« Schumer: Break up Homeland Security Department | Main | Bombed-out Building Has New Mission ~“Hell Raiser’s Hideout” »
May 11, 2007
"Consequences of failure in Iraq would be disastrous" ~ Bush
House Defeats Bill Calling for Quick Departure From Iraq
Fox News
and also from
The Sun
WASHINGTON
The US House of Representatives today voted to fund the Iraq war in instalments of just a few months, defying President George W. Bush's vow to veto a Bill he branded "haphazard" and "piecemeal".
The move, approved by 221 votes to 205, would release $US43 billion ($52bn) in emergency war funding but force Mr Bush to show progress in Iraq in July, before politicians vote on freeing up a second $US53bn chunk of funds.
"This legislation ends the blank cheque for the President's war without end,'' Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi said moments before the vote, the latest round of a bitter and escalating constitutional feud for control of the war.
Mr Bush had earlier fought back hard against Democrats, amid signs of softening Republican support for his strategy to surge nearly 30,000 more troops into violence-torn Iraq.
"I'll veto the Bill if it is this haphazard, piecemeal funding, and I made that clear,'' Mr Bush said after meeting officials at the Defence Department.
President Bush pulled no punches Thursday in warning congressional Democrats that failure to give U.S. troops in Iraq the resources they need to battle a rising Al Qaeda threat will lead to disaster.
"We should be able to agree that the consequences of failure in Iraq would be disastrous for our country," Bush said at the Pentagon after meeting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other military officials. "We should be able to agree that we have a responsibility to provide our men and women on the front lines the resources and flexibility they need to do the job we asked them to do."
Bush renewed his threat to veto the House war spending bill.
"I'll veto the bill if it's this haphazard piece-meal funding," Bush said after the White House acknowledged Republican concerns that the war could damage the party's political future."My message to the members of Congress is: Whatever your beliefs may be, let's make sure our troops get funded. And let's make sure politicians don't tell our commanders how to conduct operations, don't hamstring our people in the field," Bush said.
The House bill faces Republican opposition and lacks support in the Senate.
But Democrats continued to move on the legislation after vowing to challenge Bush on the war and to stay on message and not give the president a blank check to fund military operations.
"It is striking to me ... that people are shocked that the president is hearing candid advice from people who have concerns," Snow said Thursday during a briefing with reporters.
"And I'm telling you that where the rubber meets the road, right now here in Washington, Republicans are united, Democrats are divided. Period." Snow said. "If you want disunity, there's far more disunity on the Democratic side."
The discussion, described by the 11 participating lawmakers as blunt, preceded the president's threat Wednesday to veto the House bill now under consideration.
Gates sent Congress a letter Thursday urging lawmakers to pass an emergency supplemental bill immediately.
“The lack of timely supplemental funds has limited the department’s ability to properly contract for the reconstitution of equipment for both active and reserve forces,” Gates wrote in the letter.
Gates wrote that the proposal to fund operations only through July “would cause significant disruption to the effective and efficient operation of the Department of Defense and the health and welfare of the U.S. military."
Wild Thing's comment.......
This just keeps going doesn't it. The Dems use our troops like a poker chip. They say they support the troops ( they do NOT) and that they are only against "Bush's" war. If they supported the troops they would fund what the troops need. And IF they loved America they would not be calling it "Bush's War".
They say they will fund the troops for 60 days. LOL well isn't that special. Let's see, how many bullets can they use per day knowing they will only have enough funding for 60 days.
Just a few old quotes from the phonies in leadership. They probably wish we did not remember:
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.” - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 ( pansy of flip flop)
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...” - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.” - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
Posted by Wild Thing at May 11, 2007 12:47 AM
Comments
"Congressmen who willfully take actions that danger morale and undermine the military are saboteurs who should be arrested, exiled or hanged." - President Abraham Lincoln! In the CSA, they would have been shot by a firing squad!
Posted by: darthcrUSAderworldtour07 at May 11, 2007 02:33 AM
Dangerous vanity at work here by leaders of the democrap Party. The lives of our troops, the efforts of a military mission and the security of America are at stake. And the democraps are playing power politics for their own very selfish reasons
Posted by: TomR at May 11, 2007 04:01 AM
The dummycraps are pulling a slow bleed. They'll keep messing up the funding bill, so Georgie has to veto it and in the meantime, our kids are running out of supplies, so we'll be "forced" to pull them home. They WANT us to look bad, to be the EVIL AMERICANS.
God forbid, having the American dream and making money is bad. Being patriotic is wrong! But it's okay for them to have power and money and NOT share.
But we have to.
Posted by: Lynn at May 11, 2007 06:17 AM
They Dems won the Vietnam war the same way, the slow bleed. 58,226 American soldiers also died in that war or are missing in action, Australia lost almost 500 of the 47,000 troops they had deployed to Vietnam and New Zealand lost 38 soldiers. That's on the Allied front, around 1.5 million Vietnamese killed. Vietnam released disputed figures on April 3, 1995 that a total of one million Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians were killed in the war (how many of those four million civilians were killed by communists in terror attacks, like the 2000 executed or buried alive at Hue in 1968?) . This doesn't account for North Vietnam's casuaties from the protracted war. The Cambodian Khmer Rouge would probably not have come into power and committed their horrible slaughters without the destabilization of the Vietnam war, estimates of the number of dead at the hands of Lon Nol's Pol Pot range from 1.7 to 2.3 million out of a population of around 7 million.
In neighboring Laos, more than 300,000 people, many of Hmong ethnicity have been victims of genocide since 1975. The Hmong's mistake, they happened to pick the losing side — the United States. Fearful of an armed takeover by hostile North Vietnamese troops, from 1961 to 1973 the Laotians fought fiercely under Hmong leader Gen. Vang Pao against the Communists.
Sounds eerily familiar in Iraq. Do the Democrats or the population in general for that matter think that a pullout now will prevent a bloodbath like the ones witnessed in Southeast Asia? It will be just as gruesome and anyone who ever assisted the allied forces will be targets of reprisal. Iran and Syria will take over Iraq and impose harsh Sharia rule on the people. Just a few short years ago our troops uncovered the mass graves of Iraqi civilians who were murdered under Saddam's reign, along with the unpatriated bodies of Iranian soldiers. Not only are we short sighted we have a short memory, September 11, 2001 was perpetrated by savages with a death cult.
I don't like war, nor do I like this war, but it's necessary to keep the the Islamo-fascists from making further attacks on U.S. soil, pulling out will only embolden and strenghten their resolve. They will attack the United States again and when they do it's my fervent wish that the target, not be their preferred target of innocent men, women and children but the office buildings of the House and Senate and that those responsible get their just reward for their lassitude.
Posted by: Jack at May 11, 2007 02:07 PM
Darth, yes and they should be shot.
Posted by: Wild Thing at May 11, 2007 11:38 PM
Tom, amen to what you said.
Posted by: Wild Thing at May 11, 2007 11:39 PM
Lynn so true, we absolutely have to.
Posted by: Wild Thing at May 11, 2007 11:40 PM
Jack thank you so much, great comment. It sure does sound eerily familiar, your right.
Posted by: Wild Thing at May 11, 2007 11:43 PM
