• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

SezMe

post-pre-born
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
25,183
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
Congress has passed the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and it's on its way to a promised veto. This should make for some fascinating politics that will carry all the way into the heat of summer. Let's follow it here.
 
So what happens next, will the democrats cave?

What about a bill with an "advisory" non-binding timeline?
Is that the next likely step? Would Bush accept that? If not, wouldn't he be the one playing politics if he vetoed a bill with an "advisory" non-binding timeline?

And would Republicans in congress want to stand behind Bush in this?
 
The current bill has a non-binding timeline. I think only two Republican senators voted for the bill (Hagel and someone else). Lieberman voted against it.
 
I guess we've been over this ground before, but the problem I've had from the get go was what defines victory - in concete terms.

Every business has to set goals, hell when I went to get a lousy $50000 business loan I had to write a mission statement and a business plan that spelled out how I planned to spend every red penny and how it was going to turn into profit and when.


While I can understand that we do not want to tell the enemy our plans,
could not the White house submit a plan to congress and the house secretly? Can someone shed some light on whether there is such a mechanism in place?
 
I guess we've been over this ground before, but the problem I've had from the get go was what defines victory - in concete terms.

Every business has to set goals, hell when I went to get a lousy $50000 business loan I had to write a mission statement and a business plan that spelled out how I planned to spend every red penny and how it was going to turn into profit and when.


While I can understand that we do not want to tell the enemy our plans,
could not the White house submit a plan to congress and the house secretly? Can someone shed some light on whether there is such a mechanism in place?

I doubt that congress could keep such a secret if it has political implications.

BTW, the latest poll says that 64% of Americans surveyed agree that "the United States should set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008" compared to 32% against (2:1 for a timetable).

In this recent poll of Iraqis, 70% favor a timetable for withdrawal of US forces, and 47% support attacks on US forces. 67% think security would increase if the US withdrew in 6 months.

So a timetable for withdrawal has wide support among both Americans and Iraqis.
 
I hate politics like this. The Democrats and Bush are engaged in a wrestling match over this funding bill and in the mean time they're causing the funds that would otherwise go to our troops to be held up.


Quixotic Democrats+Stubborn President=More dead troops.

:mad:
 
I doubt that congress could keep such a secret if it has political implications.

BTW, the latest poll says that 64% of Americans surveyed agree that "the United States should set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008" compared to 32% against (2:1 for a timetable).

In this recent poll of Iraqis, 70% favor a timetable for withdrawal of US forces, and 47% support attacks on US forces. 67% think security would increase if the US withdrew in 6 months.

So a timetable for withdrawal has wide support among both Americans and Iraqis.


The only reason Iraqi's think Americans should go is that they are getting in the way of their plans for domination of the country. Shia's want them to go so that they can kill Sunni's and vise versa.
 
The only reason Iraqi's think Americans should go is that they are getting in the way of their plans for domination of the country.

I disagree. Sectarian and ethnic loyalties are stronger than nationalism. When we leave, Iraq will evolve (greased with a lot of blood) into nearly completely isolated fiefdoms based on sectarian criteria.

That said, this thread is about USA politics revolving around the supplemental bill - it is not about Iraqi politics.
 
I disagree. Sectarian and ethnic loyalties are stronger than nationalism. When we leave, Iraq will evolve (greased with a lot of blood) into nearly completely isolated fiefdoms based on sectarian criteria.

That said, this thread is about USA politics revolving around the supplemental bill - it is not about Iraqi politics.

Sectarian and ethnic loyalties are stronger than nationalism. This doesn't mean that the various sects don't want domination of the country. If split into separate countries we would have a genocide on our hands. How would you even split a city as heterogeneous as Baghdad? It's not possible.
 
Congress has passed the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and it's on its way to a promised veto. This should make for some fascinating politics that will carry all the way into the heat of summer. Let's follow it here.
I wonder at the long name. Why not call it what it is?

The War Chest.

DR
 
Congress likes giving bills long and complex names in an attempt to sound serious and sophisticated when in reality they're petty and ignorant.
 
That said, this thread is about USA politics revolving around the supplemental bill - it is not about Iraqi politics.

Sectarian and ethnic loyalties are stronger than nationalism. This doesn't mean that the various sects don't want domination of the country. If split into separate countries we would have a genocide on our hands. How would you even split a city as heterogeneous as Baghdad? It's not possible.

Having trouble with your reading comprehension skills, Dustin?
 
Congress likes giving bills long and complex names in an attempt to sound serious and sophisticated when in reality they're petty and ignorant.

I am sure that you can cite some evidence to support what Congress likes, what they are attempting to do when naming bills, and their pettiness and ignorance.
 
I wonder at the long name. Why not call it what it is?

The War Chest.

Or, more to the point, why is it a "supplemental". Orginally Bush used this budgeting tactic because he said that the costs of the Iraqi War were unknown. But we've been at this War for over four years now and the funding of it is still "off-budget"? Why?

OK, I think we know why. Because if he included the War costs in the annual budget submittal to Congress, it would reveal how utterly devastating this war is to our bottom line.
 
The same poll I cited earlier specifically asks about this very issue:

"Currently, President Bush and Congress disagree about what to do about U.S. troop levels in Iraq. Who do you think should have the final say about troop levels in Iraq: the President or Congress?"
President: 35%; Congress: 57%

BUT, they also think that Congress should yeild to Bush's veto and give him the bill he demands:

"The Democrats in Congress have proposed to fund the Iraq war only if the U.S. sets a timetable for troop withdrawal, too. George W. Bush has stated he will veto that proposal. If George W. Bush does veto it, what should the Democrats in Congress do next: should they try to withhold funding for the war until George W. Bush accepts a timetable for troop withdrawal, or should they allow funding for the war, even if there is no timetable?"
Withhold funding: 36%; Allow funding: 56%

Go figure. So, I guess democrats have an out. Let Bush and the Republicans continue to own this thing until the next election. That seems like the politically prudent course for now until public opinion gets even more anti-war.
 
I hate politics like this. The Democrats and Bush are engaged in a wrestling match over this funding bill and in the mean time they're causing the funds that would otherwise go to our troops to be held up.


Quixotic Democrats+Stubborn President=More dead troops.

:mad:


Wrong. There is funding to last through June.

This back-and-forth is a farce. Everyone knows that the president will veto the bill because he can't be seen as losing face even if the time-line is non-binding. The end result will be the same as before. The president will get what he wants, and the carnage will continue.
 
Remember when the President was using the "It's been 68 days since I sent the request to the hill, and they still haven't approved the money" line?

What he didn't tell you was that, the last time he sent a request to the hill with a REPUBLICAN congress, it took them more than 120 to approve the money.

Actually, I think this congress did it in about 100 days.
 
Wrong. There is funding to last through June.

This back-and-forth is a farce. Everyone knows that the president will veto the bill because he can't be seen as losing face even if the time-line is non-binding. The end result will be the same as before. The president will get what he wants, and the carnage will continue.

I know funding goes through until June. However with this battle going on between congress and Bush congress isn't able to make bills that would send extra money for instance for newer armored vehicles that protect against roadside bombs.
 
Democrats revised bill approved

The House last night pushed through its second plan to fund the Iraq war and reshape war policy, approving legislation that would provide partial funding for the conflict but hold back most of the money until President Bush reports on the war's progress in July.

Coming only a week after the Democrats' first war funding bill was vetoed, the House's 221 to 205 vote defied a fresh veto threat and even opposition from Democrats in the Senate.

"The president has brought us to this point by vetoing the first Iraq Accountability Act and refusing to pay for this war responsibly," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "He has grown accustomed to the free hand on Iraq he had before January 4. Those days are over."

The final tally came just an hour after antiwar Democrats mustered 171 votes for far tougher legislation that would all but end U.S. military involvement in Iraq within nine months. The 255 to 171 vote against that measure meant that nowhere close to a majority backed it, but the fact that 169 Democrats and two Republicans voted for it surprised opponents and proponents alike.

"I didn't think I was going to get anywhere near 171 votes," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), the withdrawal bill's chief author. "This is proof that the United States Congress is getting closer to where the American people already are."

The two votes culminated 24 hours of maneuvering and intrigue.

On Wednesday night, Pelosi offered antiwar liberals a vote on the withdrawal bill after it became clear that she could lose the vote on the war funding bill without that concession.

White House political adviser Karl Rove, furious that Republican moderates had divulged a confrontational meeting they had on Tuesday with Bush on the war, started yesterday with an angry conversation with the meeting's organizer, Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.), according to several GOP lawmakers. Dan Meyer, the White House's chief lobbyist, called the other participants to express the administration's unhappiness.
 

Back
Top Bottom