Apr 04 2007
Fund Our Troops, Fund Our Troops…
America needs to send a message to the Democrats and tell them to stop with useless and inane legislation and get down to funding our troops who are at war. They funded the effort already, now they need to get serious and send up legislation without the partisan babble, just the funds.
America needs to start the chant: “Fund Our Troops!, Fund Our Troops!” Bloggers can do this by posting something like this post, with the title, expressing their support of funding our troops so they can protect themselves while in harms way. Citizens can do it by sending emails to Congress with the chant, or calling in and repeating the message. People can make signs and stage protests at local congressional offices. Congress authorized these actions in Iraq, and they funded the war effort already this year, and this is still their responsibility and no one elses. How can we forget what we, as a nation, asked of our military after 9-11:
Democrats must support our military. Fund Our Troops, Fund Our Troops!
DEMOCRATS BAN ‘GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR’ AND HAVEN”T FUNDED THE TROOPS…
The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget. AJStrata is asking them to Fund Our Troops, Fund Our Troops…
……
Just emailed Pelosi and Reid. Need a list of White Flag Republicans.
why you can never trust folks who employ situational ethics as their divining rod:
http://tinyurl.com/338fpu
I guess that was then… [Rich Lowry]
A Hill source forwards along these quotes:
Sen Harry Reid (D-NV) :
“…I don’t think anyone can find a war that this country was engaged in where the funds were cut off. No one is talking about cutting off the funds.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) :
“I do not support cutting funding for American troops.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) :
“We’re not going to cut off funding to the troops … no one wants to do that.”
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) :
“I don’t know of any senator who would cut off funds for troops in the field.”
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN :
“I don’t think we should be pulling back any funds.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):
“Yes, the congress could cut off the funds. But the congress will not do that because our men and women are in harm’s way.”
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) :
“U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson ( D-FL ) today made clear his intention to oppose measures he sees as possibly undermining U.S. troops, like cutting funds… […] Nelson said today he’ll oppose efforts to cut off funding.”
04/03 05:12 PM
Well, of course the weaselly part of all this is that, technically, the Dems aren’t actually cutting off funding — at least not openly. No, they’ll fund the troops; they’ll just attach all sorts of conditions to the funding to make the funding bill unacceptable to President Bush.
(Sidenote: Some people think that, if Bush vetoes such a bill, then the blame will fall on Bush. But I’d think that’d be kind of hard to sell to the people who are only half paying attention. I mean, if Bush is this terrible warmonger and has been for years now, then why would he suddenly turn around and cut off his own nose by vetoing funding for “Bush’s war for oil”? I realize that the Bush haters won’t bother with trying to be consistent; they just want another reason to dump on Bush whether the reason makes sense or not. But most people don’t hate Bush to the point of spinning everything as Bush’s fault. So how will the Bush haters convince people that it isn’t nonsense that Bush is a warmonger who’s just vetoed funding for his own war?)
The Surge IS working…
Just maybe. Capt Ed notes that when the MSM and leftist blogs hammered McCain for saying that Baghdad was safer because of the surge. They brought up the point that McCain was touring Baghdad with flak vest and full security entourage in tow as proof…
The Democrats have PASSED a bill that adequately funds the troops. If your boy George wants to deny funds to the troops – then let him stand up and have the guts to veto a funding bill.
Make no mistake, soothsayer, Bush WILL veto that pork laden piece of Democrat work. It is pretty sad when the Democrats have to promise to tax the sox off Americans to pay for the pork that was required to get the votes they needed. Don’t think Mr. Joe Taxpayer won’t take note.
well, A’m a nutjob has decided he doesn’t really like 3 US carriers off his coast and has capitualated even sooner than I thought, I had guessed he would hold out until about the 16th. But, I’m glad that deal is over.
Why not let the DNC have the guts to defund the war (their appropriate role in this) to stop it…if that’s how they feel. They “don’t” have the votes to pass that. That’s why they took this route..of attaching a policy inititive/directive (which in and of itself could be challenged on constitutional grounds) to the funding bill.
The president…should veto this bill….absolutely.
Pelosi BOUGHT votes from the House with the pork and a timeline. They did not pass a clean defense bill. They simply passed a defense pork bill with a timeline.
The Democrats are sitting on the Senate bill until the week of April 16th. One day after the troops run out of funds. The Democrats are going to get the blame for denying the funds to the troops. Bush should veto this bill and it’s not going to be his fault.
Yes, “our boy” does, always has, and will have the guts to do what he thinks is right. He has been consistent in his character and courage.
He will not tolerate the PORK BARRELL spending a.k.a. BRIBES to be attached to a funding bill for the TROOPS. *You better believe it.*
It’s just another point on what you leftists don’t get about George W. Bush and 68% of the electorate. Courage of convictions.
At least the 60’s liberals had character. Not so today. And many of the 60’s liberals will tell you just that.
martin / soothie must have no qualms about himself, his kids, and grandkids for paying higher taxes because of this bought for Defense Pork bill. Coming up April 15 in the near future, most Americans are not going to like having to pay 4 grand extra except martin / soothie.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjU0NmI2YWUwMjdhZGRhOWIzM2FlZDEwOGU0MGZjNGI=
Kyl endorses a clean defense bill. That’s the only way to go.
The fact that Pelosi could buy so many democrat votes so cheaply shows how little they actually stand for anything they believe in. They worship their own power and that is it.
On another note. Watch the dems give credit to Nancy Pelosi for her “Alternative Diplomacy” being responsible for I’manutjob releasing the hostages! They would be stupid enough to believe this. BDS is mind boggling.
In other words, all of youse guys admit that the Democrats have passed a bill that provides funding.
Let George veto it – I double-dog-dare the yellow-bellied sap-sucker!
Good idea AJ, but I’d suggest:
“I Support the Troops, Why Won’t Congress?”
I don’t have a problem with Bush vetoe-ing it or pass it through but not honoring the timeline and the pork. We’ll be seeing far more confrontation between the WH and the Democratic Congress. And we have the right man for the job to stand up to the Democratic Congress.
Keep hammering away exclusively on the “funding” part, Sooth, and we’ll keep hammering away on Congress’s attempt to impose an artificial cancellation date on the war. What good is it to provide the funding if you then turn around and announce that the money may not be spent on fighting after a specific date? Then the enemy can just wait for the day when our troops are ordered home, and the enemy wins by default. That’s just stupid. If you’re going to do that, then why even fund the troops?
I can already see the bumper stickers.
It’s one thing for Bush to de-fund the troops. He doesn’t have to face an angry electorate in ’08.
Sooth,
Congress is offering Bush a false choice, which is no choice.
This site is populated by a good number of intelligent patriots who are way beyond bumper sticker mentality and are quite capable of exposing Dem chicanery.