A Trip To The Grocery Store, Or The Senate's Idea Of Pork Bribes?
This ought to hearten the antiwar, fringe nutbags on the Left. I am sure they are salivating over the 51-47 defeatist vote in the Senate:
Senate Democrats ignored a veto threat and pushed through a bill Thursday requiring President Bush to start withdrawing troops from "the civil war in Iraq," dealing a rare, sharp rebuke to a wartime commander in chief.
In a mostly party line 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $123 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also orders Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008.
The vote came shortly after Bush invited all House Republicans to the White House to appear with him in a sort of pep rally to bolster his position in the continuing war policy fight.
"We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we've got a troop in harm's way, we expect that troop to be fully funded," Bush said, surrounded by Republicans on the North Portico, "and we got commanders making tough decisions on the ground, we expect there to be no strings on our commanders."
"We expect the Congress to be wise about how they spend the people's money," he said.The Senate vote marked its boldest challenge yet to the administration's handling of a war, now in its fifth year, that has cost the lives of more than 3,200 American troops and more than $350 billion.
"We have fulfilled our constitutional responsibilities," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters shortly after the vote.
If Bush "doesn't sign the bill, it's his responsibility," Reid added.The president's responsibility is inherent under the Constitution, and Sen. Reid knows this. Having him reiterate it does not help his caucus in their measures of defeat. BUT, of course the president is going to veto this measure. Not just because it has the timetable for a troop withdrawal in it, but because of the rampant pork bribes in the House bill, and the Senate's addition of just over $230 million more in pork spending:
It's common for lawmakers to complain that a spending bill is "loaded up like a Christmas tree" with pet projects. But the Iraq Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act going through the Senate this week is unusual in that it is loaded up with Christmas trees.
Specifically, it includes $40 million for a Tree Assistance Program that provides help for Christmas trees and ornamental shrubs. Also in the Senate's version of the Iraq bill: $24 million for sugar beets, $3 million for Hawaiian sugar cane, $13 million for the Ewe Lamb Replacement and Retention Program, $100 million in compensation for dairy losses, $165.9 million for fisheries disaster relief, and money for numerous other "emergencies."
Are these people serious? It is not bad enough that the "Kung Pao" Democrats in the House decided to pork up the bribes so they could get their majority vote, but before the day was out yesterday, the Senate loaded up on the excess, irrelevant spending, as well? I was unaware that the Iraq war supplemental needed Christmas tree programs, sugar beets, and lambs. Between these two Houses, it sounds more like a trip to the grocery store rather than giving the troops the absolutely necessary funds to finish their job.
If it is necessary to bribe your colleagues to sign onto you bill, there is a serious problem in Congress. It is most telling that for both sides of the Congress that the Democrats had to resort to this sort of chicanery. If the bill is that weak, WHY BOTHER PASSING IT at all? Congress was supposed to have some level-headedness. They are supposed to represent the people. Does the majority of the nation really give a rip about Christmas trees and sugar beets? I am guessing they really do not, but they do care about the defeatist Congress, and the message they are sending to the troops. Worse, the Congress does not seem to notice the message they are sending to our enemies abroad, and hidden here in the United States.
Marcie
Senate Democrats ignored a veto threat and pushed through a bill Thursday requiring President Bush to start withdrawing troops from "the civil war in Iraq," dealing a rare, sharp rebuke to a wartime commander in chief.
In a mostly party line 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $123 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also orders Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008.
The vote came shortly after Bush invited all House Republicans to the White House to appear with him in a sort of pep rally to bolster his position in the continuing war policy fight.
"We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we've got a troop in harm's way, we expect that troop to be fully funded," Bush said, surrounded by Republicans on the North Portico, "and we got commanders making tough decisions on the ground, we expect there to be no strings on our commanders."
"We expect the Congress to be wise about how they spend the people's money," he said.The Senate vote marked its boldest challenge yet to the administration's handling of a war, now in its fifth year, that has cost the lives of more than 3,200 American troops and more than $350 billion.
"We have fulfilled our constitutional responsibilities," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters shortly after the vote.
If Bush "doesn't sign the bill, it's his responsibility," Reid added.The president's responsibility is inherent under the Constitution, and Sen. Reid knows this. Having him reiterate it does not help his caucus in their measures of defeat. BUT, of course the president is going to veto this measure. Not just because it has the timetable for a troop withdrawal in it, but because of the rampant pork bribes in the House bill, and the Senate's addition of just over $230 million more in pork spending:
It's common for lawmakers to complain that a spending bill is "loaded up like a Christmas tree" with pet projects. But the Iraq Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act going through the Senate this week is unusual in that it is loaded up with Christmas trees.
Specifically, it includes $40 million for a Tree Assistance Program that provides help for Christmas trees and ornamental shrubs. Also in the Senate's version of the Iraq bill: $24 million for sugar beets, $3 million for Hawaiian sugar cane, $13 million for the Ewe Lamb Replacement and Retention Program, $100 million in compensation for dairy losses, $165.9 million for fisheries disaster relief, and money for numerous other "emergencies."
Are these people serious? It is not bad enough that the "Kung Pao" Democrats in the House decided to pork up the bribes so they could get their majority vote, but before the day was out yesterday, the Senate loaded up on the excess, irrelevant spending, as well? I was unaware that the Iraq war supplemental needed Christmas tree programs, sugar beets, and lambs. Between these two Houses, it sounds more like a trip to the grocery store rather than giving the troops the absolutely necessary funds to finish their job.
If it is necessary to bribe your colleagues to sign onto you bill, there is a serious problem in Congress. It is most telling that for both sides of the Congress that the Democrats had to resort to this sort of chicanery. If the bill is that weak, WHY BOTHER PASSING IT at all? Congress was supposed to have some level-headedness. They are supposed to represent the people. Does the majority of the nation really give a rip about Christmas trees and sugar beets? I am guessing they really do not, but they do care about the defeatist Congress, and the message they are sending to the troops. Worse, the Congress does not seem to notice the message they are sending to our enemies abroad, and hidden here in the United States.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home