Be INFORMED

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Are The Democrats Supporting Bush Or The Troops?

     Much is being made as of late about the Bush veto of the Iraq war funding bill last week and we are already hearing a bunch of shit about how Bush will veto the next bill that the Democrats are crafting.

   Now the bill would fund the war only through July, instead of September. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that this would be disastrous. What else would this shithead say?

   Bush is looking for some $90 billion in funding for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan through September, not a partial payment, which the Democrats are offering.

In a flash of defiance, House Democratic leaders this week promoted legislation that would provide the military $42.8 billion to keep operations going through July, buy new equipment and train Iraqi and Afghan security forces. Congress would decide shortly before its August recess whether to release an additional $52.8 billion to fund the war through September.

"In essence, the bill asks me to run the Department of Defense like a skiff, and I'm trying to drive the biggest supertanker in the world," Gates told senators Wednesday. "And we just don't have the agility to be able to manage a two-month appropriation very well."     Yahoo News

   I put in all of this to get to this.

   If the Democrats are serious about getting our troops out of Iraq, then why are the screwing around with " benchmarks " and " timelines " and such crap? Why the hell are they even considering funding  any of this crap in the first place, only in stages? Funding the war for two months at a time doesn't support our troops any more than funding them eternally does!

  If these clowns ( Pelosi, Reid, Murtha ) where serious about bringing our troops back from Iraq, there would be not one dime spent with the exception of the money to bring the troops and the equipment home.

  It is that simple! don't let the politicians con you with the crap about these things take time because that's bullshit. You either fund the war, or you don't fund the war, plain and simple.

   So now we have the Democrats wanting to wait a little longer and see what happens with this troop surge. That simply means that the house leadership  have no problem with a few more of our troops getting killed.

Tags:

Cheney, Iraq and Another Day In Bushland

   I haven't had a chance to pick on the press briefings that Tony Snow does since he has been back to work, so today I make up for some of it.

Press Gaggle by Tony Snow

May 9,2007

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Wichita, Kansas

Q A quick question on Iraq. It seems like the House Democrats' plan is taking shape to fund the war in the short-term for a few months and then require a progress report before releasing more money. What's the administration's position on that?

MR. SNOW: The bill that was at least being whipped yesterday contains elements of the bill the President vetoed already, and if it were to come to his desk, it would be vetoed.

We continue to have conversations with members of the House and Senate, trying to put together something that's acceptable. But again, you take a look, there are a number of spending items, there are also some of the restrictions. Again, this is what we saw yesterday at the end of the day, at any rate. And certainly conditions that were a part of a veto message the first time are still going to be vetoed if they were to come back.

Q Make sure I'm clear on that. As you understand the bill as it's working through the process, the President would veto it?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q And what are the specific criteria that he finds objectionable?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, if you take a look, there are restrictions on funding, there are a series of -- there are restrictions on funding, and there are also some of the spending items that were mentioned in the first veto message that are still on the bill.

   Always with the grip about the restrictions on funding! This bill being worked on is what I would consider more tasteful to the Bush regime and it would be in their better interest to sign this thing. But NOoooo, Bush and his crime lords would have to be accountable for the progress or lack of it in Iraq, so this bill is headed to the wastebasket if it stays in its current state.

Q Cheney's visit to Baghdad today, what's the purpose of it?

MR. SNOW: Well -- what's the purpose of it? He's there -- he's meeting with General Petraeus, he's meeting with the Prime Minister, he's meeting with key officials in Baghdad. And one of the things he's doing is not only reiterating support, but also saying something that I think a lot of Americans realize, which is it really is time for action; we're here to help, let's get going.

Q Is there going to be kind of warnings about the political situation in the United States, how political support over here is waning?

MR. SNOW: You know, I think what you -- you've got to be careful what you try -- because you're dealing with a sovereign government that has it's own political concerns, but on the other hand, I'm sure the Vice President -- look, when the President talks to the Prime Minister, they're candid with each other. They're also practical. The point here is not to engage in stagecraft, it's to engage in statesmanship. It is to find ways to work with this government so they can do things that are going to build confidence with the Iraqi people in terms of developing national unity and national capability, and certainly also developing confidence with the American people, as well.

   So Cheney is in Iraq and elsewhere to twist a few arms in order to get the Bush oil law passed by the Iraqi parliament. I see this as Cheney doing a " do this for us or else " kind of meeting. The major oil companies must be threatening to withhold funds from Cheney and company if they can't get a bill to keep all of that future Iraqi oil profit to themselves.

   If the bill is approved by the Parliament, then Bush will no doubt claim that we have seen some progress in Iraq, which is bullshit.

                       IMPEACH! INDICT! IMPRISON!

 

Tags: