Follow by Email

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Update on The Iraq War Funding Vote.

Hey folks,

Update for you, along with something to think about. As I reported to you just a little earlier, the LWL caved, bowed, gave up, whatever, to the President and agreed to give him a bill he would sign. Well, they did that. 80-14 What is interesting is those that voted no. Along with that, WHAT they voted no for.

According to the AP -Clinton, Obama vote 'no' on Iraq bill By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

Courting the anti-war constituency, Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama both voted against legislation that pays for the Iraq war but lacks a timeline for troop withdrawal.

"I fully support our troops" but the measure "fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq," said Clinton, a New York senator.

Liar.

"Enough is enough," Obama, an Illinois senator, declared, adding that President Bush should not get "a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path."

Lair again.

Their votes Thursday night continued a shift in position for the two presidential hopefuls, both of whom began the year shunning a deadline for a troop withdrawal.

See what I mean? Besides that, they knew it would pass, so they felt "safe" making a political statement. In essence, they are STILL playing games with the Troops lives. You want THEM in the White House? Those beholden to the likes of Soros first. Beholden to the LWL? {Left Wing Looney Fringe}

On a vote of 80-14, the Senate cleared the measure and sent it to Bush.

Both Clinton and Obama have faced intense pressure from the party's liberal wing and Democratic presidential challengers who urged opposition to the measure because it doesn't include a timeline to pull forces out of Iraq.

Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, who also voted against the legislation, was among the Democratic candidates calling for rejection of it, along with former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

None of these people should get your votes. Think about this. They are beholden to those with MONEY. They allow themselves to be BOUGHT by the Liberal looneys.

Of the four Democratic hopefuls in the Senate, only Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware supported the bill. He said he did so reluctantly because he viewed the measure as flawed. But he added: "As long as we have troops on the front lines, it is our shared responsibility to give them the equipment and protection they need."

You see, you can be against the War and still support the Troops. {Smile} Not really, but in this case Biden did the right thing.


With their "no" votes, Clinton, Obama and Dodd earned praise from the party's left flank, which has been pushing for a quick end to the war and is an important part of the Democratic base in the primaries.

"This bold stand by three of the four presidential candidates in the Senate won't soon be forgotten," promised Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org's political action committee.

Whoopie Moron.org is happy.

Although they appeased the Democratic base, Clinton, Obama and Dodd did open themselves up to criticism from Republicans that they were denying 165,000 troops the resources they need — an argument that could be damaging in a general election.

Along with the fact that they have also voted AGAINST roughly $8 billion of that was for domestic programs from hurricane relief to farm aid to low-income children's health coverage. Along with the first minimum wage increase in more than a decade. The current federal wage floor of $5.15 an hour will go to $7.25 in three installments of 70 cents Remember that. They voted AGAINST ALL of this. But they care..

Now Obama I’m sure was given BAD advice. He’s new, not so savvy. As long as he is following a script, he is find, but he is just ignorant. He is new. BRAND new. I would be as ignorant as he is if I only had two years in. Listen to this stupidity.

"I am demanding a new one," he said. "We must fund our troops. But we owe them something more," Obama said, calling for "a clear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war."

Translation time folks,."We must support our troops, by voting against them. I support the poor, as long as they have five dollars to give my campaign, but I voted against the minimum wage hike. I support health care, although I voted against it. In other words, I cannot think for myself, I must vote the way I’m told to. I mean, come on, I’m new, and I want to be around for a while."

Clinton is just an idiot.

"But the president vetoed Congress's new strategy and so Congress must reject the president's failed policies," she said, adding that Bush should begin a phased withdrawal and "abandon this escalation."

Clinton voted to authorize the invasion in 2002. She has since become a constant critic of the Bush administration's handling of it but has refused to call her initial vote a mistake. She had adamantly opposed setting a hard deadline for troop withdrawals, but a week ago she voted to advance a bill that would cut off money to force a troop withdrawal by March 2008.

REALLY want her in office? Two others not to vote for?

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, opposed it.

Yes folks, as you can see, we learned some pretty important information here. Some want to cater to the looney fringe, which is a VERY minute group, yet well funded with plenty of money to give them, rather than doing what is best for the country. Keep this in mind.
Peter

Source;

No comments: