CNN's Henry reported Bush's attack on Dems "for dragging their feet" on war funding but not GOP blocking of bill
On the November 29 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, congressional correspondent Ed Henry reported that President Bush "ripp[ed] into Democrats for dragging their feet" on passing legislation to provide emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that Bush "essentially declar[ed] that American lives now are at risk because the Pentagon is trying to stop what he called 'another day of destruction right here in America' -- a terror attack." Henry went on to note that congressional Democrats "have been pushing a plan ... that would give the president about $50 billion in war funding, but with a catch -- that he would have to agree to bring most U.S. troops home from Iraq by December 2008." Yet Henry did not mention that House Democrats -- beyond simply "pushing" such a plan -- recently passed a $50 billion war funding bill that included the redeployment provision, which Senate Republicans then successfully blocked on November 16. By contrast, in their reports on Bush's criticism of Congress for not passing war funding legislation, The Washington Post and The New York Times noted that the Republicans blocked the $50 billion war funding bill in the Senate.
Reporting Bush's attack on Congress in a November 30 article, the Post added that "[c]ongressional Democrats blame Bush for the delay because he refuses to accept a $50 billion funding bill that includes a requirement to begin pulling combat troops out of Iraq" and that "[t]he House passed the bill earlier this month, but Republicans blocked it in the Senate":
President Bush warned Congress yesterday that the Pentagon will soon have to start laying off civilian employees and reducing operations at U.S. military bases unless lawmakers send him an emergency war funding bill that does not mandate troop withdrawals from Iraq.
Escalating a dispute with Democratic lawmakers over his request for $196 billion in supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush complained that a delay in providing the money is jeopardizing important military efforts.
[...]
Congressional Democrats blame Bush for the delay because he refuses to accept a $50 billion funding bill that includes a requirement to begin pulling combat troops out of Iraq and changing the U.S. military mission there. The House passed the bill earlier this month, but Republicans blocked it in the Senate.
[...]
The $50 billion package passed by the House Nov. 14 would have funded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next four months. But Senate Republicans blocked it -- and the White House threatened a veto -- because it would have required the administration to begin pulling U.S. combat forces out of Iraq within 30 days of enactment, with a goal of ending U.S. combat operations there by Dec. 15, 2008.
In a similar November 30 report, the Times noted that "[t]he president's Republican allies in the Senate stalled" the $50 billion war funding bill:
President Bush on Thursday began a new offensive against Congressional Democrats over money for the Iraq war, calling on the lawmakers to give American troops "what they need to succeed in their missions" and pass a bill without strings attached.
"The American people expect us to work together to support our troops," Mr. Bush said at the Pentagon after meeting with top Defense Department officials. "They do not want the government to create needless uncertainty for those defending our country, and uncertainty for their families. They do not want disputes in Washington to undermine our troops in Iraq, just as they're seeing clear signs of success."
The last time the money issue flared up, just over a week ago, the Democrats accused the administration of using scare tactics to try to get its way on the money bill. A bill approved recently by the House would provide $50 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns -- but would call for pulling American troops out of Iraq by the end of 2008 and narrowing their mission in the meantime. The president's Republican allies in the Senate stalled the bill in that chamber.
From the November 29 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
WOLF BLITZER (host): President Bush today demanded that congressional Democrats approve Iraq war funding without strings and without delay. He says the U.S. military has been waiting for the money for months and could soon face harm as a result.
Let's go live to our White House correspondent, Ed Henry.
He's watching this for us -- so what's behind this very stern warning we heard one hour ago, Ed, from the president?
HENRY: It's frustration, Wolf. The president ripping into Democrats for dragging their feet on this budget, essentially declaring that American lives now are at risk because the Pentagon is trying to stop what he called "another day of destruction right here in America" -- a terror attack.
Democrats have been pushing a plan, as you know, that would give the president about $50 billion in war funding, but with a catch -- that he would have to agree to bring most U.S. troops home from Iraq by December 2008. Mr. Bush said it's time to give him the money without strings, saying Defense Secretary Robert Gates can only shift money around Pentagon accounts for so long and soon he's going to have to start laying off civilian employees at the Pentagon and freezing contracts.
BUSH [video clip]: Pentagon officials have warned Congress that the continued delay in funding our troops will soon begin to have a damaging impact on the operations of this department. The warning has been laid out for the United States Congress to hear.
HENRY: Now, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid [NV] fired back that if the president really wants to get the money to the troops, he should sign a bill giving them funds with a timetable to come home, re-declaring, quote, "Bush Republicans have indefinitely committed our military to a civil war that has taken a tremendous toll on our troops." Wolf.
BLITZER: Ed Henry at the White House.
Thank you.
The pentagon might have to start freezing contracts? Wow, an added benefit! But, who wants to bet that some military regulars don't lose their paycheck before Eric Prince does?
the Dems are on the losing side of this in more ways than one.
Wishful thinking stated as fact. A rightwing staple
Yeah, you keep say that. When the dem's reach 60 seats in the senate, and take the WH, and finally are able get something DONE, w/o the Pub's getting the way, how are you going to explain away their and congress's high approval ratings then?
Yeah, they lost a lot in the mid-terms, didn't they?
What is the Democrat's position anyway? They play every side of the fence that it's impossible to tell anymore. Do they want it funded?, do they want to defund it? Do they want the troops home now, in six months, by the end of 2008, the beginning of 2009, when? They are all over the map, they can't committ, they can't be pinned down, they block this and send that through.
If they'd pull down their collective fingers out of the political wind and take a stand, make a decision and stick with it - we'd all be thankful.
I'll use small words, so that you'll understand.
1) They do not want to risk the republican's stupidity/stubboress resulting in leaving over 100,000 troops over there w/o money, food, ammo, gas, etc... Since that would be the likely result, (base on W's steadfastness) they won't de-fund the war. Besides it's not about the money, it's about bringing the troops home. Which leads me to...
2) They want to bring the tropps sometime. In other words - they want at least a plan to bring them home, as opposed to just leaving them there forever, which appears to be the republican's current plan.
It's not that hard to understand, but it's a complicated issue, so I'm sure you righties don't understand the nuance. You see, this issue (like EVERY issue, in fact) is not Black & White. Life is often (always, actually) more complex than that. So try to keep up.
Tommy - What is the Republican's position?
Stay the course? Spend more of taxpayers money?
I'm not sure what you guys are trying to accomplish over there, I thought we wanted to overthrow Saddam, and we did.
I am not a Republican, so ask one who is. This topic is about Congressional Democrats. which is what I addressed.
You aren't a Republican, you aren't a Democrat, I guess you want us to consider you a nonpartisan observer, huh?
I have another take. You are a gutless coward, happy to toss out questions but never, EVER taking responsibility for providing any answers, because after all, you are Nonpartisan and Just Asking Questions.
Give me a fricking break. Glenn Beck has already trademarked the "I'm just sayin' what everybody's thinkin'" line. If you don't have anything to offer, you have no business accusing others of lacking ideas.
So, one needs to tie themselves to either the Republican or Democratic party otherwise they are gutless cowards? I would say the gutless cowards are those that blindly follow some party line because it's far easier than independent thought......so take your frickin' break back, your silly admonition doesn't impress me in the least.
This topic is about the double-standard to which congressional Democrats and senatorial Republicans, who both blocked bills to fund the troops.
The difference in the bills, and the positions of Democrats and Republicans, was that the bill the Republicans blocked included plans to start withdrawing troops.
Since you didn't catch that, I'll try to summarize it for you by paraphrasing the position of Democrats (and a majority of Americans):
"Get out as quickly and as safely as possible."
i've asked tommy several times who he voted for in the last two elections, and he's always told me none of my business. but why shouldn't we know, when he spouts off on here constantly?
Tommy, you'd be hard pressed to find a Dem voter to disagree with you. That is why Congress' approval numbers are so low.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Tommy, you are repeating yourself, and I've been so patient.
Joe Biden has had a proposal on the table since 2004, Chris Dodd has had a similar position for force redeployment, and de-privatization of logistics. Edwards has a redeployment plan that would be an immediate end to the occupation, and the burden of security laid at the feet of the Iraqi Army.
These are some of the plans, I have always wanted to believe that if an invasion of Iraq had to happen, that we would have used our best people, had our best allys, and went with the force needed, the 500,000 troops that would have closed the deal.
Atleast read the "12 board feet" of State Department Plan for Regime Change.
Tommy, the truth is that a draft would be needed, that would be a deal killer for the Republicans. The Republicans were used by the Texas Oil Men in the White House to make an Exxon Mobil/Bp deal with the American blood, and American Taxpayer dollars.
That if there was to be American Taxpayer dollars to be made it was going to be Republican loyalists that will make them. I remember the arrogance of the news items of Pentagon Contractors in a state of glee as Rumsfeldt was insulting the French, and the Germans for staying on the sidelines.
The truth is the Neo-Cons didn't want to share the oil, and the reconstruction riches with anyone!
The Democrats complete control of Congress & the White House is the only way that any chance of restoring our constitutional representative democracy, and that is the paramount issue in '08.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I think the Democrat's position on the war can be found in the words of Abraham Lincoln on the subject of funding the Mexican/American War: "The Locos are untiring in their efforts to make the impression that all who vote supplies or take part in the war do of necessity approve the President's conduct in the beginning of it; but the Whigs [2] have from the beginning made and kept the distinction between the two. In the very first act nearly all the Whigs voted against the preamble declaring that war existed by the act of Mexico; and yet nearly all of them voted for the supplies"
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Lincoln-Douglas Debates were a great source of quotes, and opine for war indeed, as well having a element of context in this debate, but not enough to make this quote applicable.
1. Mexico is a bordering nation even then before we annexed the Texas Territories.
2. Mexican-American War was in response to Mexican agression on American soil, we had more than reasonable cause.
Hard to make these points in support of the Dems or the Republicans position, and it seems to me that both sides could posture on that quote.
I would have a hard time believing that George W. Bush would be able to articulate such a quote without making a complete gaff!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
The American People are on the losing side of this one. The Liar in Chief is yet again using the troops as political leverage. Let's face it, this war has been a cash cow for companies like KBR, CACI, Titan, Halliburton and Blackwater to name but a few. I would bet dollars to donuts that Bush is more concerned about the money for his contractor friends - because he needs to get as much $$$$ to them as possible before he leaves office and the Dems come in and cut off the contractor welfare subsidies.
I would like to know exactly what this $50 billion is to be used for, but you know what -that will never happen. Bush has funded this whole war on the sly with absolutely no spending oversight or control. This war's funding was never put into the regular budget because then it would be scrutinized.
This is yet another political ploy, shrub's political theater to make the dems look bad for holding up money W claims is for the troops - yeah the troops of his sycophant, contractor buddies getting rich off of this war.
I seriously doubt a large portion of this money will actually go towards the actual US MIlitary troops.
Why is no media outlet asking this question of W...then we could all watch him stammer, yammer, stumble bumble and smirk, and then lean forward and lie right to our faces.
First they force poor George W. into invading Iraq and now they won't pay for it.
Damned Democrats!
Not only that, WorrierKing, they've got the Republicans all confused.Are they supposed to be slamming the Dems for not following through on their promise to work at getting out of Iraq,or for following through too quickly?
Apparently, the old standby- Republicans get themselves confused, therefore,Democrats are confusing.
I know. Leave it to the Republicans to turn an absolute disaster of their own creation into a no-win stuation for the Democrats. Say what you will, those Pub's are brilliant politician's. ;)
Exactly. One reason the Democrats are having trouble articulating a coherent solution for Iraq is that the REPUBLICANS have created such a horrible friggin' mess over there. I've heard more than one foreign policy wonk say that there are NO GOOD SOLUTIONS available to us in Iraq. Why do you think Turdblossom is trying to pin it on Congress?
I prefer brilliant propagandists. In the pursuit of holding on to power, the Repubs have lying and obscuring down to a sad art.
"I prefer brilliant propagandists."
Wow. You must be a lot less jaded than I am. You're right, of course, but I didn't mean the word "politician" to be complimentary! ;)
The Democrats have once again allowed themselves to be outmaneuvered by Bush's puppeteers. Even if the surge is working, as they claim, Iraq is still FUBAR. It's like putting a fire out after it's burned the house to the ground, then patting yourself on the back for saving the foundation. Besides, they've been caught before fudging the numbers to make things look better. How do we know they aren't doing it again? Is anyone keeping track of how many Iraqis our new Sunni "allies" are killing? Just curious.
The NeoClowns have successfully snuffed any discussion of the propriety of invading Iraq in the first place. That's all in the past, and likely to stay there, since th GOP owns the press.
The whole "the surge is working" line is more deflection. The surge was a tactic that was intended to give the Iraqi government a chance at standing on its own two feet. Instead of doing that, though, the Iraqi government went on vacation.
It doesn't matter if the "surge" tactic worked. The overall plan didn't. That evil Liberal media sure dropped the ball on that.
Nerzog,
I don't understand your preoccupation with the past. I suggest an immediate withdrawal with that obsession. By staying the course you are only opening yourself up to continued defeat.. unless of course you can change the past. :-)
Thanks for the concession that the the surge might be working. I look at that as progress.
I do agree that the Democrats have once again allowed them to be outmaneuvered. However I think you give Bush puppeteers too much credit. My own opinion is that now that the surge is working, the Democrats investment in defeat will lead them to defeat in 08. However lots can happen between now and then. It'll be interesting to watch.
It is certain that the rightwings investment in getting as many Americans killed as they possibly can is not looking to good to Americans. The rest of your post is the usual delusion.
AA digs himself a deep whole then starts screaming at anyone that comes by that they are irresponsible for not getting him out of his whole WHILE HE IS STILL DIGGING. He doesnt understand our obsession with the past. Just get him out of the hole while HE CONTINUES TO DIG. Why are we obsessed with asking him why the heck he dug himself into a deep whole and why is he still digging? AA is in serious need of an increased medication regime
Preoccupation with the past? Interesting. I would think that a conservative would want people to be held accountable for their actions. Am I wrong? Is that a "preoccupation with the past"? Next time I get a speeding ticket, I'm going to tell the judge that he's preoccupied with the past. That should be fun.
Hey, I'll concede that the surge concept works. Now explain to me how we can "surge" the whole country and how we can stop things turning back into bloody sectarian violence once we stop surging.
Better hope someone can figure that out soon because our armed forces are getting very close to the limit of their ability to continue with the surge tactic.
Oh, I do concede that the surge "might" be working, but I also concede that they may be lying to us...again. I also concede that even if the surge does "work", there are still millions of displaced Iraqi refugees, about 100,000 Iraqis killed in the war, their infrastructure is in shambles, they have no central government to speak of, and the country is divided into armed factions that hate each other. Is that a "success"?
Also, there are still a too large number (36 this month) of US military casualties to blithely dance around the "victory" of the surge. Unless that number gets down to big fat zero, ask the families of those dead if the surge is "working" for them.
Okay, the surge worked so I guess it's time to bring home the troops right? No...what's the problem?
Iraq is a disaster, we continue to spend 14 billion a month and we only have a small number of casualties, hmmm. still is a never ending disaster delivered to America by the Repugs.
i heard this guy on the radio. Ssounds like one of the few with balls.
Here’s what’s going on in the real world:
Moderate Islamic governments from Egypt to Pakistan are joining in a peace conference promoted by the Bush administration. Purpose: How to eradicate the Islamists who are out-of-their-minds crazy about imposing their will on umpteen billion Muslims and infidels around the world.
A huge grass roots political movement among Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq has taken root and is running the Al Qaeda types out of their neighborhoods - WAY ahead of what’s going on in the Al Malaki government, who, like most politicians are scrambling to catch up with the grass roots efforts of those who voted them into power. Those Al Qaeda and other foreign fighters that won’t leave the neighborhoods are being fingered by their neighbors for elimination by either Iraqi troops or locals defending their neighborhoods against these hoods. (Coalition troops are sitting back enjoying the show and calling in air strikes when needed to help dispatch the bad guys - and getting bored out of their skulls with inaction, but having fun playing soccer and handing out candy etc. to the local kids).
…and in the meantime back here in the good old US of A
The Bush administration heart has been warmed by the turn-around in the EU with the election of conservative governments in both France and Germany (Hey, folks, enough is enough with socialism and its negative effect on economics and human dignity).
Some congressional Democrats, notably Pelosi and Reid, are still in denial about whether or not we are even in a war and sticking to their story line that “All is lost in Iraq. The voters want us out of their and the troops want to come home”. Unfortunately, one of their stalwarts, John Murtha, has acknowledge that the surge is working (Pelosi and Reid have apparently worked him over for that since he’s tried to put a more party-favorable slant on his misstatement). Truth is the voters know what this war is about and don’t want to see the U.S. defeated in Iraq or anywhere else, and the troops are all volunteers and they didn’t join up to be coddled like someone on welfare. Our military sons and daughters love the country, believe in the mission, are proud of their service, and are totally and thoroughly pissed off with both the Democrat party and the main stream (well, not quite anymore given the lost readership/viewership) media.
The Reid/Pelosi stall in the congress on funding for the troops is about to backfire as the pentagon will be forced to cut budgets elsewhere (can you spell “layoffs of government workers” and delays in funding to defense contractors?) in order to maintain the momentum to victory. (Democrats in the back room are fretting, no doubt, that this is likely to backfire driving the approval of congress from single digits to a fraction of a digit).
The Democrat party is invested in defeat and many of them know it and would like to figure out how to turn this around (Leiberman was right, Democrats!). Watch for more Democrat party anti-war legislation defeats in the congress, continued low polling for congressional Democrats and an eleven month scramble as Democrat party ’08 candidates attempt to reverse course in an effort to convince the voting public (whom they consider to be a bunch of rubes) that they are not really on the side of Islamists, socialist, and communists after all - they just hate George Bush.
… and right here on this blog, many of you will point out fringe statistics to refute all of this. It won’t represent the large momentum of events in favor of SANITY in the world, but it’ll make you feel better about your “convictions”.
That was very good typing, Oldmarine. Now have the nurse help you to bed.
But before you go, here's a comic strip that you reminded me of. Enjoy!
Hey old manine...it's the DEMOCRATIC PARTY..get it right.
Oldmarine, you'll have to do better than that if you want to convince me that you know anything about SANITY in the world.
BTW, seen the election returns from Australia?
You really love your delusional fantasies dont you?
Point one: Yes its true the Iraqis dont like AQ just like us lefties have told you all along while you argued we had to keep getting Americans killed in Iraq or they would become an Al Queda state. Just one more example of us being right and you being wrong that you try to turn into revisionist history.
Point two: If you really believe that Europe is going to turn its back on its social programs and become a laisse faire economy you are delusional WAIT, we are talking about YOU of course you are delusional. By OUR standards a conservative government is like the Democrats here. As lefty as I am I would be a moderate in most of Europe ESPECIALLY France.
Point three: The voters DO want the troops home. Lie to yourself as much as you want about that its a plain fact. There is still nothing close to any political solutions in Iraq a lull in the violence doesnt change that. Everything that we can do militarily has been done long ago and we cant HELP with the political solutions, as an occupier we have no credibility on the issue. You ReNAMBLAcans are still so invested in getting as many Americans killed as you possibly can in your warmonger lust so see people DIE but it really isnt going over that well with Americans.
72% of the Troops WANT to come home within a year. You WISHING it were otherwise wont make it so. No one but the warmongers who love seeing Americans DIE still support your position. I see you are still so STUPID you dont even know the NAME of the largest political party in the US.
Are you REALLY arguing that we need to keep the war goig in order to keep jobs? I know you guys will use ANY excuse to get Americans killed but THAT is ridiculous.
I see you ReNAMBLAcans are still invested in getting as many Americans killed as you possibly can. You just LOVE to see Americans DIE. Its a good time for the OldMarine when Americans are dying and you just dont want us to end your fun.
The hate Bush talking point is just STUPID, like you. We argue against the policies and you cant answer the arguments so you make up any old stupid thing to say then stick with saying it over and over and over and OVER again as IF it made sense like that demented pink bunny in the vain hope it will magically become true. Then again you ONLY know what you believe after Rush tells you what it is then you are stuck repeating it because you have no HOPE of actually thinking for yourself. Its sad and pathetic for you Limborg Hiveminders.
Point four. Well EXCUUUUSE us for actually bringing FACTS into the discussion. What were we thinking you dont need no stinking facts the hivemind TOLD you what to believe. I guess it makes you feel better about your STUPIDITY.
--------------------
----------
----------A person—by his/hers own standards -- that is considered mature—honest-- and capable to be elected for public office becomes confident enough to submit to the rigors of trolling for contributions to spend for buying favor –that is ,--votes to be put in said office. Thus, since,---how many years past ?—‘money ‘ then, donated to political candidates for public office of one kind or another has become the designated ‘prostitute’ in the campaign trail; is the prime candidate of such groups then considered - ‘ the principal pimp’ ? -That is,-- by giving use of donated money to others of like disposition:---as gift,--thus buying and expecting; -in this instance-- return favor of positive numbers to be elected. -----frankCC –©…123007
--------------