One Hundred Twenty Seven Billion War Spending Bill Has Been Vetoed

Fox new is reporting the emergency war spending bill has been vetoed by President Bush. Bush is currently giving a speech explaining his actions, being aired on fox news. More will be posted as it unfolds.

I was beaten to posting it on the news forum

thred
edit for typo

[edit on 1-5-2007 by RedGolem]

This is from voa news.

President Bush has vetoed a bill funding the war in Iraq and military operations in Afghanistan, because it contains a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. VOA's Dan Robinson reports, Democrats and Republicans also marked the fourth anniversary of the president's May 1, 2003 statement that major military operations in Iraq had ceased.

As sent to the White House, the measure provides more than $95 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, it also contains a provision that U.S. troops begin leaving Iraq as early as October, with a goal of removing most combat forces by April of next year.

My personal opinion is that the two should be seperate resolutions. The funding should not depend on the timetable and vice versa.

How does it sound...?

We'll only give you money for the equipment and supplies you need if the politicians do x y and z.

OR

We'll only agree to end this conflict if the politicians sign this check.

Disgusting.

Originally posted by Djarums
My personal opinion is that the two should be seperate resolutions. The funding should not depend on the timetable and vice versa.

But how would it look if they authorize the spending bill then turn around and have another bill for a timetable for withdrawal? It would look like they support the war one minute then they are against it the next. That would be reminiscent of how Kerry's stance on the war was portrayed in the 2004 election.

I think the house and senate did what they could and without the votes to override the veto they will probably remove the timetable and approve it. They will have to compromise now or risk looking like they don't support the troops.

The reason why they attached the timetable was because that is what the majority of the people want including myself. They forced Bush to veto the bill and that is now on the record, but now it is time to be realistic and compromise. That’s politics.

Originally posted by Djarums
My personal opinion is that the two should be seperate resolutions. The funding should not depend on the timetable and vice versa.

How does it sound...?

djarums,
it sounds fine but the problem is that is just not how it will ever work. For most any one to sign a bill in the house or senat they all half to have a few million, or in this last case, close to thirty billion in entitlements for there specific community or state in with the bill or they just won't sign it. Does not matter if this country has just been attacked and several thousand people killed and the future of the country and way of life is at threat. To get a funding bill to pass it has to have twenty billion in entitlement for a state in it to pass. It really sucks rocks but that is the people that the people who control the money have put in office.

Let not forget that the people that was put in office was put in office to held the government accountable for what is going in our nation with this manufactured war and . . . our wasted tax payer money.

Let's not forget that also, our soldiers are not going to die of hunger like many are trying to suggest.

This is what the people wanted and now is just redefining the purpose of our role in that manufactured war.

Also, conditioning spending on a war's end is perfectly rational. War generates waste, so when a war isn't being won, why spend money on it?
Yeah, I know, "we'll win if we try harder!" But seriously people, what hasn't been tried already?

I think the Democrats in Congress are dispicable cowards! How many months have they taken to come up with a bill that they KNEW would be vetoed? They are the ones playing games with our soldiers lives. They can claim they were deceived all they want, but they authorized the war so they are just as responsible as anyone else. If you look back at what was actually said by the intelligence agencies from many countries they ALL believed that Iraq had WMDs and needed to be dealt with. Now that things aren't going so well everyone is saying Bush deceived them. Do you really believe that Bush is so powerful that he could deceive the whole world?? Come on - do you realize how much credit you are giving him by saying that.

Let me give you a reality check here:

1. Terrorists, Islamic Radicals and a whole lot of other "bad" people are real and they want to kill us by the millions. Being "nice" to them won't help.
2. We are in a real global conflict that will determine if our version of civilization will survive. If we don't prevail we will lose everything.
3. The conflict in the Middle East has been building for years. Bush may have changed that date the war with Iraq started but it would have happened sooner or later no matter who was President.
4. The situation in the Middle East is going to get WAY worse before it gets better. Trying to pull our troops out of Iraq won't make any difference in the long term. All of this political theater will soon be forgotten.
5. The real fight is going to be with Iran and could start any day. We may find out that Iran already has nuclear weapons when they use one against our troops or against Israel. Even without nuclear weapons we are going to suffer significant military and civilian casualties.
6. Once the war with Iran has begun we will have a choice to make. Are we going to be sniveling cowards - or are we going to fight to win? This question is way beyond politics, who is President or who runs Congress. It will decide our very survival.

they're all playing with the lives of our servicemen and women when they bring up these funding bills with half the spending going out to their pet pork projects!!

but hey, now they can honestly say the they did pass a minimum wage increase, but bush vetoed it!!

I think a more important/interesting questions is:

If the large amount of 'pork' was not included in the bill, would the bill still have passed?

Were certain representatives and senators bribed in order to pass the bill?

The bill provides 4 billion dollars more that what Bush wants. Let see the pork on the bill . . .like some has claimed but forget that in 2006 most of the majority Rule Republican congress pork on that bill was to favor their personal causes and corporate agendas.

From the $124.2 billion

1. $91.5 billion that President Bush requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is for items that both Republicans and Democrats support.


2. $2 billion to improve the readiness of troops at home (half of it for National Guard and Reserve equipment).


3. $1.2 billion to purchase Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, which give more protection from roadside bombs than armored Humvees do.

4. $2.1 billion for military healthcare, including treating traumatic brain injuries from roadside bombs

5. $20 million to repair Walter Reed Army Medical Center

6. $1.8 billion more for veterans health care

7. $1.1 billion more for military housing

8. $18.2 billion to places other than Iraq and the military, (This is the same thing that was done in 2006 defense bill) Adding money to favor reconstruction for Katrina and rita hurricanes, the money went to private contractors in the US.

9. $650 million for health insurance for poor children in 14 states.

10. $2.25 billion for homeland security (including screening for explosives at airports)

11. $4.9 billion for small businesses to ease an increase in the minimum wage.

12. $3.5 billion in agricultural subsidies.

So so much for the Pork actually the bill is taking care of what other bills has not in the past, and has been forgotten to benefit the corporate war profiteers in Iraq.

www.miamiherald.com...



[edit on 2-5-2007 by marg6043]

Marg,
That was good information you found.
Thanks for takeing the time to post it.

No problem RedGolem, I was so interested in finding what the pork was that I had to get the bill.

If we go back to 2006 defense bill we may see that this bill is actually good for the nation.

Correct me if im wrong.

The US spending since first entering Iraq, has reached into the trillions since 2003, right?

Wolfowitz's original estimate for the war spending was told to be 40 billiion in total, that was before he took his estimating skills over to the world bank?

wouldn't the US have been able to purchase the entire Iraqi government and thier militarty, for maybe double the original quote? The US could have employed Iraq instead of trying to liberate them with needless spending and open ended completion dates, with black checks.

There was no need in my eyes to ever invade Iraq. They did not need to take all this time and spend all this money. But they did, and they want to do more. It wasn't done the right way, it was done the way that would see the maximum amound to US dollors go down a hole.

If their is an extra couple trillion floating around the country, and the only product close to tangible is Iraqi liberation, is that not a seriouse cause of inflation, and isn't that why the US dollor is doing so poor and why business is so bad in the US?

UPDATE-

New bill on the table- have to wait and see if this will pass or be vetoed.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Above and beyond
Congress cut $4 billion in money not requested by President Bush from an earlier version of the Iraq war spending bill. About $17 billion worth remain.

*What's out:
• $400 million for low-income heating assistance.
• $663 million for pandemic flu preparedness
• $1.2 billion in further homeland security funding

What’s in:
• $3 billion above Bush's request for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery.
• $3 billion for disaster farm aid.
• $1.2 above Bush's request for mine-resistant vehicles
• $1.1 billion for homeland security, including airport, border and cargo container screening.
• $1.1 billion for military housing allowances
• $1.6 billion for military readiness.
• $1.8 billion for veterans health care.
• $949 million for Afghanistan.
• $650 million for low-income children's health care.
• $465 million for fighting wildfires.
• $425 million for rural schools.


Why would they knock out three key issues?

No protection from the flu-great
US Security possibily loosened- great
No heat for the low income- great

Does this sounds like another population control measure in place.

[edit on 5/24/2007 by Leyla]

What it looks to me is that any money in our country by Bush standards is solely for the purpose of fighting his war.

The rest of the nation is unimportant.

Now the heating I kind of agree with that because is summer already so I imagine that it was to be for the next winter?