in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000.
| Free Beacon | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| Power Line | 0 | |
| B’berg | 2012 Watch: Gingrich Seeks to Ease Fundraising Woes as Las Vegas Checks Slowing Down |
0 |
| The Hill | Scandal: Pelosi might have skirted House ethics rules on campaign solicitations |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Gaffetastic:
Vice President Joe Biden had his “oops” moment Wednesday speaking in a 49er-crazed SF when he told a crowd at a city political fundraiser that “the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl.” - SF Chronicle, 1-18-12
Dems offer to unload pork in war supp, but the President is still unsatisfied
The Prez is sticking to his guns:
WASHINGTON — Democratic congressional leaders appeared to blink Friday in presenting the White House with a war funding proposal that did away with billions of dollars in domestic spending opposed by the administration, but President Bush’s aides quickly rejected the offer on the grounds that it contained yet another timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.
“To say I was disappointed in the meeting is an understatement,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “I really did expect the president would accept some accountability for what we’re trying to accomplish here.”
White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten, representing Bush, turned down the Democratic offer that included plans for withdrawing U.S. troops, but would give the president the authority to waive compliance with a timetable.
“We consider that to be not a significant distinction,” Bolten said. “Whether waivable or not, timelines send the wrong signal.”
The Democratic plan also offered to take out billions of dollars of domestic spending included in the emergency supplemental bill.
“The president pummeled the Congress for two weeks because he said that we have inserted so-called domestic items that shouldn’t be in a war bill,” said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis. “So what we offered today to drop all of that – all of those domestic items – and they turned that down.”
Interesting. So I wonder where they planned on getting the necessary votes they needed for the bill’s passage sans pork, considering they had to bribe members of their own party in order to pass the last one in the first place?
RSS feed for comments on this post.
13 Responses to “Dems offer to unload pork in war supp, but the President is still unsatisfied”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Island of Misfit Bloggers
Stats
This will be a real test of the Democrat majority in congress. A number of pundits claimed that much of the Democrat gain in the last election was to moderate Democrats, rather than the wild-eyed followers of Moore and Soros. If that is true, a bill like this the potential to be a wedge issue in the Democrat party. While Pelosi and Reid have other buttons they can push, I suspect we will see some strong-arm tactics using radicals as brownshirt enforcers. A vote-our-way-or-we-will-help-defeat-you strategy is certainly on Pelosi’s palette.
Well it was 43′s decision to veto the last bill which would’ve properly funded our servicemembers. He shot it down. Now once again the Democratically elected Congress is giving him ANOTHER oppurtunity to do the right thing and he is flipping them the middle finger.It is just sad that he refuses to realize the reality of what is going on over in the sandbox. May God have mercy on his soul when he is 6 feet under dirt. Cause he better hope so if not he’s going to wind up in he double hockey sticks.
Um, tommy, as someone who just admitted recently that he helped fund a woman’s abortion, I really don’t think you’re in any position to judge what will happen when someone else goes ‘six feet under.’
A vote-our-way-or-we-will-help-defeat-you strategy is certainly on Pelosi’s palette.
I think you’re right, the strong arm tactics will be out in force, they showed their hand with the way they treated Lieberman in the last election. Of course, that didn’t work out quite the way they wanted it to, but it’s unlikely they will change their ways. I expect that a lot of the pressure, however, will be lower key and not so public, as I think they realize that their very visible hysterics over Lieberman probably hurt them by alienating the middle and independents.
:
( Well I just about to break out of work at the moment but I’m just wondering why ST is ticked off at me>????? As far as the higher power upstairs I think I’m going to purgatory for awhile and I deserve to be there also. In no way shape or form have I done proper or Christian thing. On the other hand I have not treated my fellow neighbor maliciliously. Or hurtful. Or mean. And for the record I haven’t smoked the wacky-tobaccy in the past several weeks.
no kidding and enjoy the weekend folks.
And they complained that he had not used his veto …
By George, he’s gonna do it!
The POTUS told the dems what he would and would not accept. Why do they keep thinking he’ll just back down? Do they think he’s that stu— oh, wait they haven’t figured that out in 7 years.
In the meantime our soliders continue to suffer. The american public is not going to stand for it, that is if the news ever bothers to report on it.
Gag… reflex… tickled… must fight urge to vomit…
As Vegas Art Guy suggested, offering up a plan that the president has already stated he would oppose is just a lame Dem tactic to make it appear that Bush doesn’t want to fund the troops. If they were serious about their “support” for the troops, they’d offer a proposal with nothing in it but the funding. As bad as the practice is of adding lines the prez can’t veto in order to bribe him into giving them what they want, this is absolutely heinous in that it puts our troops and their mission in jeopardy. Stop playing games, Dems! Fund the troops and take your games elswhere!
But Marshall, they don’t WANT to fund the troops. Their strategy I think is to keep sending bills the POTUS will veto until they have to come home with their tail between their legs.
Nice, huh?
It seems that the US is stuck in a quagmire ….. in Baltimore! Rising murder rates have caused a city council leader in that to city to call for a lockdown of dangerous parts of the city. No one is calling it a “surge” – yet.
I love this snarky comment:
Three questions in reference to my previous post:
1. Should we get involved in the civil wars in murder and crime-infested cities like Baltimore? After all, we never received international approval for our continuing occupation of Baltimore.
2. Are the drug dealers, gang members, rapists, murderers, robbers, muggers, and car-jackers in these cities criminals – or insurgents? For Americans who take the MSM’s reporting on Iraq seriously, obviously it has to be the latter.
3. By occupying Baltimore and other major US cities, are we not making enemies faster than we can kill them?
MD brilliant!
You go MD, forest is corret and tommy in nyc, who are you pulling for in this war, the US or the terrorists? Sounds like the latter to me.