THE SURGE IS A MISTAKE!!!!!

BUSH REFUSES TO FUND THE SURGE!!!!!

Why am I not surprised?  

Paladin77

There is No politics in the action of Congress. It is a CLEAR desire on the part of Congress which is a reflection of WHAT the American People want which is to end the Iraq war. If Bush veto's this Bill HE and HE alone is preventing the funds from being available. If Bush had included the funding for the war in the 2007 budget request rather then attempting to make the deficit appear smaller he would not need an Emergency Funding bill!

This is an emergencey funding bill for the war effort. If Congress wants to make a law to restrict the war they can do that any time. It will be Vetoed and the Congress will have to send another bill up. If not then the Democrat controlled Congress will haave to explain to the American people why they were playing politics with the lives of our children. This will make you happy as you cheer the deahts of our troops in the quest to get rid of a man that can't run for office again.

Paladin77 There is No politics in the action of Congress. It is a CLEAR desire on the part of Congress which is a reflection of WHAT the American People want which is to end the Iraq war. If Bush veto's this Bill HE and HE alone is preventing the funds from being available. If Bush had included the funding for the war in the 2007 budget request rather then attempting to make the deficit appear smaller he would not need an Emergency Funding bill!

Then tell the democrats to take the PORK out of the bill to start with.

If Bush had included the funding for the war in the 2007 budget request rather then attempting to make the deficit appear smaller he would not need an Emergency Funding bill!

Do you actually have a brain in your head? The emergency funding bill is because of THE SURGE!

Get congress over to Britain. Tell the Senate to make Iran free the British hostages. Blair won't do it but Congress can. Et Tu Brutus!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Drmiler

If Bush had included the funding for the war in the 2007 budget request rather then attempting to make the deficit appear smaller he would not need an Emergency Funding bill!


Do you actually have a brain in your head? The emergency funding bill is because of THE SURGE! WHERE DID I SAY THE EMERGENCY FUNDING BILL WAS DUE TO THE SURGE? I said had Bush included the money for the Iraq War in the 2007 Budget request, he would not need the supplemental. It is true, some of that 122 Billion is due to the added cost of the surge but the majority is to sustain the war which should have been included in the 2007 defense request! The ONLY reason Bush has not been including the Iraq War Cost in the defense Request is to make it appear he is spending less. That is pure BS because the spending from any supplemental cones from the same place-- INCREASED DEBT!

Today again Bush said the failure to fund the troops will fall on Congress. That is a LIE

All you need to do is answer the simple question, “If Bush signs the bill will the troops have the needed funding for the balance of this fiscal year? The answer is YES. If Bush vetoes this bill the troops will NOT have the needed funding. That puts it squarely on the President’s responsibility not Congress!

I explained this to you before but reading is not one of your srtong suits.

Wars are always done seperately and not part of the regular budget. Supplementals and emergency bills because war is not a normal budget item. Are you sure you were in the U. S. Army? I had to write budgets for my unit so as a colonel in the Army I would assume you have written at least one and would know how the budget process works.



The answer is no because it is paid for quarterly not yearly. You would know this if you understood the process. You pose a question that you think you have the answer to and once again you hove no idea what you are writing about. Nice try my son could make a better argument or at least one with fewer holes.

All you need to do is answer the simple question, “If Bush signs the bill will the troops have the needed funding for the balance of this fiscal year? The answer is YES. If Bush vetoes this bill the troops will NOT have the needed funding. That puts it squarely on the President’s responsibility not Congress!

WRONG, it puts it SQUARE on CONGRESS! GW "will" veto it and partially because of the added pork and the 400 billion dollar tax increase that the democrats stuck in with it. GW didn't put the junk in it. Now would be a GREAT time for a "line item" veto. Although "I" think it's mainly because of the "CONGRESS" imposed time line.

“The answer is no because it is paid for quarterly not yearly”

You do not know what you are talking about. The supplemental Bush has requested goes thru 30 Sept 2007. If he signs the 123 Billion Dollar supplemental the funding for Iraq is in place until the end of the fiscal year. Your statement that war funding is always separate is also not correct. The Bush 2008 Budget contains the funding for Iraq in 2008.

An issue I noticed has been ignored is the problem we have created with Saudi Arabia. In effect the government we helped create in Iraq is allied with Iran the arch enemy of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. CNN has been reporting that Saudi Arabia is not funding separate groups that oppose the Shea which controls the new Iraq Government. What Bush has done is to begin driving a wedge between the U.S. and the few Moslem countries we have been able to deal with the formation of the Shea dominated Iraq Government! WAY TO GO GEORGE!!!! Just think what could happen if Saudi Arabia were to turn off the oil spigot to the U.S. because we helped form a government in Iraq that is killing the Sunni Arabs!


“WRONG, it puts it SQUARE on CONGRESS! GW "will" veto it and partially because of the added pork and the 400 billion dollar tax increase that the democrats stuck in with it.”

Although I do not agree with the Pork that is NOT why Bush will veto this bill and you know it. The reason is the date to get out of Iraq. Some of the added funding in the Bill is for the VA that Bush has under funded in his 2007 budget!

Can't take it past the fiscal year right? The money was supposed to run out in June and needs to be in place ahead of it running out. oops. Because of the surge the money will run out the end of April maybe the end of May. The Congress approved the new general for the surge. We started the surge and it was working, and now the Congress wants to cut funding for the war and make the surge fail before it is even 40% started. Tell me again how the President will get the blame for the failure?

these satire posts give me such a laugh. It's so obvious that no sane person could actually think this way that it's hilarious. This should be a regular part of SNL, much like the "Jane you stupid bitch" bits.

Paladin 77

YOU ARE WRONG!!! You have no idea how the federal Budget works.

The issue in this Blog is that if Bush vetoes the funding bill because it contains a date to end this war it will be BUSH not Congress that prevented the added funding for the Iraq War! The Bill has all the money Bush claims is needed and it will be his veto that prevents that money from being available for our military operations.

I love how you try and turn this around to blame Bush when you know democrats are using this bill to push their pork bribes and surrender dates.

I'm still waiting for your article criticizing democrats for their pork bill.