Bush Wins: Veto Forces Troops to Stay In Iraq
- 7
- Add a Comment
- No Related Post
According to the Associated Press, May 3, 2007 is yet another day that Bush proved he could manipulate the war in his favor when the Democratic-controlled House failed to override his veto of an Iraq war-spending bill with timetables for troop withdrawals. (Voting to override Bush’s veto were 220 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Voting to sustain the veto were 196 Republicans and 7 Democrats.) Additionally, Bush showed that he had no conscience in spending taxpayer’s money and bringing insolvency to the national debt when he refused to back down on what he wants in war funding legislation - namely, no strings on the military effort in Iraq. However, according to “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Democrats later met with Bush and emerged undeterred in their determination to bring soldiers home and “we hope to do so in unison with the president of the United States.”
Just a day after Bush vetoed the first version of the bill, because it would require U.S. combat troops to begin withdrawing by Oct. 1, Congressional leaders from both parties went to the White House to discuss follow-up war funding legislation. The meeting broke up after only 30 minutes when both Republican and Democratic leaders came out promising to continue working toward a compromise that the President would not veto. Speaker Nancy Pelosi further added that after an hour-long debate, “The president has turned a tin ear to the wishes of the American people. The president wants a blank check. The Congress will not give it to him.” However, while both parties agree it that any compromise should include benchmarks for progress in Iraq, many Democrats insist they be tied to timelines for U.S. troop withdrawals whereas Bush and his congressional allies say such links are unacceptable. Arguing for the President’s agenda was Representative Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., who stated that politicians should not make military decisions and that “Now is not the time for the United States to back down in its war on terror.” I wonder if Lewis could be Bush’s next McCain, now that McCain has supposedly taken an anti-Bush platform in his campaign for presidency.
However, with both parties pledging not to leave our troops in harm’s way without the resources they need House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer hopes to have a new bill passed in the House in two weeks, with a final measure sent to the president before Memorial Day. Hoyer refused to give out details of the proposed bill but said he anticipates an addendum to the bill that would include a minimum-wage increase. He further speculated that the bill would most likely fund combat through Sept. 30 as Bush has requested, casting doubt that Democratic leaders will adopt a proposal by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., to fund the war two or three months at a time. So, with the pressure now on the Democrats and the polls supporting their determination to withdraw our troops from Iraq the challenge for legislatures will be to submit a bill that will be agreeable to the President. However, liberal members of the House say they will vote against any additional war spending unless the bill contains language instituting the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Given this stalemate we Americans will just have to wait until the next election to make our feelings known by voting our conscience and hopefully ridding ourselves of the selfish, vindictive leadership that we have been subjected to for the last eight years.[tags]Bush, Troop withdrawal, Iraq, veto, war financing, Democratic stance, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha,Jerry Lewis, Bush agenda, Americans ignored[/tags]
7 Comments
marc klink
May 4th, 2007
at 8:16am
As we get closer to the election, subsequent bills to remove the troops will be easier to pass because the GOP will be voting their conscience, which is to say they want to be re-elected.
It is just too bad that some will have to fight and die in the meantime.
I have a niece and a nephew over there, pretty much forced to go by my sister, who has no idea what war is like and blindly thinks Mr. Bush is doing the right thing. I always suspected a problem with her thinking processes when we were growing up, and now she has proven that coherent thought is not what she does best.
reflections
May 4th, 2007
at 8:36am
Dear Marc
I also have family in the military which is why I support our troopsj even though I totally disagree with the war. I really think that any reasonable and sane human being can see that this war was merely a vendetta by Bush against Saddam and now he doesn’t know how to extricate himself without losing out on the big oil profits. Oh well, it is only about 18 months and thank GOd he can’t run again. Hopefully, by then Edwards or another Democrat that is credible and honest will step forward as the front runner in the race. I really hope it is not Hillary. Have a nice day. Jackie
Paul Todd
May 4th, 2007
at 9:39am
I am deeply saddened that our political leaders have stooped to putting our troops further in harms way by witholding funding to try and force their dangerous agenda on the President. Fault President Bush if you must but, you can never say that he wavers from his efforts to protect the American way of life. Don’t they get it? 80-90% of the opposition in the “Iraq War” is from outside the country of Iraq. These insane groups that get in line to kill themselves for their religious beliefs and take great pride in lobbing off innocent peoples heads, would like nothing better than for us to draw the line and throw up our hands and head home. Nobody likes war but, it is sometimes necessary to perpetuate our way of life. The Democrats are making it sound like President Bush is sending our troops to Iraq “just because”. I promise you, our troops are there because they are fighting on the front line of global terror. Instead of holding our troops back and trying to use them for political gain, we should be concentrating our efforts on supporting them and demonstrate what true American Spirit can do. If we would let our military handle the problem over there without intervention from the political world or constantly watching media eye, our boys and girls would be home by now. If we don’t make a stand and show the terrorist what America stands for, they will be here dishing out more destruction than most people can imagine. September 11th was a warning that we should never forget. I’m sure Nancy Pelosi just doesn’t have the military education to dictate our policy in the fight of our American lives.
marc klink
May 4th, 2007
at 10:09am
I watched the GOP debate last night…just to be ‘fair and balanced’ and what a waste of time that was. I already knew that Gov Huckabee was probably the only Republican I could think would be ok in the Whitehouse, and that proved to be the case. I also saw exactly why Mr. Giuliani would be probably the worst person for the job.
reflections
May 4th, 2007
at 11:04am
Dear Marc
I missed the debate what did Giulliani propose? Why do you like Huckabee? Would be worth considering if Edwards doesn’t get the Democratic nomination?
Jackie
reflections
May 4th, 2007
at 11:14am
Dear Paul
While I realize that all AMericans myself included originally believed that we were going to war to fight terrorism I now firmly believe that Bush propagated the war as means to get Saddam. I am sorry but I do not trust the man or his reasons.
I do, however, fully support our troops and I agree with you that if we have to be there I wish the military could just do what has to be done and get out. I don’t think for a minute that what we do will stop the Muslims and Jews from fighting among themselves or each other. I do think our military needs to be cared for and that they should receive the best care available as they are only doing as they are ordered to do. I hope that the current scandal surrounding Walter Reed Hospital will result in a much better system of care both physically and mentally for our troops and their families. I also think that if one of our troops is killed or injured in the line of duty that they should be or their families should be compensated fairly. THat means a financial award that will assure them that they can still pay their bills despite their inflicted injuries or in the event of death.
I wish you the best and I do love it that in America we are still free as of this time to state our opinions freely. Under Bush’s patriot act, however, I can’t help but wonder how long we will be able to say that. Have a nice day. Jackie
jyzjlpijoi
June 21st, 2007
at 1:48am
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! foqlkozpxqm