House OKs Iraq pullout deadline

DOMS · 03-27-2007, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

Most of the journalists hired by the NY Times previously worked at the Wall St. Journal.

Do you have proof of this?

I find it odd because the Journal is a generally conservative, whereas the Times is very liberal.

BoneCrusher · 03-27-2007, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dg806

Clinton News Network
CBS News
The Washington Post
The New York Times
MSNBC
Dana Milbank
and Walter Pincus........all sources from the above quote.

No Liberals there huh? Sorry I see nothing credible as far as I'm concerned there. All one sided. Gotta do better than that.

Non-politically disposable sources

The State Department's intelligence bureau ... INR
Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector
Actual CIA document with explanatory annotation
NSC ... the National Security Counsel
Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq

No ... actually I asked you to read the doc's. Saying because the Republicans are not posting this evidence means that the doc's are liberal garbage is a serious threat to formal government dg. Fuck the messengers ... read the message. I know you're entrenched here, but this is about who we are as Americans ... not who we are as party members.

Again ... no Republican is going to go on record and say this. It will only get said by NON-REPUBLICANS, the people you will not listen too, so ignore who presents the data ... just read the data itself. You never did read it. You looked at the sources, the people that pulled this stuff from public record ... and from that decided the proof was not valid without even reading it.

In a short sentence ... refute the data. It cannot be done. The chain of evidence is clear and leads directly to the White House.

Anyone who refuses to read something because it does not come from their party is a threat to democracy.

KelJu · 03-27-2007, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DOMS

People simply stick up for the group that they think is more in line with their desires.

Wouldn't it be better to demand better behavior from the group they are more inline with rather than ignoring blatant misuse of office?

DOMS · 03-27-2007, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

Fuck the messengers ... read the message.

This statement is horrifying. You must know the intent of the messenger if you can have any trust in him.

Which is why I'm so distrustful of any major news outlet.

DOMS · 03-27-2007, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelJu

Wouldn't it be better to demand better behavior from the group they are more inline with rather than ignoring blatant misuse of office?

It sounds nice, but it's not going to happen. Beside, what's the alternative? Don't support anyone until they clean up their act, while everyone else pushes their agendas?

BoneCrusher · 03-27-2007, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decker

That's not a citation. That's an unsupported conclusion. But then again this is 2007 and not 1993-4....so who cares?

LOL ... you cared enough to post Hitlery's plan from 1993 as you attempted to defy my previous tirade. And noooo that was not "an unsupported conclusion". That was a summation of section 53 posted from your link of the Clinton's Hitlery Care unhealthy plan. I embellished not in the slightest.

Big Smoothy · 03-27-2007, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DOMS

Do you have proof of this?

I find it odd because the Journal is a generally conservative, whereas the Times is very liberal.

I'll try to dig it up, DOMS.

You have a fair question.

I should have dug up some links before noting that.

DOMS · 03-27-2007, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

I'll try to dig it up, DOMS.

You have a fair question.

I should have dug up some links before noting that.

Thanks. If that's the way things are, it bears looking into even more.

Big Smoothy · 03-27-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DOMS

Thanks. If that's the way things are, it bears looking into even more.

I'll try to find the source in a bibliography of a book I have.

Otherwise, I'll have to delete it and explain why.

Fair enough.

BoneCrusher · 03-27-2007, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DOMS

This statement is horrifying. You must know the intent of the messenger if you can have any trust in him.

Which is why I'm so distrustful of any major news outlet.

You took my statement out of context and applied it as a general expression ... I was calling out that particular collection of data.

But I'll have a go. As Americans we no longer have ANY party we can look to for leadership ... they've both completely devolved into a collection of criminals and robber-barons. What national political leader does anyone here find to be an honest person?

brogers · 03-27-2007, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decker

No no. What is disgusting is that Bush manufactured a threat where none existed then launched an illegal invasion and is continuing an ongoing war crime.

You're right that this is about political power. Bush misused his presidential office and the republican majority let him get away with murder--quite literally.

The democratic party should withdraw all troops immediately and fuck the new military bases and all the private co.s enriched by this war crime...you know, the war party's war profiteering allies. Yeah, Congress gave Bush the authority to deal with Iraq but Bush misused that authority and attacked before inspectors finished their jobs. His rationale for legal invasion--WMDs in Iraq---was crumbling. That's a fact. That's also in violation of UN resolution 1441 and it's also a war of aggression, i.e., war crime. And it was all Bush's call.

This isn't about George Bush, it is about members of congress supporting the Iraq conflict while it was popular in the polls, then switching their position and distancing themselves from the decision as polls change. They are undermining the effort to win, because victory means political failure for democrats.

George Bush manufactured the threat, my ass. He believed it was a threat, along with many, many members of the house, senate, and even former president Clinton.

Quote:

Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | <A href="http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:u62ZeSGUfj0J:washingtontimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm+"Saddam+Hussein+has+been+engaged+in+ the+development+of+weapons+of+mass+destruction+tec hnology+which+is+a+threat+to+countries+in+the+regi on+and+he+has+made+a+moc" target=_blank>Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | <A href="http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:u62ZeSGUfj0J:washingtontimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm+"Hussein+has+...+chosen+to+spend+his +money+on+building+weapons+of+mass+destruction+and +palaces+for+his+cronies."&hl=en&ie=UTF-8" target=_blank>Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | <A href="http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/4136328.htm" target=_blank>Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | <A href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html" target=_blank>Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | <A href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html" target=_blank>Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | <A href="http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/10/2002A07621.html" target=_blank>Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | <A href="http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:u62ZeSGUfj0J:washingtontimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm+"Saddam+Hussein+has+been+engaged+in+ the+development+of+weapons+of+mass+destruction+tec hnology+which+is+a+threat+to+countries+in+the+regi on+and+he+has+made+a+moc" target=_blank>S<A href="http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:u62ZeSGUfj0J:washingtontimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm+"Saddam+Hussein+has+been+engaged+in+ the+development+of+weapons+of+mass+destruction+tec hnology+which+is+a+threat+to+countries+in+the+regi on+and+he+has+made+a+moc" target=_blank>ource

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | <A href="http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html" target=_blank>Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | <A href="http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html" target=_blank>Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | <A href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL12Ak02.html" target=_blank>Source

brogers · 03-27-2007, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelJu

Lawl, you are such a tool. The republicans are just as petty and low.

For instance, they wanted to vilify Clinton for getting a blowjob, but they let a known pedophile keep serving on his committees until the news broke the pages story.

Yeah, but keep fighting the good fight for your party.

You're the tool dude.

I'm not talking about a blowjob. I'm talking about democrats trying to take funding away from my friends and relatives in the military while they're fighting. If you think impeaching Clinton for perjury is "just as petty and low" as undermining our soldiers by revoking funding with a strategy called "slow bleed" then you're utterly insane.

If they want us out, THEN CUT THE FUCKING FUNDING AND GET OUT, don't try and micromanage the war by putting all kinds of bullshit in a budget bill. Last time I checked, Nancy Pelosi was not a general and I don't want anyone from congress doing our generals' jobs. The legislation is nothing but a political move.

KelJu · 03-27-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brogers

You're the tool dude.

I'm not talking about a blowjob. I'm talking about democrats trying to take funding away from my friends and relatives in the military while they're fighting. If you think impeaching Clinton for perjury is "just as petty and low" as undermining our soldiers by revoking funding with a strategy called "slow bleed" then you're utterly insane.

If they want us out, THEN CUT THE FUCKING FUNDING AND GET OUT, don't try and micromanage the war by putting all kinds of bullshit in a budget bill. Last time I checked, Nancy Pelosi was not a general and I don't want anyone from congress doing our generals' jobs. The legislation is nothing but a political move.

Bush is trying to cut funding to veterans hospitals to shift money to funding more troops. Basically he is saying lets pay to get more troops, but fuck'em when they come injured. You are such a tool. If Bush really cared about our men and women fighting for our country, he wouldn't be cutting into moneys to take care of the wounded troops. Lawl, you are such a dumb ass. Do a google search sometime rather than spitting your partisan garbage into these threads. Bush doesn't care about our troops, and neither do the dems. But, at least the dems are trying to get our troops out of there. There motives are not pure. They just want to make the reps look bad and get votes. Hell, at this point I'll take the deal, because it is better than fighting for a lie.

North Jersey Media Group providing local news, sports & classifieds for Northern New Jersey!
Think Progress » American Legion Commander: ‘I Blame Bush And Congress’ For Veterans Cuts
Think Progress » Bush wants cuts to veterans’ health care.
NEWS - POLITICAL - Comcast.net

BoneCrusher · 03-27-2007, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brogers

This isn't about George Bush, it is about members of congress supporting the Iraq conflict while it was popular in the polls, then switching their position and distancing themselves from the decision as polls change. They are undermining the effort to win, because victory means political failure for democrats.

George Bush manufactured the threat, my ass. He believed it was a threat, along with many, many members of the house, senate, and even former president Clinton.

Bush KNEW the threat was no longer there. The threat Sodomy posed was destroyed by his pappa in the early 90's. Blix and the inspectors provided that knowledge in their inspection reports. That was supported by CIA data. The media controlled by the politicians threw out the smoke screen by minimizing the reports and emphasizing Blix getting the boot. Media deception in operation, controlled by the politicians.

This entire thread is about the deceptions played on the people by the media. Who owns and/or controls the media? The political leaders. So you then post these statements made by these politicians as what? Proof the media is lying? Proof that they're not lying? LOL ... you planted Kerry at the top of the page. He's infamous for his weak knee'd stance on issues.

BigDyl · 03-27-2007, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DOMS

Do you have proof of this?

I find it odd because the Journal is a generally conservative, whereas the Times is very liberal.

lol@ generally VERSUS very

DOMS · 03-27-2007, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDyl

lol@ generally VERSUS very

Have you read the Journal or the Times? The adjectives fit.

brogers · 03-27-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelJu

Bush is trying to cut funding to veterans hospitals to shift money to funding more troops. Basically he is saying lets pay to get more troops, but fuck'em when they come injured. You are such a tool. If Bush really cared about our men and women fighting for our country, he wouldn't be cutting into moneys to take care of the wounded troops. Lawl, you are such a dumb ass. Do a google search sometime rather than spitting your partisan garbage into these threads. Bush doesn't care about our troops, and neither do the dems. But, at least the dems are trying to get our troops out of there. There motives are not pure. They just want to make the reps look bad and get votes. Hell, at this point I'll take the deal, because it is better than fighting for a lie.

North Jersey Media Group providing local news, sports & classifieds for Northern New Jersey!
Think Progress » American Legion Commander: ‘I Blame Bush And Congress’ For Veterans Cuts
Think Progress » Bush wants cuts to veterans’ health care.
NEWS - POLITICAL - Comcast.net

They're trying to get the troops out? Wow I can't believe someone actually buys that bullshit they spew. They have the power, but they're not doing it.

KelJu · 03-27-2007, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brogers

They're trying to get the troops out? Wow I can't believe someone actually buys that bullshit they spew. They have the power, but they're not doing it.

Sure, dance around what I just said. You brought it up, now defend it. Why is bush cutting veterans benefits if he really cared about the troops. Answer it.

brogers · 03-27-2007, 03:40 PM

Just out of curiosity, is anyone capable of staying on the fucking topic? I swear it doesn't matter what the original topic is, if it criticizes democrats in anyway the looneys come out to complain about george bush on some other issue. It's like an obsession.

brogers · 03-27-2007, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelJu

Sure, dance around what I just said. You brought it up, now defend it. Why is bush cutting veterans benefits if he really cared about the troops. Answer it.

Please cite me where I stated and/or brought up cutting veteran benefits. This is about the democrats trying to micromanage the war in iraq with a bill that restricts funding to our soldiers.

KelJu · 03-27-2007, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brogers

Just out of curiosity, is anyone capable of staying on the fucking topic? I swear it doesn't matter what the original topic is, if it criticizes democrats in anyway the looneys come out to complain about george bush on some other issue. It's like an obsession.

Dance dance dance around the question. Hahahahahaha, you fucking loser! You dance well!

I hate the dems just as much as the reps. Like DOMS said once, "They are the same monster". I just love catching the hardcore rights and lefts back into a corner when they spout off their partisan bullshit, and refuse to answer a point blank question. NOW ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!

KelJu · 03-27-2007, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brogers

Please cite me where I stated and/or brought up cutting veteran benefits. This is about the democrats trying to micromanage the war in iraq with a bill that restricts funding to our soldiers.

That isn't the question, but nice try, dance you puppet, dance!

brogers · 03-27-2007, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelJu

Sure, dance around what I just said. You brought it up, now defend it. Why is bush cutting veterans benefits if he really cared about the troops. Answer it.

Actually I didn't bring it up, but I went ahead and followed one of those links. contained in it was:

"In fact, even the White House doesn't seem serious about the numbers. It says the long-term budget numbers don't represent actual administration policies. Similar cuts assumed in earlier budgets have been reversed.

The veterans cuts, said White House budget office spokesman Sean Kevelighan, "don't reflect any policy decisions. We'll revisit them when we do the (future) budgets."

seems like it's just a placeholder number in the budget until the final number is determined.

brogers · 03-27-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelJu

That isn't the question, but nice try, dance you puppet, dance!

It says "24" under your name as your age but honestly, I'd guess by your posts that it's more like 14. You haven't placed me in any kind of corner nor am I dodging a question about something "[i] brought up now [I need to] defend it."

The topic at hand is the bill that just passed by the democrat controlled house that was laden with pork bribes. I attack what they're doing then I get peppered with responses condemning George Bush? Yeah man, you got me there, you really nailed me bro.

I don't like his policies, I don't many of the bills he's signed into law (or wants to), but somehow, by attacking the opposing party, I'm a puppet for George Bush. Right.

KelJu · 03-27-2007, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brogers

You're the tool dude.

I'm not talking about a blowjob. I'm talking about democrats trying to take funding away from my friends and relatives in the military while they're fighting. If you think impeaching Clinton for perjury is "just as petty and low" as undermining our soldiers by revoking funding with a strategy called "slow bleed" then you're utterly insane.

If they want us out, THEN CUT THE FUCKING FUNDING AND GET OUT, don't try and micromanage the war by putting all kinds of bullshit in a budget bill. Last time I checked, Nancy Pelosi was not a general and I don't want anyone from congress doing our generals' jobs. The legislation is nothing but a political move.

Here it is. You said this. This is a quote of what you said. You are accusing democrats of exactly what Bush is doing. I have friends and family in service. God forbid one of them get injured, I want them to be taken care of properly. The VA is a joke as it is. People who need care are not getting it. They are completely overhauling it now, because of incompetence. Now bush is either lieing, or he is cutting funding to the brave men and women that were injured in his war. You can change the subject and spout off more bullshit, or call a budget cut a "placeholder"

. I don't care. Bush said that to balance the budget before 2012 that they were cutting moneys to the veterans hospital. You can put whatever spin you want on it. He said that they were cutting it by a billion dollars. That is what he said.

Now everyone else is saying "you have to be fucking kidding". Even the VA says they don't really expect to be cut. They expect an influx of 29% more troops being treated at the VA in the following year. They are going to need a huge increase in funds just to take on the incoming injured troops from Iraq.

This is a quite from the same article you quoted:

Quote:

The White House budget office, however, assumes that the veterans' medical services budget can absorb a 2 percent cut the following year and remain essentially frozen for three years in a row after that.

Now previous cuts had been reversed and the VA was given an emergency money allocated to them.

Why were they cut in the first place? During Bushes administration I have found 3 instances of he and his fellow republicans boasting funding for one year then decreased it for the following years. Why isn't the VA something that should be funded properly every year? But, you can blame the democrats. Its all their fault! They hate our troops and want them to fail and die a miserable death in Iraq. We are in this war because of the democrats and we will lose because of them. Is that better? Am I speaking your language now?

BoneCrusher · 03-27-2007, 04:32 PM

My simple request so that I may be better informed is if you would post the pork in the pork laden bill.

brogers · 03-27-2007, 04:39 PM

You still don't get the point, this topic is about the bill passed in the house.

I condemn what they are doing in the house, while doing so I make no comments on George Bush. You bring up some article on George Bush in attempt to discredit critisicism of the democrat party, but this doesn't discredit what they've done. If Bush wants to cut funding for veterans, then fuck him, and start a new topic to bash him and if it's true I'll be happy to join in.

brogers · 03-27-2007, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

My simple request so that I may be better informed is if you would post the pork in the pork laden bill.

Keep in mind while reading this, this is an emergency war funding bill. The bill barely passed, and the only reason it passed at all was because Pelosi bribed congressmen with pork.

MILLIONS ($) PURPOSE
$500 Emergency wildfire suppression
400 Rural schools
283 Milk subsidies
140 Shrimp and fishing industries that suffered losses after hurricane Katrina
100 Citrus growers for losses from hurricanes Katrina or Rita
74 Peanut storage
60 Salmon fisheries in the Klamath River region in California and Oregon
50 Asbestos removal from the US Capitol power plant
48 Salaries and expenses for the Farm Service Agency
35 Risk mitigation at NASA's Stennis Space Center on the Gulf Coast
25 Spinach growers
25 Hurricane compensation for livestock producers
16 Security upgrades to House of Representative office buildings
10 Flood control along the Rio Grande River

brogers · 03-27-2007, 04:49 PM

An opinion piece from Mobile, AL. I just thought it was well-written and worth a read. The bolded quote from McCain is what everyone who is buying the dems' bullshit needs to read.

Quote:

NOW WE know the House Democrats' price for selling out the U.S. mission in Iraq: 22 billion pieces of silver.

In a crucial vote Friday on funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the House decided to give pork a chance.

The emergency defense funding bill that squeaked through the House included a 2008 deadline for the withdrawal of most U.S. troops from Iraq. It also contained about $22 billion in pork barrel projects -- the price House Democratic leaders paid to convince wavering members of their own party to handcuff President Bush and abandon Iraq's democratic government to a bitter fate.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. John Murtha and other top Democrats favor a pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq. But Democratic leaders apparently concluded they couldn't muster enough support for the deadline by appealing to their colleagues to vote their convictions.

So, they took the president's request for funding for the troops and stuffed it with pork, hoping to lure members willing to put parochial political concerns above momentous questions of war, peace and national security.

This low-bore strategy for embarrassing the president succeeded, but just barely: 216 Democrats and two Republicans voted for the funding bill with the troop withdrawal deadline.

Fourteen Democrats -- most of them Southern moderates who didn't want to override the decisions of our military commanders -- rejected the artificial timetable for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq.

The House vote and the devious maneuvers that preceded it left a lingering stench of rancid pork and political cowardice in the Capitol. Sen. John McCain said Friday was a "shameful, disgraceful day." Indeed, Democratic leaders should be ashamed that they used pork to advance their agenda on the war.

During the fall election campaign, Democrats pounded the Republican congressional leadership for their cynical use of "earmarks" -- local projects inserted in broader legislation. The Republicans often traded pork for votes on key legislation.

The Democrats promised they would end the petty political payoffs and conduct the people's business in a more high-minded fashion. It turns out that the new leaders of the House can't rise above pork even when the lives of American soldiers and their allies are at stake.

Sen. McCain challenged the Democrats with an honest question: If you really believe the mission in Iraq is a failure, why don't you stand up and vote for an immediate cutoff of funding?

The truth is, most Democrats want to play to public opinion by posturing against the war and attacking President Bush, but they don't want to take responsibility for a U.S. defeat in Iraq. Many of them understand that a victory for the Islamic extremists would further destabilize the Middle East and undermine the nation's security.

So they voted for a vaguely worded withdrawal plan -- and for guided tours of the Capitol, surplus peanut storage in Georgia and assorted other pork projects.

The Senate should keep deadlines and pork out of the emergency funding bill, and vote to give the soldiers what they need to defeat the enemy. Our enemies in Iraq must be astonished -- and delighted -- to see U.S. national security questions settled with peanut and dairy subsidies and the like.

BoneCrusher · 03-27-2007, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brogers

Keep in mind while reading this, this is an emergency war funding bill. The bill barely passed, and the only reason it passed at all was because Pelosi bribed congressmen with pork.

MILLIONS ($) PURPOSE
$500 Emergency wildfire suppression
400 Rural schools
283 Milk subsidies
140 Shrimp and fishing industries that suffered losses after hurricane Katrina
100 Citrus growers for losses from hurricanes Katrina or Rita
74 Peanut storage
60 Salmon fisheries in the Klamath River region in California and Oregon
50 Asbestos removal from the US Capitol power plant
48 Salaries and expenses for the Farm Service Agency
35 Risk mitigation at NASA's Stennis Space Center on the Gulf Coast
25 Spinach growers
25 Hurricane compensation for livestock producers
16 Security upgrades to House of Representative office buildings
10 Flood control along the Rio Grande River

That looks like pork. Did the Republicans do this when they were in control, or is this just a Dem only behavior?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-27-2007, 03:40 PM	#79
brogers Registered User Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,502	Just out of curiosity, is anyone capable of staying on the fucking topic? I swear it doesn't matter what the original topic is, if it criticizes democrats in anyway the looneys come out to complain about george bush on some other issue. It's like an obsession.

03-27-2007, 04:32 PM	#86
BoneCrusher Lift or Die Elite Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Austin Texas Posts: 8,589	My simple request so that I may be better informed is if you would post the pork in the pork laden bill.

03-27-2007, 04:39 PM	#87
brogers Registered User Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,502	You still don't get the point, this topic is about the bill passed in the house. I condemn what they are doing in the house, while doing so I make no comments on George Bush. You bring up some article on George Bush in attempt to discredit critisicism of the democrat party, but this doesn't discredit what they've done. If Bush wants to cut funding for veterans, then fuck him, and start a new topic to bash him and if it's true I'll be happy to join in.