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.
Bush took a sledgehammer to their skulls this afternoon where he flat out told them, them being the defeatocrats, that they will not prevail.
The WaPo did a good job of describing this new strategy:
The Democrats claim to have a mandate from voters to reverse the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq. Yet the leadership is ready to piece together the votes necessary to force a fateful turn in the war by using tactics usually dedicated to highway bills or the Army Corps of Engineers budget. The legislation pays more heed to a handful of peanut farmers than to the 24 million Iraqis who are living through a maelstrom initiated by the United States, the outcome of which could shape the future of the Middle East for decades.
They had to add 20 billion dollars worth of pork to get this passed by the slimmest of majorities and they really believe they have a mandate. What planet do these nimrods inhabit I wonder?
I mean come on, anyone with any common sense understands this bill was just a offering to the Democrats masters, hoping they will be satiated for a bit. But one politician took Mr. Cut and Run himself to task. Mr John Murtha, the man every Marine is ashamed to have to admit was a Marine, was taken to the mat by Sam Johnson today and it’s a must see:
The Senate will remove the timeline, and most likely much of the pork, so it will get signed into law. Lieberman will not side with the Democrats on this one and they know it. So in the end what was accomplished?
Dan Riehl thinks he knows:
Putting aside the dubious Constitutionality of the bill that may or may not be tested, it will need to survive the Senate and a possible veto first, is it really a victory when individuals who never voted to fund the war now vote for to fund it, knowing their rationale for doing so is going to be immediately stripped away?
I’m telling ya, nothing but theater. Go ahead you nimrods, celebrate the passing of this bill, burn a few soldier effigy’s and have a big friggin party with a 12 foot bong…..
Your attacks against this country and our soldiers does not go unnoticed.
Club For Growth calls out a few freshman politicians who ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility:
The Club for Growth denounced the 218 Democrats and 2 Republicans in the House of Representative who voted for the Iraq supplemental spending bill, containing $24 billion worth of wasteful pork-barrel projects. The Club specifically singled out freshmen Democratic Representatives Nancy Boyda (KS-2); Heath Schuler (NC-11); Nick Lampson (TX-22); Tim Mahoney (FL-22); and Harry Mitchell (AZ-5) who won their House seats on a campaign to restore fiscal responsibility to Congress and cut out earmarks. Instead these politicians caved to political pressure, throwing American taxpayers under the bus on their way down.
Ace of Spades HQ with a much needed history lesson:
Anyone remember the media firestorm over Tom DeLay’s promises of porks, and threats about payback, in regards to the passage of the prescription medicine bill?
So if I have this right: It’s wrong for a Republican Majority Leader to cut side-deals and make threats regarding the passage of a purely domestic social welfare bill — so wrong the media was all but calling for a federal investigation — but it’s okay for a Democratic Speaker of the House to do precisely the same to secure a bill about war?
Do I have that right?
Yup, you have that right….
- The Strata-Sphere
- Hang Right Politics
- Airborne Combat Engineer
- Atlas Shrugs
- A Blog For All
- The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
- Right Wing Champ
- Jammie Wearing Fool
- Sweetness & Light
- Dumb Looks Still Free
- The Jawa Report
- Don Surber
- Gateway Pundit
- Michelle Malkin
- Say Anything
- Hot Air
- Little Green Footballs