SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (3031)3/24/2007 8:51:01 PM
From: sandintoes  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 25737
 
The Democrats want pork at home and our military to starve!!!

Bush Vows to Veto Bill to Withdraw U.S. Troops From Iraq by Fall 2008
Saturday , March 24, 2007


House Democrats called for a new direction in Iraq on Friday, passing a measure ordering President Bush to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq by September 2008.

Bush vowed to veto the measure if it makes it to his desk.

"A narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law and brings us no closer to getting our troops the resources they need to do their job," Bush said from the White House Diplomatic Reception Room while joined by family members of veterans and troops in combat.

Bush called on Congress to fund the troops, saying the current bill contains "too much pork, too many conditions."

"The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq."


High-ranked senators also vowed Friday to strip the language from the bill that requires troop withdrawal.

Democrats won passage by a 218-212 vote on the $124 billion war spending bill, which will fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

• Click here to see how your representative voted.

“Today, this Congress faces a historic vote. A vote to truly change the direction of the Iraqi conflict,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., just before the vote.

Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, also called the vote "historic," urging colleagues to vote against the measure.

"Our troops are on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, doing their duty to protect freedom and to end tyranny," House Minority Leader Boehner said. "They're there watching this debate we're having in the House today and wondering, 'Will Congress do its duty? Will Congress stand up and support he mission that I'm in?' "

The vote puts Congress closer to a showdown with the White House over Bush's Iraq policy.

Bush will veto the bill, White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters at Friday's briefing.

"Look, the president's going to veto this bill, and he's going to veto it because even though it provides some funding, it also puts handcuffs on generals, colonels, lieutenant colonels, majors, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, corporals, privates, and everybody else," Snow said.

Most Republicans opposed the Democrats' plan, which also included budget requests not related to war spending.

"What we got instead was a poorly assembled wish list of non-emergency spending requests, wrapped in a date-certain declaration of defeat — a confirmation to our enemies that, if they hang on just a bit longer, we'll be out of their way soon," said Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., told fellow lawmakers a vote against the bill would be a vote against funding for the troops, health care and military families.

“You’re voting against supporting the troops if you’re voting against the money that goes to the troops,” Murtha said.

Bush urged Congress to approve the bill without a timeline during a meeting Thursday with his Iraqi civilian reconstruction team.

"The Congress owes you the money you need to do the job, without any strings attached," he said. "Congress needs to get their business done quickly, get the monies we've requested funded and let our folks on the ground do the job."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned that if Congress fails to pass a measure funding the war efforts by April 15, it will slow down training of troops scheduled for future deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Gates says it would also delay repair of equipment.

Meanwhile, the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday approved a $121 billion version of Bush's emergency war spending request, but bucked the White House by putting in language that sets a date-specific timeframe for withdrawing troops from Iraq.


The Senate bill sets a March 31, 2008, goal for withdrawing all combat troops out of Iraq. The legislation, which also gobs on billions in special projects at home, now heads to the Senate floor for a vote by the full chamber.

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., issued a statement Friday chafing at the administration's veto threat. The Appropriations Committee chairman said the White House was ignoring homeland security problems and the needs of veterans and hurricane victims.

"The president continues to warn that we are a nation at grave risk of terrorist attacks, but he failed to request a single dime for homeland security priorities. The American people are sick and tired of Bush administration bellicosity. The White House ought to stop worrying about its political future, and instead should work with Congress to guarantee the security and economic future of this nation," Byrd said.

The full Senate likely will take up the bill next week, and a number of high-ranked senators said they aim to strip out the withdrawal language through an amendment they will offer Tuesday.

"We're not prepared to tell the enemy, 'Hang on, we'll give you a date when we're leaving.' We're not prepared to micromanage this new strategy ... and surge that's succeeding in Iraq. We're not ready to hamstring our military leaders and not let them carry their responsibilities," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who is co-sponosoring the amemdment.

Joining him, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said, "Deadliens set by Congress in war are deadlines for defeat." McCain and Lieberman were joined by Sens. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's standalone measure to set a timeline for the withdrawal of troops failed last week by a 50-48 vote.

The House measure is unlikely to get through the Senate unchanged, where many Democrats oppose a timetable on the war.

FOX News' Kelly Wright and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

foxnews.com

Senate Democrats Put Troop Withdrawal Timeline in War Spending Bill
Wednesday, March 21, 2007


Senate Democrats have drafted a $121.5 billion war spending bill that would direct President Bush to begin bringing home troops from Iraq with the goal of ending U.S. combat missions there in just over a year.

The provision is similar to a resolution the Senate narrowly rejected last week. It failed on a 50-48 vote, falling 12 votes shy of the 60 needed to pass, after President Bush vowed to veto the legislation.

"United States troops should not be policing a civil war, and the current conflict in Iraq requires principally a political solution," states a copy of the draft bill, obtained by The Associated Press. It would provide Bush with instructions to end combat operations there by March 31, 2008.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., released details to panel members Wednesday in anticipation of a committee vote on the bill on Thursday.

Republicans and even some Democrats are expected to bristle at the inclusion of the Iraq policy provision.

The House is expected to vote Thursday on a $124 billion spending bill that would finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House bill would demand that troops are out of Iraq before September 2008, possibly sooner.

foxnews.com



To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (3031)3/24/2007 11:49:50 PM
From: Mike McFarland  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 25737
 
Well I had beans with dinner, so I expect to
contribute a small amount to global methane
output tonight, ha ha. Can't speak for the other
seven billion people, and their cattle, and
their rice paddies...

<there is no evidence that any portion of the
emission is due to human activity>

If a cow farts in a field and Ground Zero isn't
there to hear it--did it ever happen?

Doesn't matter what you believe anyway. Al Gore
has started a religion and there are more of the
faithful every day. I am mostly ambivalent about
it--but it will affect the election. How much is
real and how much is imagined and how much is
nonsensical hysteria--well it does matter if Americans
start making increasingly stupid choices about it all.

Humans are obviously contributing to the CO2 increase,
and human activities do result in some methane output.
The degree it contributes to global warming is up for
debate (though not by us). Maybe solar output accounts
for 40% of the slight warming of late. And maybe C02
accounts for half, and methane is 10%. It is also possible
that global warming is nothing but a blip in natural
cycles. You and I don't actually know anything, but
I do see the religion beginning.

I don't actually care if Seattle, my city, gets five
90 degree days a summer versus the normal three. And
if there are only fifty good skiing days a winter instead
of eighty, I can cope. So, now you know where I stand.