Libs, isn't it great that Bush vetoed the demoncrat bill that would have cut funding to our brave troops?

Answer 1

Apparently they do not even understand the bill. It provides funding (yes Josh), but is so loaded down with domestic pork, it is not possible they really believed it would pass. Also is the issue of the deadline.

Just politicking. And the Libs buy it every time.

Answer 2

NO, him passing the bill would have given the troops more funding. So now the poor troops have to wait until another bill is written and pass for more funding. The presidents veto only stalled the funding process.
As for actually cuts, I do believe President Bush made one for our brave troops. Doing away with overtime pay. What a way to support the troops. (NOT)

Answer 3

It's a shame you haven't read the bill. Then you might know what you were talking about. The bill actually increased funding, giving the troops more money than Bush asked for.

Answer 4

You embarrass yourself. That bill had more funding for the troops than Bush had asked for to begin with. He turned the funding down in favor of arrogance. Our troops would have been well funded. Perhaps they could finally have gotten the body armor and equipment that Bush sees fit to send them over without having.

EDIT: You look foolish too Scott - the funding specifically set aside for the troops was separate from the pork and THAT FUNDING WAS MORE THAN BUSH HAD ASKED FOR. God you guys are so dense sometimes.

Answer 5

Has anyone on either side actually seen and read this proposed bill? Or are you just insulting each other based on hearsay from biased sources? I find it hard to believe that anyone in America, even in congress, wants to leave our troops high and dry, but money is the only tool they have to impose the will of the American people on our idiot president and stop this war.

Answer 6

Dumb dumb, bush cut funding when he vetoed the bill which actually INCREASED money for the troops. This does not include the pork that was added, just the increases for the troops. Get your head out of your you know what and actually listen to the debate that took place on the floor which indicated the INCREASES.

The bill provided $4 billion more for our troops than the President requested and provided $1.8 billion more for veterans' neglected health needs.
The bill sets a NONBINDING GOAL of completing the troop pull out by April 1, 2008, allowing for forces conducting certain noncombat missions, such as attacking terrorist networks or training Iraqi forces, to remain." It was not set in stone, despite the Presidents' rhetoric, he just does not want to be held to the same standards he harped about for his predecessor in the war in Bosnia.
Then -Texas Governor George W. Bush told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on June 5, 1999: "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long (U.S. troops) will be involved and when they will be withdrawn." ( Huh, what an about face)

He is a hypocrite, and the Republican Congressional members are as well.
Back in 1999, after then-President Bill Clinton had ordered U.S. forces to begin a massive bombing campaign and missile strikes against Yugoslavia, the House of Representatives considered a resolution supporting the mission. The leading opponent of the resolution was Tom DeLay (R-TX), who dismissed the notion that opposing the war was in any way an affront to the troops.
In a visceral floor statement delivered in March of that year, DeLay declared, "Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world.( isn't that ironic!)
DeLay's sentiments were echoed in the Senate by then Majority Leader Trent Lott, (R-MS), who explained that, "My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do." ( Huh, but isn't that what they want the Congress to do now?)

As the war progressed, DeLay condemned "(President Clinton's) war," and grumbled in April, 1999, that, "There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today." (sounds familiar doesn't it)

Bring on the selective amnesia.

Keep on telling yourself every excuse you can and pontificate to justify the hypocrisy.
Increase definition :- to make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment

Answer 7

Me personally? I thought it was a grand thing for Bush to do. He just proved to the dems that they can't over ride any of his vetos. This eventually will force the dems hand in defunding the war upfront instead of trying to be sneaky about it. Then they'll be known as the "troop abandoner's".

In answer to "bsb".

The amount was higher not because they were giving Bush more than he asked for. It was higher because of all the "pork" the DEMONRATS inserted into the bill.

Do your research before you make yourself look like a fool.
OOOOOPPSSSS! Too late.

Answer 8

Isn't it great that Bush just cut off funding to the troops. Just think that if the republican congress had actually done its job this wouldn't even be an issue.It is just another legacy of the do-nothing incompetent 108th and 109th congresses.

Answer 9

Enjoy yourself now, the slope is going to get a whole lot steeper from here on out. Fortunately, the number of Bush following lemmings is decreasing daily, soon you may be alone with your love for Bush.

Answer 10

I think it is. sending money to our troops in vital for there survival. But, of course, a democrat cant comprehend that fact.