House passes Iraq funding bill that includes 2008 pullout deadline
mammasan
Posts: 5,656
Unfortunetly it will probably not be approved by the Senate and even if it did Bush would veto it anyway.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
L-O-I-T-E-R-I-N-G Allowed
This has to be the biggest bullshit reasoning. I'm so sick of the if we leave we are admitting defeat. We have done everything that we can possible do. We can not force these people to work with each other. Too many people within the Iraqi government, militray, police, and civilian population do not want to put aside sectarian loyalty in favor of national unification. Send 30,000, 40,000, or 400,000 more troops for the next 20 fucking years and guess what the minute we leave all hell will break loose because the people who really want to kill each other will continue to do so. It's time to face the facts the oppossing factions in Iraq, with help from neighboring countries, will never let a lasting peace last in that country. Either leave now and let them sort it out or just divide the country into three, spli the oil revenue amongst them and be done with this fucking quagmire already.
your response doesn't refute my statement, in fact it agrees with it. if you already know you are going to leave without the job being done, then leave. why wait another year? if your hang up was ont he phrase "admiting defeat" well we wanted to make iraq a better place, we will leave without doing that whether its now or next year. we were defeated. if the vistory we wanted could ever have been achieved is the big question, which you seem to think no, and I don't necessarily disagree. besides, telling your enemy you are coming or going is never a good idea anyway.
The reason I don't consider it a a defeat is because the outcome was never solely dependent on our actions. I belive that our forces did their part. Could we have done a better job, definetly but in the end we did what we set out to do. It is the Iraqis who are failing to do their part in building up their country. We can stay their for 20 years, but if the Iraqis fail to do what is necessary the objective will never be met.
As far as announcing when you are leaving being a negative, I do agree but in this case I believe we need to set a date. It may encourage the Iraqi government to get itself together because the crutch that it has been relying on will not be there forever. We can not continue to put our troops in harms way and over extend our militray to protect and help a country whose very government is part of the problem. Our militray has decided on a new approach to help alieviate some of the problems in Iraq in order to allow the government, militray, and police force time to get itself in working order. As much as I disagree with the plan we should allow the time for it to work or not. A Sept. 08 date will allow the necessary time for this new plan to show results. If it does show results and the Iraqis are meeting their goals as well then a staged withdrawl will be possible by that time. If our surge has not shown significant results or if the Iraqis are not meeting their goals then we have already given them enough time and effort and it is time to go.
he said he would veto it, but b/c of the pork spending in the bill as well. I agree with him that there is too much pork spending in the bill, but i'm pretty sure that's just a convenient scapegoat for him.
I agree that there is definetly too much pork attached to this bill, but like you said I'm sure that he is just using that as an excuse.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate conservatives and the Bush administration are taking aim at billions of dollars of non-war spending added to President Bush's $100 billion funding request for Afghanistan and Iraq.
In addition to money and equipment for overseas troops, there is $100 million for state and local law enforcement agencies in Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul to provide security for next year's presidential nominating conventions.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, won renewal of an income subsidy program for small-operation dairy farmers that promises to cost taxpayers $1.2 billion over the next five years.
And while the Senate bill has no money earmarked for spinach and peanut farmers -- as there is in a House companion bill -- sugar beet growers in the Red River Valley stand to get $24 million to cover crop losses from flooding two years ago.
But there's a problem facing conservatives striving to knock out what the White House calls "excessive and extraneous" spending: Many Republicans support the extras.
Take $20 million obtained by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, to combat Mormon crickets. The insects aren't simply plaguing Nevada, but also the solidly Republican states of Idaho and Utah -- whose delegations support the funding.
While conservatives such as Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, took to the floor Monday to question the funding for sugar beet growers, the provision has the support of Sen. Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican facing a potentially difficult re-election battle next year.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, wants to kill the $100 million for convention security. The money -- for security costs due more than a year from now -- has no place in a bill funding U.S. troop activities through the end of this September, he contends.
"Members will have to make a difficult choice between booze and balloons or body armor and bullets," Coburn said.
Coburn has taken on spending add-ons before, only to run into a coalition of Democrats and old-school Republicans that invariable defeat his attempts.
What typically happens in such "emergency" spending bills is that people who have obtained items dear to their states vote as a pack to fend off attacks on pet provisions.
The defense funding bill, which arrived on the Senate floor Monday, contains about $20 billion in spending unrelated to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
While conservatives were quick to attack questionable items such as $3.5 million for guided tours of the U.S. Capitol or $3 million aimed at a sugar cane cooperative in Hawaii, most of the added money promises to have broad support.
The additional funding includes:
# $4.2 billion in disaster aid for farmers hurt by drought, floods and other disasters in recent years.
# $6.7 billion in additional federal efforts to help victims of Hurricane Katrina, including housing aid, public infrastructure funding and aid to Gulf Coast fishermen.
# $3.1 billion to implement a 2005 round of military base closures, which helps local communities affected by military base closings paves the way for redeployment of 12,000 troops stationed in Germany and South Korea to domestic bases.
# $2 billion for national security efforts such as port security, explosives detection for airline baggage and rail and mass transit security grants.
# $747 million to ease a shortfall in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides health care to children from low-income families.
# $640 million in heating subsidies for the poor and elderly.
# $500 million to combat Western wildfires.
"Politicians have decided this is a good train to get on board," Kyl said. "Because it's got to move."
Leahy's amendment to extend income subsidies aimed at dairy farmers with small operations was in a class by itself. It represented a rewrite of the 2002 farm bill up for renewal this year.
The cost of Leahy's provision is $31 million this year, but unlike other elements of the war funding bill, it is added to "baseline" funding for agriculture subsidies at a cost of $1.2 billion through 2012.
I can't stand all the damn add-ons that Reps and Senators tack onto important bills. Shit like that should be voted on seperately not piggy backed on a military funding bill. I feel bad for red beet farmers, if they are having a hard time make ends meet, but why the hell should my tax dollars go to them.