51 months of a war and why haven't we had any troops out of there yet? Oh, silly Bush, cause the terrorist are there. Do you think these people haven't lived like this for thousands of years? Its the middle east. The war on terror is like the war on drugs. You are not going to stop it completely. If this administration thinks they will stop it, they are obviously mentally ill like millions of people of this nation that voted again for the knob in 2004. What the hell is wrong with you people? BIN LADDEN, where is he?? Tell me, where the hell he is. Saddam is dead and yes he was a horrible man, but there are no WMD's. This is pointless, the person who started this discussion is one of three things:
A) Fox News viewer
B)From the south
C)Family is a christian extremist
D)All of the above
I will guess D on this.
2007-05-01 14:17:46 · answer #2 · answered by david z 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The troops are being funded. Bush is getting all the money he asked for the war plus an additional $9 billion for the troops. And I do believe it was Bush who vetoed the bill today, so you should be asking why won't Bush support the very troops he sent into harms way?
2007-05-01 13:09:21 · answer #3 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You must be a Fox News viewer. The democrats are actually trying to fund the troops. If you want to point fingers start by looking at the your fuhrer Bush. He's the one that's threatened to veto the funds.
But I do agree with you on one point. The amount of pork they can sneak in with that bill is ridiculous. A complete waste of tax payers money, just like that war in Iraq.
2007-05-01 12:58:13 · answer #4 · answered by IRunWithScissors 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush is playing politics with the troops. HR 1591 fully funds the troops through September 2008. It also sets a timeline for withdrawl, which is needed for the Iraqi people to take over their own self defense.
See, currently, the Iraqi people have no sense of urgency to take over their own self defense. With Bush's "open ended" policy, they know that he will keep sending troops over there.
With the timetables, you give them that sense of urgency and let them know that they need to be ready by 2008. HR 1591 funds the troops, funds the Iraqi training, and increase funds the troops who come back injured.
The Democrats want to end the spending by ending our requirement of being there. By handing over the reigns to the Iraqis, we affirm our victory in Iraq.
Bush's veto leaves the troops without bullets.
2007-05-01 12:55:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You quite slightly have it perfect. There are traitors available, and a number of them are in Congress. i'm satisfied you requested this question, because a lot of human beings are false impression what's happening with those resolutions, and they imagine the Republicans are hostile to debate. the long island circumstances is slanting it that way. The Republicans favor debate, the Democrats opt to hide.
2016-12-05 04:54:18 · answer #6 · answered by cynthy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they did fund the troops with the provision that we start bringing our troops home sooner rather than later. Bush vetoed the bill so he technically refused to fund the troops. And the republican and democrats have been adding pork to bills for years its how they get people to vote their way. That street goes both ways man.
2007-05-01 13:33:34 · answer #7 · answered by jwk227 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush vetoed the bill.
Today's so-called Republicans call for "spend on credit, the hell with the future".
The war was lost before it began. Iraqis are the only people on this planet who can institute democratic reforms in Iraq. We cannot impose our political ideology on someone else at the point of a gun. We cannot win a civil war for someone else.
2007-05-01 13:26:16 · answer #8 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush just vetoed the bill for the funding not to mention to raise minimum wage.
The real question should be what does bush have against the people of the united States!!!
2007-05-01 13:27:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Goodness sake, Republicans have done the same thing for two centuries (as well as Democrats).
It's contemptible, regardless. Our tolerance of such behavior is also contemptible.
Keep speaking up.
I'm a democrat, second, a patriot, first.
2007-05-01 13:23:24 · answer #10 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋