House GOP Leaders Threaten To Vote Against Money For Troops

[Psychoblues]

It’s time for the roosters to come home to roost.


“Okay, so here's the state of play in the House right now with regard to the coming showdown between Congressional Dems and the White House over the war.

The House GOP leadership has now unveiled its response to the news this morning that House Dems are coming together behind an approach to the soon-to-be-voted-on spending bill that would bring the troops home if the Iraqi government fails to reduce violence there. House GOP leaders say that if Dems try to attach any conditions to the war spending bill, Republicans in the House may vote against it:

The House minority leader threatened Thursday to get his members to vote against a $96.3 billion spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if Democrats persist in plans to attach conditions to the money that would tell President Bush how to conduct the wars.

This is interesting -- now it's the House Republican leadership who is threatening to vote against funding the troops. The same Republican leadership which, behind House GOP leader John Boehner, has been demanding that Dems show full support for funding the troops, lest they be accused of not supporting them.”


More: http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/02/house_gop_leaders_threaten_to_vote_against_money_f or_troops


You can sit on an empty nest and never crack an egg. That is a fact.

[Gunny]

It’s time for the roosters to come home to roost.


“Okay, so here's the state of play in the House right now with regard to the coming showdown between Congressional Dems and the White House over the war.

The House GOP leadership has now unveiled its response to the news this morning that House Dems are coming together behind an approach to the soon-to-be-voted-on spending bill that would bring the troops home if the Iraqi government fails to reduce violence there. House GOP leaders say that if Dems try to attach any conditions to the war spending bill, Republicans in the House may vote against it:

The House minority leader threatened Thursday to get his members to vote against a $96.3 billion spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if Democrats persist in plans to attach conditions to the money that would tell President Bush how to conduct the wars.

This is interesting -- now it's the House Republican leadership who is threatening to vote against funding the troops. The same Republican leadership which, behind House GOP leader John Boehner, has been demanding that Dems show full support for funding the troops, lest they be accused of not supporting them.”


More: http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/02/house_gop_leaders_threaten_to_vote_against_money_f or_troops


You can sit on an empty nest and never crack an egg. That is a fact.

The GOP is threatening to not support the Dem's plan to cut and run. The troops in the field will be funded regardless.

Not even a poor attempt at spreading a lie, psycho.

[Psychoblues]

Correction, gunny, the pukes are aligning themselves to de-fund the troops because they have problems with the conditions of the bill. The "bill" proposes no such thing at all as somehow "de-funding" the troops!!!!!!



The GOP is threatening to not support the Dem's plan to cut and run. The troops in the field will be funded regardless.
Not even a poor attempt at spreading a lie, psycho.

Read it and weep. The pukes are on the WRONG side of this argument!!!!!!!

[gabosaurus]

Why do Republicans hate the troops? :laugh2:

[Hobbit]

You're both full of crap. The reason the appropriations bill is being opposed is because the Democrats tacked on a timetable for surrender on it, and that's it. They've been using the troops for their own political gain for years, and now they're hiding behind them. Spineless twits.

[Psychoblues]

Really? Each time that President Bill Clinton used the troops (1993 - 2001 era) the pukes screamed bloody murder!!!! It now seems his (Bill Clinton's) War on Terror was correct and the pukes can't stand it and they can't have it both ways. Which way are you advocating, hibbit?




You're both full of crap. The reason the appropriations bill is being opposed is because the Democrats tacked on a timetable for surrender on it, and that's it. They've been using the troops for their own political gain for years, and now they're hiding behind them. Spineless twits.

The hypocrisy of the pukes never ceases to amaze me.

[Hobbit]

Really? Each time that President Bill Clinton used the troops (1993 - 2001 era) the pukes screamed bloody murder!!!! It now seems his (Bill Clinton's) War on Terror was correct and the pukes can't stand it and they can't have it both ways. Which way are you advocating, hibbit?

The hypocrisy of the pukes never ceases to amaze me.

They may have opposed going in or how he was doing it, but they shut up when the troops got there and they never claimed that Clinton needed their approval. I don't recall Republicans accusing U.S. troops of atrocities to get mud on Clinton's face in Somalia (his show of cowardice was enough). I don't recall Republicans demanding a timetable for a pullout from Yugoslavia. Your point is idiotic.

[gabosaurus]

Hobbit, why don't you support the troops? You don't want them to be adequately armed and funded? Doesn't matter why you would vote against this piece. Obviously, you are against our brave military troops.
You must hate our country! :salute:

[Hobbit]

Hobbit, why don't you support the troops? You don't want them to be adequately armed and funded? Doesn't matter why you would vote against this piece. Obviously, you are against our brave military troops.
You must hate our country! :salute:

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is EXACTLY why the Democrats attached the troops withdrawal plan to the appropriations bill, so they could say this any time somebody had the balls to oppose their idiocy. Way to be a bunch of jackasses, dems.

[CSM]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is EXACTLY why the Democrats attached the troops withdrawal plan to the appropriations bill, so they could say this any time somebody had the balls to oppose their idiocy. Way to be a bunch of jackasses, dems.

The problem the Dems have with this tactic is that their history betrays them. They are not sincere and every one knows it. In fact, every time they say things like that, it sounds more and more like sarcasm and taunting than true concern for the troops.

[stephanie]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is EXACTLY why the Democrats attached the troops withdrawal plan to the appropriations bill, so they could say this any time somebody had the balls to oppose their idiocy. Way to be a bunch of jackasses, dems.

Hobbit you are so right...

But the American people who matter and really care, know EXACTLY what games the Democrats are playing with our military men and women...

[Psychoblues]

Exactly, Staphy, that's how the pukes held the House and Senate in November of 2006. They would have held the White House just as well given to vote on it in 2006.



Hobbit you are so right...

But the American people who matter and really care, know EXACTLY what games the Democrats are playing with our military men and women...

The American People who really matter and care are not nearly as stupid, naive and repetitiously duped as you are.

This ain't games, Staphy. We are talking about genuine lives, the health of worldwide populations and the very reputation of the American experiment of Democracy and our international responsibilities to exact truth, justice and the very genuine American Way Of Life.

So far, the Republican examples of any of that are failing miserably.

[5stringJeff]

All the GOP uis saynig is that, if the Democrats attach a "poison pill" to the spending bill, they won't sign it. And a timetable for surrender would be a poison pill for sure. Far from not supporting the troops, the GOP's move here would keep the troops from withdrawing on a political timetable and allow them to withdraw when the mission is complete and/or able to be handed over.

[Psychoblues]

As I said earlier in this thread, jeff, "Read it and weep".



All the GOP uis saynig is that, if the Democrats attach a "poison pill" to the spending bill, they won't sign it. And a timetable for surrender would be a poison pill for sure. Far from not supporting the troops, the GOP's move here would keep the troops from withdrawing on a political timetable and allow them to withdraw when the mission is complete and/or able to be handed over.

The pukes are not defending anything as you state. The Dems are not proposing anything as you state. Read the goddamn bill and give it something other than a Foxnoise response.

That ain't asking much but at least consider your ass kicked and kicked very well.

[gabosaurus]

I can't believe that both Stephanie and Hobbit hate our troops. You two need to take the next plane to Iran, so you can hang with your mullah friends.

[Psychoblues]

Staphy does the best that she can. Hibbitt ignores his best and only repeats what he hears and can somehow agree with. Hibbitt is capable of more.



I can't believe that both Stephanie and Hobbit hate our troops. You two need to take the next plane to Iran, so you can hang with your mullah friends.

Education is the secret here, gabby. Some get it and some don't. Can you dig it?

[stephanie]

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/meancats-vi.gif




Staphy does the best that she can. Hibbitt ignores his best and only repeats what he hears and can somehow agree with. Hibbitt is capable of more.




Education is the secret here, gabby. Some get it and some don't. Can you dig it?

[Gunny]

Correction, gunny, the pukes are aligning themselves to de-fund the troops because they have problems with the conditions of the bill. The "bill" proposes no such thing at all as somehow "de-funding" the troops!!!!!!




Read it and weep. The pukes are on the WRONG side of this argument!!!!!!!

I guess that's one way the Dem's can try and get what they want. Present conditions they know Republicans won't agree with so the Bill doesn't get signed. Hardly innovative and novel on teh part of Dems.

The militay will be funded anyway. So your celebration is for nothing.

[Gunny]

Why do Republicans hate the troops? :laugh2:

There should be a rule against you posting in the same thread as psycho. Together you create a vaccuum that completely sucks all intelligence out of the thread.

[gabosaurus]

Sarge, I can't believe you (of all people) refuse to support the troops!
It makes about as much sense as Stepho tossing her cats down the toilet.

[avatar4321]

Really? Each time that President Bill Clinton used the troops (1993 - 2001 era) the pukes screamed bloody murder!!!! It now seems his (Bill Clinton's) War on Terror was correct and the pukes can't stand it and they can't have it both ways. Which way are you advocating, hibbit?





The hypocrisy of the pukes never ceases to amaze me.

Bill Clinton never waged a war on terror. The very idea that you think he did shows how delusional you are. You really shouldn't drink so much when you post.

[avatar4321]

The problem the Dems have with this tactic is that their history betrays them. They are not sincere and every one knows it. In fact, every time they say things like that, it sounds more and more like sarcasm and taunting than true concern for the troops.

That's because it is sarcasm and taunting.

[5stringJeff]

As I said earlier in this thread, jeff, "Read it and weep".




The pukes are not defending anything as you state. The Dems are not proposing anything as you state. Read the goddamn bill and give it something other than a Foxnoise response.

That ain't asking much but at least consider your ass kicked and kicked very well.

First of all, I don't watch Fox News.

Here's a quote from your link, quoting a news story: "The House minority leader threatened Thursday to get his members to vote against a $96.3 billion spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if Democrats persist in plans to attach conditions to the money that would tell President Bush how to conduct the wars." So essentially, the House GOP is keeping Congress from trying to run the war, which is not their job in the first place. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, not the Congress.

[avatar4321]

Exactly, Staphy, that's how the pukes held the House and Senate in November of 2006. They would have held the White House just as well given to vote on it in 2006.




The American People who really matter and care are not nearly as stupid, naive and repetitiously duped as you are.

This ain't games, Staphy. We are talking about genuine lives, the health of worldwide populations and the very reputation of the American experiment of Democracy and our international responsibilities to exact truth, justice and the very genuine American Way Of Life.

So far, the Republican examples of any of that are failing miserably.

Yes, psycho, there are genuine lives we are talking about. That is exactly why the Democrat attempt for a slow bleed is so atrocious. You understand what slow bleed means dont you? It means they intend to drag out the casualties so they can make the war look like a failure and gain power back in 2008. They fail to take one iota of the consequences of their actions into account.

If the succeed and making sure our troops die and lose the war, not only our will the blood of our soldiers be on their (and your) hands, but the lives of the millions that would be killed in the regional war that would soon follow.

But you don't care about human lives. If you did, you'd support us winning the war. Killing the evil terrorists and ending this before things get 1000 times worse.

Don't you dare talk about concern for human lives when you sit there advocating policy that is going to result in the death of millions.

[avatar4321]

There should be a rule against you posting in the same thread as psycho. Together you create a vaccuum that completely sucks all intelligence out of the thread.

I'm not sure it's possible to suck intelligence out of a thread that started with zero intelligence to begin with. We may add intelligent comments, but we are starting from a negative flow to begin with. It's an uphill battle.

[Psychoblues]

You so absolutely reveal your ignorance, a4321.



Bill Clinton never waged a war on terror. The very idea that you think he did shows how delusional you are. You really shouldn't drink so much when you post.

You obviously don't know much about the poitics of today and you sure as hell don't know much about the politics of the Clinton Administration.

I have never used my intake of alcohol as an excuse for my ramblings. To just what, sir, do you excuse your own?

[Gaffer]

The latest news conerning this thread is that the house passed a bill for getting the troops out. It has a bunch of pork attached to it to get certain members to give it their support. Iy also fails to provide the equipment and armor requested by the generals in the field. And lastly it has an attachment that says the president cannot take any action involving the military, even a small raid that might have to be done on a moments notice, without waiting 15 days and getting congress approval first. This alone is unconstitutional and an absolute grab for power. Bush has already said he will definately veto this bill if it makes it through the senate.

This is how the democraps plan to defend the country.

[Psychoblues]

Can you guarantee that very shallow and even stupid observation of the bill, gigger?


The latest news conerning this thread is that the house passed a bill for getting the troops out. It has a bunch of pork attached to it to get certain members to give it their support. Iy also fails to provide the equipment and armor requested by the generals in the field. And lastly it has an attachment that says the president cannot take any action involving the military, even a small raid that might have to be done on a moments notice, without waiting 15 days and getting congress approval first. This alone is unconstitutional and an absolute grab for power. Bush has already said he will definately veto this bill if it makes it through the senate.

This is how the democraps plan to defend the country.

I think not.

[Hobbit]

Can you guarantee that very shallow and even stupid observation of the bill, gigger?



I think not.

Considering that this is a defense spending bill that was mostly written and drafted by the defense committee and that nearly everyone supporting it is a Democrat, I'd say his assessment was pretty much right on the mark.

[avatar4321]

You so absolutely reveal your ignorance, a4321.




You obviously don't know much about the poitics of today and you sure as hell don't know much about the politics of the Clinton Administration.

I have never used my intake of alcohol as an excuse for my ramblings. To just what, sir, do you excuse your own?

Okay, prove it. When did Clinton wage a war on terror? When did anyone even concieve of a world wide war on terror prior to 9/11?

President Clinton gave up opportunities to capture Osama despite being handed to him several times. So much for Clinton's "War on terror"

And yet I'm supposed to be the ignorant one...

BTW, I don't ramble. And I am smart enough to know that when you come up with ideas that seem brilliant when you are drunk, in reality you sound like an idiot.

[avatar4321]

The latest news conerning this thread is that the house passed a bill for getting the troops out. It has a bunch of pork attached to it to get certain members to give it their support. Iy also fails to provide the equipment and armor requested by the generals in the field. And lastly it has an attachment that says the president cannot take any action involving the military, even a small raid that might have to be done on a moments notice, without waiting 15 days and getting congress approval first. This alone is unconstitutional and an absolute grab for power. Bush has already said he will definately veto this bill if it makes it through the senate.

This is how the democraps plan to defend the country.

It's rather sad. They bribed enough politicians to pass a bill to slowly blood our troops till we are forced to retreat.. I know they are Democrats, but its a sad day when pork is more important than the lives of our troops.

[Gaffer]

It's rather sad. They bribed enough politicians to pass a bill to slowly blood our troops till we are forced to retreat.. I know they are Democrats, but its a sad day when pork is more important than the lives of our troops.

Yeppers the bribes were in the form of special interest add ons. But the most insulting one is the one that takes away the power of the president to do what is needed with the military. comrade polosi needs her ass kicked for that one. Bush was fuming. You could see it in his face when he did a press interview about it. He didn't expect it to get pass the senate, but said if it did he WOULD veto it. I think some republican reps are going to get some phone calls from the whitehouse today.

[gabosaurus]

The opposition to this bill proves that the Republicans are weak on national security and do not support our troops.
Look at some of the other parts of the bill -- economic relief to those hurt by the current devastating drought (many of these are located squarely in the GOP heartland of America) and continued economic development for those affected by the two hurricanes.
Not to mention improved testing for agriculture products in an attempt to avoid another e-coli outbreak like that with the tainted spinach.

All of this is OPPOSED by the Republicans, because they want a "clean bill." Thus proving:
--Republicans are weak on defense
--Republicans do NOT support the troops in the Middle East
--Republicans don't give a sh*t about their drought stricken constituents
--Republicans don't care about the food you eat
--Republicans care only about the regular protein shakes they get at the Bush throne

[Gaffer]

The opposition to this bill proves that the Republicans are weak on national security and do not support our troops.
Look at some of the other parts of the bill -- economic relief to those hurt by the current devastating drought (many of these are located squarely in the GOP heartland of America) and continued economic development for those affected by the two hurricanes.
Not to mention improved testing for agriculture products in an attempt to avoid another e-coli outbreak like that with the tainted spinach.

All of this is OPPOSED by the Republicans, because they want a "clean bill." Thus proving:
--Republicans are weak on defense
--Republicans do NOT support the troops in the Middle East
--Republicans don't give a sh*t about their drought stricken constituents
--Republicans don't care about the food you eat
--Republicans care only about the regular protein shakes they get at the Bush throne

Most of the add on's were in the form of agriculture. And were aimed at getting repubs to jump the fence.

Your list of anti-rublican bullshit is just that and has no relavance to this thread. So take your jihadi loving ass out of here.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

The add-ons were funding that should have been addressed by the DO NOTHING 109th Congress, the bums that left town without passing a budget. The Democrats are cleaning up their mess.

Surrender? Defeat? MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's planting season. Spread that bullshit out in the field. Not here.

[Psychoblues]

Thanks for pointing that out to these otherwise sell out idiots, BVE!!!



The add-ons were funding that should have been addressed by the DO NOTHING 109th Congress, the bums that left town without passing a budget. The Democrats are cleaning up their mess.

Surrender? Defeat? MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's planting season. Spread that bullshit out in the field. Not here.

By the way, WELCOME TO THE BOARD. Have you intro'd yourself in the Lounge and particularly to jimnyc (the originator/owner/administrator of this site)? Please do so if you haven't already and once again, WELCOME TO DEBATE POLICY and I wish you the best here!!!!!!

[stephanie]

:lol: :huddle: Awwwwwwww..How sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet...:huddle:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Yeah, vetoing the money for the troops would really make it crystal clear who REALLY supports the troops. (Pssst... it's not Georgey-boy and his GOP flying monkeys)

[gabosaurus]

The GOP Congressional delegation is showing that it is soft on terror and defense. Bush apologists are showing their true flip-flopping form.

[Gaffer]

The GOP Congressional delegation is showing that it is soft on terror and defense. Bush apologists are showing their true flip-flopping form.

Not as soft on terror as you are.

[5stringJeff]

The GOP Congressional delegation is showing that it is soft on terror and defense. Bush apologists are showing their true flip-flopping form.

Wow. Not even Bill Clinton used to spin lies and deceit like that.

[Psychoblues]

But georgy porgy punkin' and pie in the sky has no problem whith spin lies as well as other more serious ones, does he, Jeff?



Wow. Not even Bill Clinton used to spin lies and deceit like that.

And deceit!!!!! What about all the deceit!!!!! The congressional hearings will bring a lot (I hope) of that out. Some of them are already pleading the 5th or otherwise making themselves very scarce!!!!!!!

[gabosaurus]

The bottom line is that Bush apologists hate the troops. Or else they would support the funding bill.
Bot nooooo, it's all about politics for the Bushies. They are willing to see large amounts of American troops dead and maimed until they get their way. The GOP are soft on terror and hard on Congressional pages.

[Psychoblues]

I have to disagree with you here, gabby. The republicons and their apologists really do not "hate" the troops. Actually, they "Love" them and hope they continue their willingness to do the bidding of their commanders as long as they "the republicons" don't have to actually put their own lives on the line.



The bottom line is that Bush apologists hate the troops. Or else they would support the funding bill.
Bot nooooo, it's all about politics for the Bushies. They are willing to see large amounts of American troops dead and maimed until they get their way. The GOP are soft on terror and hard on Congressional pages.


Have you been paying attention to the "Fredo" Gonzo deal lately? From pleading the 5th to refusing to cooperate to falsely claiming "executive privelege" is the game plan as so far demonstrated by that lying, thieving and warmongering bunch of thugs.

The hearings and subsequently the truth is forthcoming.

[theHawk]

This is interesting -- now it's the House Republican leadership who is threatening to vote against funding the troops. The same Republican leadership which, behind House GOP leader John Boehner, has been demanding that Dems show full support for funding the troops, lest they be accused of not supporting them.”


Whats interesting is how Dems want to tell the President how to conduct a war. If the Dems cared about the troops at all, they would pass a bill to fund them, and try to pass a separate one for the political nonsense. But no, they want to lump it all together knowing Bush will veto just so they can go around saying "look Shrub voted against the troops!", meanwhile your playing politics with troops. If you think that those of us who work for the Deparment of Defense can't see through this bullshit then you are even dumber than I perviously thought.

[Psychoblues]

Republicon spin. If that's all you got, flush it with your last toilet deposit.



Whats interesting is how Dems want to tell the President how to conduct a war. If the Dems cared about the troops at all, they would pass a bill to fund them, and try to pass a separate one for the political nonsense. But no, they want to lump it all together knowing Bush will veto just so they can go around saying "look Shrub voted against the troops!", meanwhile your playing politics with troops. If you think that those of us who work for the Deparment of Defense can't see through this bullshit then you are even dumber than I perviously thought.

Most of us have an entirely different view than the distorted vision that you portray.

[theHawk]

Most of us have an entirely different view than the distorted vision that you portray.

"Most of us" meaning most of you rabid liberals. I guess all the troops and vets I work with every day IN THE MILITARY don't know whats best for the troops, a politcal hack like you does.

[Psychoblues]

I am no "rabid liberal" as you intimate, hawk. I am center right but nonetheless liberal if you please.


"Most of us" meaning most of you rabid liberals. I guess all the troops and vets I work with every day IN THE MILITARY don't know whats best for the troops, a politcal hack like you does.

I also work with vets everyday and I have done my time and duties in the active components of our Military. You can't just talk shit and go away with me. YOU don't know "Shit" and that is for certain.

[manu1959]

I am center right but nonetheless liberal



i have read this a few times.....must just be me

[Psychoblues]

Yep, just must be you.




i have read this a few times.....must just be me