| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
House Defeatocrats pass cut and run war supplemental
And the Senate Defeatocrats are expected to pass it this week:
WASHINGTON – The Senate is expected to pass a bill today that would order the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to begin this fall. Last night, the House voted 218-208 to pass the $124.2 billion supplemental spending measure containing the provision.
President Bush is expected to receive the bill next week, and swiftly veto it.
The legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to execute since they took control of both houses of Congress in January.
“The sacrifices borne by our troops and their families demand more than the blank checks the president is asking for, for a war without end,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said.
Democrats said the bill was on track to arrive on the president’s desk on Tuesday, the anniversary of Bush’s announcement aboard the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.
“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on,” Bush said on May 1, 2003, in front of a huge “Mission Accomplished” banner.
Bush since has acknowledged that the war campaign has not progressed as he had hoped. After the November elections in which Democrats swept up enough seats to take the majority, Bush announced a new strategy that involved sending additional forces to Iraq.
“Last November, the American people voted for a change in strategy in Iraq — and the president listened,” White House spokesman Dana Perino said in a statement Wednesday. “Tonight, the House of Representatives voted for failure in Iraq — and the president will veto its bill.”
Republicans labeled the timetable a “surrender date.”
“Al-Qaida will view this as the day the House of Representatives threw in the towel,” said Rep. Jerry Lewis (news, bio, voting record) of California, ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee.
The huge bill would fund the war, among other things, but demand troop withdrawals begin on Oct. 1 or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The bill sets a nonbinding goal of completing the troop pullout by April 1, 2008, allowing for forces conducting certain noncombat missions, such as attacking terrorist networks or training Iraqi forces, to remain.
All this, despite a briefing yesterday from Petraeus which talked about what the US military has accomplished since the ’surge.’ A briefing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ‘couldn’t’ attend.
In the meantime, David Broder is taking some heat from the usual suspects for daring to dis Senator Harry “this war is lost” Reid. As usual, the Nutroots can’t handle a big ol’ bowl of truth when it’s served to ‘em.
In any event, the war supplemental is nothing more than a symbolic gesture and a bone that Democrats in the House and Senate are throwing to the moonbats, beause they know the President will veto. And then everything will be back to square one. Let’s not forget that the longer they wait to send a clean bill to the President, the more the lack of adequate funding for our military takes its toll on their ability to fight the enemy.
PM Update: The Senate passed the bill today – although the AP is reporting it as $100 billion, it’s actually $124 billion.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
16 Responses to “House Defeatocrats pass cut and run war supplemental”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Well, if Bush vetoes this bill, I’ll owe a certain fellow in Nevada a case of Gray Goose–and happy to pay the wager, too!
The Democrats would not listen to Jesus Christ if he said things were getting better in Iraq. First, and foremost, CHrist is the head of an evil evangelical church that is at odds with all of the Democrat agenda. Second, Christ is no military expert, yet few Democrats are. Third, if it doesn’t hurt Bush, the Democrats are not interested, even in the salvation of their souls.
I would love to comment to Tommy’s post, but how can you?? Is there a single thing of substance in it?? If so I must of missed it. I pray that Bush does veto this travesty of a bill, and I hope that the libs in congress get their heads out of the sand and start listening to the boots on the ground. Where was Pelosi when Gen. Petraeus was giving his briefing?? Was she having tea and crumpets with her hedge fund manager?? Has there been a more pathetic Congress in US history?? Highly doubtful. Just a bunch of pathological liars. When was Nancy going to impose that 40 hour work week for the House?? Why is it she is more concerned about a genocide that happened 90 years ago than what American families are going thru today?? How she can look a national leader in the eye and shake his hand, when that man has been responsible for more assassinations, and causing more anarchy in Lebanon, and not attempt to support her President is flat out wrong. Tommy keep smokin’ when you all lose your edited L in 2008, your gonna need it bud. – Lorica
Broder is a liberal of the sort before ‘68 turned them into a Blue Team support squad for cultural degeneration. A Blue Plate special of drugs, defeatism, dysfunction, and generational decline. Broder may be a living fossil, but he harks back to a better time for Dems, the generation before they sluiced themselves down the chute into the tank where the biggest chunks rise to the top.
We-el, there’s no doubt that the president is going to veto this bill. But what happens next? Obviously, a compromise of some sort will have to be reached, because the president cannot keep vetoing bills endlessly. (Well actually he can, but there’s a thin line between principled behavior and tantrumic behavior. This is a line that surely the president will not wish to cross.)
Watch. Wait. Be entertained. Following is a list of words and phrases that the mediots will be trotting out, not necessarily in the order listed.
Constitutional crisis.
Which side will blink first?
Micromanaging the war.
The bloodiest day in Iraq since . . .
Firm timetable
Guidelines
The [insert name here] compromise proposal
Chamberlain
Munich
Jane Fonda
Cindy Sheehan
Cindy Crawford
Crawford, TX [dateline]
Enlisting the support of [insert name of political leader foreign or domestic]
Long hot summer on capitol hill.
—
Oh and will somebody please take Dana Perino aside and tell her to lose that blazer she has on today? The one that looks like an explosion at Laura Ashley??!! Shee-esh!
Where’s the contact info for Paul Shanklin? I bot a parody for him to sell to Limbaugh. Paul should imitate the President singing “Take This Bill and Shove It!” That would be a parody of the Johnny Paycheck song, “Take This Job and Shove It!” which was the theme song to a movie shot in Dubuque starring Robert Hays and Art Carney, and introduced the “Big Foot” monster truck to the public.
After Bush vetoes the bill, the nation ought to start a “Starve the Congress” campaign. The idea is since the Democrats want to starve the troops, starve the Congress until they pass a clean funding bill. Put Fat Teddy Kennedy, Charlie Rangel, Jerome Nadler, on a complete starvation diet until they do what is right and support the troops with funds.
Couple of things…
I can’t believe these people (Congress) are getting paid to come up with this bill they know is going to get vetoed. So why did they just waste their time? Did they just want to show they had the balls to send it to Bush? Yeesh!
Why couldn’t the middle east keep Pelosi? And does anyone else wish Teddy Kennedy would just stay at the bar and not show up for floor debate? I’m sick of seeing his mug on TV and hearing the alchy slur his words.
Sorry… feeling fiesty tonight.
Leslie sum this up correctly: Obviously, a compromise of some sort will have to be reached, because the president cannot keep vetoing bills endlessly.
Now both sides will compromise on a bill that mandates reporting by the admin on progress made toward real benchmarks established. When these benchmarks fail to be met by next year, and are publicly accounted for, you’ll see Repubs jumping off the Support-The-War ship like so many rats.
The only thing that’ll save em now is the actual demonstration of real progress in Iraq in the next 12-15 months. So, the next battle will be fought over the wording of these benchmarks that will utimately define what “real progress” is.
Democrat strategist tom boasts:
The only thing that’ll save em now is the actual demonstration of real progress in Iraq in the next 12-15 months. So, the next battle will be fought over the wording of these benchmarks that will utimately define what “real progress” is.
Ah, but that overlooks one thing: the fact that the Democrats will continue to work against any sort of ‘real progress’, regardless of how it is defined. Considering that the Dems regard the administration – and not the al-Qaeda militias we’re now fighting in Iraq – to be the enemy, they see no reason to be happy about any sort of progress, therefore they’ll persist in their current course of obstruction.
When these benchmarks fail to be met by next year – tom
Hmmm…notice, when, not if, in that statement, which tells you all you need to know about tom and how he thinks, if you can call it that. He fully expects, dare we say desires, failure. A Freudian slip there eh?
Rush says it best; “The Democratic Party owns Defeat”. They are banking on it, seems to me to be a very losing strategy. – Lorica
I don’t desire failure, Severian, if I did I’d be a supporter of this adminstration. I’m just being realistic. Most reasonable observers of all stripes give this surge little chance to succeed.
GWR – I think its safe to say the Democrats do not have the ability to obstruct Bush’s war “progress”, unless they defund the War – which they won’t. Now they’ll have to give Bush what he wants, but hopefully hold him to his January declaration that America would “hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.” Really, George? Great. Let’s get that in writing. In a bill that funds the troops.
People who don’t wish for failure, tom, don’t act and speak the way you do. They don’t say “when we fail.” The mind will tell the truth of itself, regardless of what you try and cover up, or even how dishonest you are with yourself. Typical liberal though, it’s the “everybody says we’re failing” mantra, just like the “all scientists agree” mantra of the global warming idiots. Have the courage to admit both to yourself that you want failure for petty partisan political reasons, and that YOU want it, don’t keep up the puerile attempt to pass it off as a majority opinion by inventing a “consensus.” have the courage to drop the group think BS.
Intellectual dishonesty, the trademark of the modern libersl…