What is really bad is the Senate is going on one of their many vacations next week and it is likely the funding will not be there for the troops inm Iraq for the May timeframe........
That's right, and it will be the president that cut funding for the troops.Let's hope the bill stays in the Oval Office for about 30 seconds. Hopefully the VETO stamp is loaded with bright red ink.
Nice spin, but it will be clear why it was vetoed. When the Congress decides to act responsibly and present the funding without the political election cycle caveat, he'll sign it. I know how your heart bleeds for the spinach farmers. :roll:That's right, and it will be the president that cut funding for the troops.
When the prez does veto the bill, I call dubs on getting to be the first one who starts the first thread titled, "President Cuts Funding to Troops." :mrgreen:
The money will be laying on his desk. He's the only who can cut it now. Him. The Prez. Can't :spin: this one....no wait. Karl Rove can. Just make a call to Bill and Rush. :doh
They can find a few people to believe them I'm sure.
I think a more accurate title of the thread should be "senate approves of surrender date".
This more of a cowardly way for the traitorcats in office to cut off funding to our troops.They know the president is not going to sign a bill with a surrender date in it,what.You have to be a moron to not see this is nothing more than a chicken **** attempt to cut funding from our troops.The only people who will blame the president for cutting off troop funding are the traitorcats in office and the anti-american scum in the media.
Wow, I didn't realize that disagreeing with the President and other neo-conservatives means that you are anti-American.
Wow, I didn't realize that disagreeing with the President and other neo-conservatives means that you are anti-American.
What they are doing is not simple disagreement,what they are doing is undermining our troops for partisan bull ****.
Wow, I didn't realize that disagreeing with the President and other neo-conservatives means that you are anti-American.
Well, actually.... politics aside...
Technically.........
As a matter of fact based on sheers numbers and common logic...
70 plus percent of Americans disagree with the president.
People that do side with him, against the will of the American people, are minimum at best but they do exist.
These people, being against the will of America, can be said to be "un-American" by their own admission. They are either for us or against us. Bush is against us. A few posters here are against us. It is safe to say, by definition, they are "Un-American" just by numbers alone. politics aside.
The funding for the troops is in the bill, so please don't lie and say it isn't. The only stipulation is that Bush capitulate to the will of the American people. And for Bush to claim that Congress does not support the troops, with the Walter Reed scandal hanging around his neck like an albatross, is laughable.
Yea, they will claim that Congress put a gun to Bush's head and forced him to stop supporting the troops. :rofl
Umm, it's a pork riddled bill that allows congress to violate the separation of powers and micro-manage the war in Iraq, the Democrats knew it had no chance to be signed into law, that's why they passed it IE they don't have the guts to cut the funding themselves.
They passed it as a symbolic gesture representing what the majority of Americans also want. By vetoing the bill, Bush would not only be cutting the funding to the troops, but completely disregarding how the majority of Americans feel about the issue. This isn't a dictatorship.
The American people want to violate the separation of powers and allow congress to micro-manage the war? And you're right it's a Constitutional Republic with three co-equal branches of government and under our Constitution it is the President who is the CinC not the Congress, it is the Congress who now wants to violate the Constitution and it seems that the left is very happy to let them do it. Just remember the Democrats are invested in defeat and will do everything in their power to insure that defeat.
The American people want to violate the separation of powers and allow congress to micro-manage the war? And you're right it's a Constitutional Republic with three co-equal branches of government and under our Constitution it is the President who is the CinC not the Congress, it is the Congress who now wants to violate the Constitution and it seems that the left is very happy to let them do it. Just remember the Democrats are invested in defeat and will do everything in their power to insure that defeat.
1) Congress' responsibility IS in the funding of wars, and they have every right to stipulate conditions for that funding. That they have done. The money is there. All Bush has to do is agree with the vast majority of the American people, sign it, and abide by the rules. That does not violate separation of powers.
2) When you say that the American people want to violate separation of powers, you sound like a dictator. Fact is, the American people are the ULTIMATE decider, not Bush, not Congress, not anyone else. WE OWN THE DAMN COUNTRY, BUSH DOESN'T.
The majority of American people want our troops out of Iraq.
It has nothing to do with defeat or wanting defeat.
How could one want defeat when they don't even know what victory would be?
It's a good thing that we don't fight wars based on opinion polls.
It has everything to do with wanting defeat, the Democrats are invested in defeat as they freely admit.
Victory will be achieved when Iraq is stable and secure.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?