Democrats' Innocent Bystander Fable
Democrats in both the House and the Senate try to claim to be the champions of the American people. They continually portray the war as lost, Bush's war etc.
The above video shows the true hypocrisy of the Democrats and their stance on the war. They have the power to cut funding at any time which would force the President to bring troops home because of lack of money to continue the fight.
I of course do not advocate this because ending this war as Democrats claim they are , "trying, " to do with their continual surrender measures and amendments would be an invitation for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to attack this nation again or another western nation that the enemy sees as infidels deserving of death.
Democrats are using the war as a political football for the sole purpose of destroying the Bush Presidency, turning the American people against the troops, the fight and making this country more vulnerable to attack.
Good news in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else that we fight Islamic fascists is bad news for Democrats because their lies are revealed by the actions of the enemy.
This video proves their true agenda. They are not serious about ending the war just political grand standing to entice votes anger Americans and gain power in Washington by berating the President and our military.
This is the liberal lie ! This is the truth about who they are and what their real motives are. Their power grab socialist agenda is dangerous for America and the world.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 11:33 AM
11 Comments:
Ken, the Dems don't have the votes in the Senate to cut off funding. There is a majority, but the Republicans keep filibustering the measure. There has to be 60 votes to end a filibuster. So much for allowing "up-or-down votes" when there is a majority supporting a measure.
I'm sure Karl Rove and W. are really glad Frist didn't try to implement the "nuclear option." Otherwise, there would be no way for the minority of Republicans in the Senate to stop the majority Dems and the handful of Republicans with the procedural rules.
Besides, even if they got 60 votes for a cloture vote, they would need 67 votes to overcome the presidential veto that would no doubt happen.
It is critical that GW stand firm to democrats and weak-kneed republicans who want to scuttle his war against terror and bring disgrace to America.
Robert Miller
http://king.george.bush.googlepages.com/home
Rob, the Constitution states that all military funding for war can last no more than two years. After two years it must come for a vote to continue funding.
If the Congress does not continue funding then that is that period. It does not take a 60 vote anything. The measure would start in the House and if passed to defund then that ends the debate.
The Senate at that point can only amend and not change the lack of appropriation since any revenue bill statrs in the House. If they cut funding the Senate cannot change that.
Rob, the Constitution states that all military funding for war can last no more than two years. After two years it must come for a vote to continue funding.
If the Congress does not continue funding then that is that period. It does not take a 60 vote anything. The measure would start in the House and if passed to defund then that ends the debate.
The Senate at that point can only amend and not change the lack of appropriation since any revenue bill statrs in the House. If they cut funding the Senate cannot change that.
From what I've read, Ken, Rob is right. Thank goodness it takes 67 votes to overturn a presidential veto!
In my mind, the Republicans who side with the Democrats on this are even worse than the Democrats!
It only requires 60 or 2/3 of the Senate to override a VETO not 67.
Additionally the Dems have not ever put forth a bill to cut funding only tagged approprations bills that are for funding with withdrawal measures..
Great Video and Post Ken,
I have to agree with Robert Miller up there.
He took the words right out of my mouth.
Ken, 67 is 2/3. Sixty is 3/5.
Sixty votes are required to kill a filibuster, but 67 are required to override a veto.
The war is fully funded through the next several months ($100 billion more was appropriated about 2 months ago). Congress cannot now defund that without the 60 votes in the Senate to kill the filibuster, and then the 2/3 majority to override a veto. For that reason, there is not going to be a defunding for months.
However, you are correct, Congress can hold back any future funding for the war. This could affect operations in November or December, but won't have any impact right now.
But, like I said in the earlier thread, if Congress defunded the War, Bush would just leave our guys out in Iraq, let the money run out, and then blame Congress. He is so stubborn that he would not bring the soldiers home. That is why there needs to be an orderly, bi-partisan agreement, that is the law that lays out the timetable. De-funding the war and risking Bush not pulling the soldiers back is not the way to end the occupation.
But, like I said in my earlier post on the other thread, September will roll around and the lack of progress in Iraq will lead many more Republicans to call for an end to the occupation in its current form.
Thank you Rob, in my haste to post my comment I did not read it through. I meant 2/3 is the Constitutional rquirement for override which is 67.
60 is needed for a filibuster which is a Senate rule along with the filibuster itself.
I disagree also with you contention that Bush would leave troops in harms way if Congress dried up the money.
Yes and rightfully so he would blame the Congress but only a sadistic monstor would leave them to figth without the means to protect himself.
I don't think you even believe that. He would pull them from harms way awhile stating that the Congress caused this and then fight for refunding.
Of course when the entire country exploded I think even a pain in the neck Congress would return funding but the trouble now would be that more would die as a result sinc ethe fight would escallate afetr the troops left and our soldiers would then have to clean up the mess.
The Dems in Congress are not going to leave it to chance and see what Bush would do without funding. I honestly have no idea what he would do.
That said, I think we need an orderly exit. That will happen when there is bi-partisan agreement on a timetable for redeployment. My guess is that the September report will not be very good - the fact that Iraqi politicians are going to take a break for the month of August while our soldiers die is not very encouraging.
When that happens, many Republicans who have been waiting to see what happens in September will recognize how bad Bush's occupation continues to be and will join with the Dems to end the occupation.
My feeling is, September is too soon a date, anyway. And with that date announced, you can rest assured that our enemies in Iraq will make the month of September a bloodbath to affect public opinion and sway weak-willed Republicans.
Post a Comment
<< Home