Politicians Endanger Our Troops in Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics' started by carpro, Apr 30, 2007.

  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,133917,00.html?wh=news

    Armored Vehicles for Iraq Delayed
    Associated Press | April 29, 2007

    EXCERPT

    CAMP FALLUJAH, Iraq - The armored carrier has a grim black slash across its side, burn marks on the door and a web of cracks along the window.

    Like most of the Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles in Anbar province, this one has been hit as many as three times by enemy fire and bomb blasts. Yet, to date, no American troops have died while riding in one.

    But efforts to buy thousands more carriers - each costing about $1 million - could be delayed if the White House and Congress do not resolve their deadlock over a $124.2 billion war spending bill.

    About $3 billion for the vehicles is tied up in the legislation. The spending plan has stalled because of a dispute over provisions that would set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
     
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    President Bush should sign the bill. He is the one who placed our troops in harm's way based on false information. He should be helping to protect them by signing the funding bill.
     
  3. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    Wrong.

    Congress should present a clean spending bill for the War in Iraq and have the courage to address their other issues in separate legislation.

    The President will not and should not allow his Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to be usurped by Congress. They know he will veto, but they have to play their games and endanger our troops.

    They are counting on the American people being as partisan as they are or , at the very worst, just plain stupid.
     
  4. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Which the American people (whoever they are) are not.
     
  5. OrovilleTim

    OrovilleTim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    0
    You hear about how the bills are getting tied up due to time tables, but what really sickened me was when I heard that they were also padding the bills with utterly outrageous PORK. "Oh, we care for the troops... but let us make sure we remain loyal to those lobbyists first". I heard the President mention the pork as a concern of his, but how come in the media it never gets mentioned?
     
  6. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0

    I am sure this is rhetorical.
     
  7. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wrong.

    The Congress sets policy. The president merely executes it.

    If the Congress decides to set deadlines it has the constitutional power to do so.

    In a critical time like this for our troops that the president has misused by his misguided policies it is unconsionable for him to refuse to sign the bill.
     
  8. OrovilleTim

    OrovilleTim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep... my bad :laugh:
     
  9. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    What concerns the president is that the Congress is starting to stand up on its hinds legs a bit and not allowing him to run roughshod over the interests of the United States concerning ending the American involvement in the Iraq debacle that his policies have created.
     
  10. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    It is reprehensible that congress won't give him a bill. These pork-laden surrender papers should never be passed to him, and as a taxpayer, I resent the hypocrat's game. Put up a bill that funds our troops they say they support, and leave everything else out.

    BTW, paruse the war blogs, those men & women want to stay. And it's not because they're dumb.
     
  11. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Congress gave the president a bill and if he cares about the troops then he should sign it. It's not like his Republican cohorts in the Congress have clean hands when it comes to manipulating the legislative process.

    Our troops don't set policy. The Congress does.
     
  12. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    The reference to the troops is an answer to everyone that says supporting them means bringing them home.

    Congress needs to pass a bill that funds our troops, not special hypocrat interests. Until then, Persident Bush is doing the right thing. I believe he'll get his bill, also. This ins't a fight the hypocrats want to win.
     
  13. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the president foolishly follows through on his threat and vetoes the bill I hope that those who are standing up for America's interests concerning the Iraq debacle will remain firm and force the president's hand on signing this.

    I understand that those of us who support the troops are divided on what to do about our policy in the midst of the civil war in Iraq and the debacle it has become.
     
  14. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    Then they should have the courage to introduce separate legislation to do so, and not tie up much needed funds for our troops in their efforts.

    They can't win this one and they know it. All they are interested in is scoring political points at the expense of our troops.

    Their actions are morally reprehensible and I believe the majotity of Americans will see through their charade.
     
  15. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The president would be the one tying up the funds if he vetoes the bill. And it would be morally reprehensible for him to do so.

    The president has created a mess in Iraq and he stubbornly refuses to see that it is in America's best interest to withdraw from Iraq now that we have deposed Saddam Hussein and given the Iraqi people a representative form of government.

    If we keep our troops in Iraq for another ten years it won't make any difference on the ground in Iraq. We can't solve the Iraqi civil war. Only the Iraqis can do that.
     
  16. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well said, Ken. They should give them just enough money for packing up and coming home.
     
  17. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    It's a flawed and pork laden bill and he won't sign it. They know it. They also know they can't override his veto.

    They're playing political games and withholding needed funds while brave men and women face death.
     
  18. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Pentagon budget is what? Along the lines of $600 billion? If there isn't enough money already in place to supply our troops while we withdraw them and bring them home or send them to Afghanistan then the Secretary of Defense needs to learn the basics of budgeting.
     
  19. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is the president who is putting our troops at risk because of his pride.

    Surely a bad bill that funds our troops is better than no bill at all from the president's perspective.

    It is time for George W. Bush to act presidential and stop acting like a teenager playing a game of chicken.
     
  20. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    Then they should have the courage to introduce legislation to that effect and stop playing political games.
     

Share This Page

Loading...