War on War Funding Getting Serious

Hey folks,

I know that this seems to be a daily topic. That is because it is. Both sides are getting more and more serious. Since yesterday, when ABC of all people, reported how well things are going with the surge, {It’s working} the opposition has upped what they think is pressure to convince President Bush to give up. We are winning. I told you yesterday that they cannot allow that. In response, President Bush has increased his resolve. The words are getting tougher. Tactics harder. It is getting serious.

According to Reuters -Bush, Democrats clash over Iraq war funding,

President George W. Bush and Democrats in charge of Congress clashed again on Tuesday over funding for the Iraq war with no end likely soon to a defining battle over how long American forces will stay.

At a White House Rose Garden news conference, Bush skewered Democrats for going on a spring recess without approving $100 billion for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, a day ahead of leaving on his own Easter vacation in Texas.

He repeated what has been a near-daily vow to veto legislation approved last month by narrow margins in the Senate and the House of Representatives that would impose a troop withdrawal timetable. If he vetoes the legislation, lawmakers would have to begin anew on a funding bill.

"Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq," Bush said.

According to the AP-Bush calls Dems 'irresponsible' on Iraq , He said,

"Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than in providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq," Bush said. "In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democrat leadership — Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds."

"They need to come off their vacation, get a bill to my desk, and if it's got strings and mandates and withdrawals and pork I'll veto it," the president said. "And then we can get down to the business of getting this thing done."

Now of course they respond in the usual way. "It’s all Bush’s fault." The American people want this." blah, blah, blah. None of this is true. But they are liars. Why expect anything else?

Then you have this comment.

"If President Bush vetoes funding for the troops, he will be the one who is blocking funding for the troops. Nobody else," said presidential candidate John Edwards.

Wrong. YOU are the ones that put pork in the bill to buy the votes. YOU {The group of Traitors} are the ones playing politics and using our soldiers as pawns. The President is doing what is best of them. He is the one trying to do whatever it takes to WIN. He is winning. Which pretty much means you are losing.

The Washington Post reported Bush Unwilling to Compromise on Iraq Funding,

In remarks at the Rose Garden today, Bush said he thinks he has the support to sustain a veto, and that if Congress is intent on putting troop withdrawal requirements in the funding bill they should do it soon so the process can move forward.

Ultimately, he said, Congress will need to approve money to fund the war effort, or risk a situation where troops in the field are left without necessary equipment or the rotation of different units is thrown off schedule. Military leaders have said that by mid-May funding restraints could force them to leave some troops in the field longer than planned because the money would not be available to equip and train replacements.

They quoted the President as saying,

"Delays beyond April and then into May will effect the readiness of the U.S. military...Enough politics. They need to come back. If they want to play politics, fine. They ought to do it quickly...I'll veto it. Then we can get down to the business of funding our troops."

They do not care about the troops. They do not care about winning. Actually, they own defeat. As I told you yesterday and repeatedly. They cannot allow us to win in Iraq. They cannot survive politically if we do. They have invested ALL in our defeat. They will stop at nothing to achieve that goal. I do not believe that the President will be backing down anytime soon either.

About that, I have some advice for President Bush. If I were you, I would start looking into the Constitution a little deeper. I have said in the past, but officially said yesterday, Reid, Pelosi, and those that follow them, are Traitors. Again, One who violates his allegiance and betrays his country; one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to an enemy, or yields up any fort or place intrusted to his defense, or surrenders an army or body of troops to the enemy, unless when vanquished; also, one who takes arms and levies war against his country; or one who aids an enemy in conquering his country.

It was all over the places yesterday in radio and TV. "The word ‘Traitor’ is being thrown around out there. What do you think?" The ‘T’ word is starting to be used by some. How do you respond Senator?" ETC.

I’m not throwing the word around folks. If it walks like a Duck, and quacks like a Duck, guess what, it’s a Duck. If Reid, Pelosi, and those that follow them, walk like a Traitor, talks like a Traitor, guess what, they are TRAITORS.

They are trying to undermined the President, strip him of his CONSTITUTIONAL position of Commander and Chief, in a time of war. They are attempting to micro manage the war. They are global trotting around the world , meeting with our enemies. They are telling our enemies what we are planning to do in the war. They are telling our enemies, "Just cool it for now. We know our President is an idiot. But just sit back and wait, we will be leaving Iraq on this date. Then it's all yours. If our troops are still there, don’t worry, WE are seeing to it that they will not have the supplies they need. They will be all yours."

I’m not throwing the word around. I’m publically calling them Traitors. Yes, Mr Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, NBC, ABC, or whoever, I said it, mean it, would even come on your shows and say it again in person. I stand behind it. If I were you Mr. President, I would start to treat these people as who and what they are, before a single one of our men and women’s lives are lost at the hands of these Traitors.
Peter

Sources:
Reuters -Bush, Democrats clash over Iraq war funding
AP-Bush calls Dems 'irresponsible' on Iraq
The Washington Post -Bush Unwilling to Compromise on Iraq Funding

Bush vs Pelosi and Reid They Lose

Hey folks,

This is going to be lengthy. I’m just warning you up front. The reason for this is unlike some other people, I want you to get the full story of what is being said. The LWL are so very proud of themselves. You know, they REALLY think that they are still important. They really think that the President HAS to listen to the rambling of there morons. He doesn’t. Let’s start with this from the AP

President Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress lurched toward a veto showdown over Iraq on Wednesday, the commander in chief demanding a replenishment of war funding with no strings and Speaker Nancy Pelosi counseling him, "Calm down with the threats."

Bush said imposition of a"specific and random date of withdrawal would be disastrous" for U.S. troops in Iraq and he predicted that lawmakers would take the blame if the money ran short.

"The clock is ticking for our troops in the field," he said. "If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible."

I have been telling you this. If they were to succeed, cause us to surrender. All these soldiers lives lost, and any American lives lost in future attacks, will be the SOLE responsibility of Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, and all the rest of this bunch of gutless, traitorous, cowards.

LWL {Left Wing Looney} Leader Pelosi said, "Calm down with the threats." It’s not a threat. It is a promise. He will Veto. You are pointless and a waste of time and money. NO, most American people do NOT want to lose this war.

You know what folks, forget the rest of the news stories I was going to post. They all say about the say thing. So let’s just go to sources. When LWL leaders BOUGHT the votes to pass both the House and Senate verison of this bill, They gloated. Then Bush commented on them, and the LWL. Pelosi sent Bush a letter. Here it is.

March 28, 2007
Dear Mr. President:

Last week the House of Representatives on a bipartisan vote passed an emergency supplemental spending bill. The Senate is poised to pass its version of the bill as soon as later today. Both bills contain much needed funding for our troops and our veterans. Both bills also chart a new course forward in Iraq. Given the importance and urgency of this legislation to our troops and our security, we are quite disturbed by your insistence to veto it.

Rather than work with the Congress to develop a bill you could sign, you apparently intend to follow a political strategy that would needlessly delay funding for our troops.

Both the House and Senate versions of this legislation address critical priorities that were either ignored or substantially under-funded by your Administration in the regular budget process. For example, despite the fact that our troops have been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001 and in Iraq since 2003, your regular budget submission to the Congress did not include funding for either war. Your regular budget also failed to adequately address the urgent veteran's health care crisis, vulnerabilities in our homeland security, and the needs of thousands of victims of several severe natural disasters. This Congress is taking the responsible course and responding to needs that have been ignored by your Administration and the prior Congress.

The House and Senate bills also contain important provisions rejecting a continuation of the Iraq policy your Administration has pursued for more than four years. The Iraq provisions are based on the statements by General Petraeus and other senior military leaders that there is no military solution in Iraq. Their collective judgment leads to the inescapable conclusion that U.S. forces should not be trying to contain an Iraqi civil war. Rather, bipartisan majorities in the House and the Senate believe strongly that the U.S. mission should be transitioned to counter-terrorism, force protection, and training and equipping the Iraqi security forces, and that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces should commence.

Mr. President, this is the time to sit down and work together on behalf of the American people and our troops. We stand ready to work with you, but your threats to veto a bill that has not even been presented to you indicate that you may not be ready to work with us. We hope that is not the case.

Sincerely,

Harry Reid, Majority Leader

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker


It speaks for itself folks. This is one of the stupidest letters I have ever read. Her attempting to justify this is pathetic. Here is what Bush said in response to the votes.

President Bush during his address the Cattlemen’s Association

The missions I described are only the opening salvos in what is going to be a sustained effort. Yet, the Iraqi people are beginning to say -- see positive changes. I want to share with you how two Iraqi bloggers -- they have bloggers in Baghdad, just like we've got here -- (laughter) --

"Displaced families are returning home, marketplaces are seeing more activity, stores that were long shuttered are now reopening. We feel safer about moving in the city now. Our people want to see this effort succeed. We hope the governments in Baghdad and America do not lose their resolve."

I want to read something that Army Sergeant Major Chris Nadeau says -- the guy is on his second tour in Iraq. He says, "I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm a soldier. The facts are the facts. Things are getting better, we're picking up momentum."

These are hopeful signs, and that's positive. Yet at the very moment that General Petraeus's strategy is beginning to show signs of success, the Democrats in the House of Representatives have passed an emergency war spending bill that undercuts him and the troops under his command. This bill would damage our effort in Iraq three ways. First, the House bill would impose restrictions on our commanders in Iraq, as well as rigid conditions and arbitrary deadlines on the Iraqi government. It would mandate a precipitous withdrawal of American forces, if every one of these conditions is not met by a date certain. Even if they are met, the bill would still require that most American forces begin retreating from Iraq by March 1st of next year, regardless of conditions on the ground.

It's unclear what the military significance of this date is. What is clear is that the consequences of imposing such a specific and random date for withdrawal would be disastrous. If the House bill becomes law, our enemies in Iraq would simply have to mark their calendars. They'd spend the months ahead picking how to use their new -- plotting how to use their new safe havens once we were to leave. It makes no sense for politicians in Washington, D.C. to be dictating arbitrary time lines for our military commanders in a war zone 6,000 miles away. (Applause.)

I want to read to you what a major newspaper editorial page said -- and by the way, this editorial page, like, generally not singing my praises -- (laughter) -- "Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had been forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy landings -- or if, in 1863, President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to conclude the Civil War the following year. This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy." (Applause.)

Second, the House bill also undermines the Iraqi government, and contradicts the Democrats' claim that they simply want to help the Iraqis solve their own problems. For example, the House bill would cut funding for the Iraqi security forces if Iraqi leaders did not meet arbitrary deadlines.

The Democrats cannot have it both ways. They can't say that the Iraqis must do more, and then take away the funds that will help them do so. Iraq is a young democracy. It is fighting for its survival in a region that is vital to our security. The lesson of September the 11th must not be forgot. To cut off support for the security forces would put our own security at risk.

Third, the House bill would add billions of dollars in domestic spending that is completely unrelated to the war. For example, the bill includes $74 million for peanut storage, $25 million for spinach growers. These may be emergencies, they may be problems, but they can be addressed in the normal course of business. They don't need to be added on to a bill that's supporting our troops. There's $6.4 million for the House of Representatives' salaries and expense accounts. I don't know what that is -- (laughter) -- but it is not related to the war and protecting the United States of America. (Applause.)

This week the Senate is considering a version that is no better. The Senate bill sets an arbitrary date for withdrawal. It also undermines the Iraqi government's ability to take more responsibility for their own country by cutting funds for Iraqi reconstruction and law enforcement. And just like their colleagues in the House, Senate Democrats have loaded their bill with special interest spending.

The bill includes $40 million for tree assistance. You know, all these matters may be important matters. They don't need to be loaded on to a bill that is an emergency spending bill for our troops. There's $3.5 million for visitors to tour the Capitol and see for themselves how Congress works. (Laughter.) I'm not kidding you. (Laughter.)

Here's the bottom line: The House and Senate bills have too much pork, too many conditions on our commanders, and an artificial timetable for withdrawal. (Applause.) And I have made it clear for weeks, if either version comes to my desk, I'm going to veto it. (Applause.) It is also clear from the strong opposition in both houses that my veto would be sustained. Yet Congress continues to pursue these bills, and as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field. Funding for our forces in Iraq will begin to run out in mid-April. Members of Congress need to stop making political statements, and start providing vital funds for our troops. They need to get that bill to my desk so I can sign it into law.

Now, some of them believe that by delaying funding for our troops, they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely. That's not going to happen. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible. (Applause.) Our troops in Iraq deserve the full support of the Congress and the full support of this nation. (Applause.)

I’m WAY out of time here, but read these both over and over again if you have to. The bottom line here is, the LWL cannot afford for us to win this war. The surge IS working. This is why they are stepping up their attacks on Bush. The President? He is doing his job, keeping you, me, and yes, even this traitorous group of leaders, safe. They, the LWL, are using the men and women in the military as pawns to an end.
Peter

Sources,
AP- Bush demands war bill with no strings
Nancy Pelosi
The President