House GOP Leaders Threaten To Vote Against Money For Troops

[Psychoblues]

It’s time for the roosters to come home to roost.


“Okay, so here's the state of play in the House right now with regard to the coming showdown between Congressional Dems and the White House over the war.

The House GOP leadership has now unveiled its response to the news this morning that House Dems are coming together behind an approach to the soon-to-be-voted-on spending bill that would bring the troops home if the Iraqi government fails to reduce violence there. House GOP leaders say that if Dems try to attach any conditions to the war spending bill, Republicans in the House may vote against it:

The House minority leader threatened Thursday to get his members to vote against a $96.3 billion spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if Democrats persist in plans to attach conditions to the money that would tell President Bush how to conduct the wars.

This is interesting -- now it's the House Republican leadership who is threatening to vote against funding the troops. The same Republican leadership which, behind House GOP leader John Boehner, has been demanding that Dems show full support for funding the troops, lest they be accused of not supporting them.”


More: http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/b...ney_for_troops


You can sit on an empty nest and never crack an egg. That is a fact.

[Gunny]

It’s time for the roosters to come home to roost.


“Okay, so here's the state of play in the House right now with regard to the coming showdown between Congressional Dems and the White House over the war.

The House GOP leadership has now unveiled its response to the news this morning that House Dems are coming together behind an approach to the soon-to-be-voted-on spending bill that would bring the troops home if the Iraqi government fails to reduce violence there. House GOP leaders say that if Dems try to attach any conditions to the war spending bill, Republicans in the House may vote against it:

The House minority leader threatened Thursday to get his members to vote against a $96.3 billion spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if Democrats persist in plans to attach conditions to the money that would tell President Bush how to conduct the wars.

This is interesting -- now it's the House Republican leadership who is threatening to vote against funding the troops. The same Republican leadership which, behind House GOP leader John Boehner, has been demanding that Dems show full support for funding the troops, lest they be accused of not supporting them.”


More: http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/b...ney_for_troops


You can sit on an empty nest and never crack an egg. That is a fact.

The GOP is threatening to not support the Dem's plan to cut and run. The troops in the field will be funded regardless.

Not even a poor attempt at spreading a lie, psycho.

[Psychoblues]

Correction, gunny, the pukes are aligning themselves to de-fund the troops because they have problems with the conditions of the bill. The "bill" proposes no such thing at all as somehow "de-funding" the troops!!!!!!

The GOP is threatening to not support the Dem's plan to cut and run. The troops in the field will be funded regardless.
Not even a poor attempt at spreading a lie, psycho.

Read it and weep. The pukes are on the WRONG side of this argument!!!!!!!

[gabosaurus]

Why do Republicans hate the troops?

[Hobbit]

You're both full of crap. The reason the appropriations bill is being opposed is because the Democrats tacked on a timetable for surrender on it, and that's it. They've been using the troops for their own political gain for years, and now they're hiding behind them. Spineless twits.

[Psychoblues]

Really? Each time that President Bill Clinton used the troops (1993 - 2001 era) the pukes screamed bloody murder!!!! It now seems his (Bill Clinton's) War on Terror was correct and the pukes can't stand it and they can't have it both ways. Which way are you advocating, hibbit?

You're both full of crap. The reason the appropriations bill is being opposed is because the Democrats tacked on a timetable for surrender on it, and that's it. They've been using the troops for their own political gain for years, and now they're hiding behind them. Spineless twits.

The hypocrisy of the pukes never ceases to amaze me.

[Hobbit]

Really? Each time that President Bill Clinton used the troops (1993 - 2001 era) the pukes screamed bloody murder!!!! It now seems his (Bill Clinton's) War on Terror was correct and the pukes can't stand it and they can't have it both ways. Which way are you advocating, hibbit?

The hypocrisy of the pukes never ceases to amaze me.

They may have opposed going in or how he was doing it, but they shut up when the troops got there and they never claimed that Clinton needed their approval. I don't recall Republicans accusing U.S. troops of atrocities to get mud on Clinton's face in Somalia (his show of cowardice was enough). I don't recall Republicans demanding a timetable for a pullout from Yugoslavia. Your point is idiotic.

[gabosaurus]

Hobbit, why don't you support the troops? You don't want them to be adequately armed and funded? Doesn't matter why you would vote against this piece. Obviously, you are against our brave military troops.
You must hate our country!

[Hobbit]

Hobbit, why don't you support the troops? You don't want them to be adequately armed and funded? Doesn't matter why you would vote against this piece. Obviously, you are against our brave military troops.
You must hate our country!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is EXACTLY why the Democrats attached the troops withdrawal plan to the appropriations bill, so they could say this any time somebody had the balls to oppose their idiocy. Way to be a bunch of jackasses, dems.

[CSM]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is EXACTLY why the Democrats attached the troops withdrawal plan to the appropriations bill, so they could say this any time somebody had the balls to oppose their idiocy. Way to be a bunch of jackasses, dems.

The problem the Dems have with this tactic is that their history betrays them. They are not sincere and every one knows it. In fact, every time they say things like that, it sounds more and more like sarcasm and taunting than true concern for the troops.

[stephanie]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is EXACTLY why the Democrats attached the troops withdrawal plan to the appropriations bill, so they could say this any time somebody had the balls to oppose their idiocy. Way to be a bunch of jackasses, dems.

Hobbit you are so right...

But the American people who matter and really care, know EXACTLY what games the Democrats are playing with our military men and women...

[Psychoblues]

Exactly, Staphy, that's how the pukes held the House and Senate in November of 2006. They would have held the White House just as well given to vote on it in 2006.

Hobbit you are so right...

But the American people who matter and really care, know EXACTLY what games the Democrats are playing with our military men and women...

The American People who really matter and care are not nearly as stupid, naive and repetitiously duped as you are.

This ain't games, Staphy. We are talking about genuine lives, the health of worldwide populations and the very reputation of the American experiment of Democracy and our international responsibilities to exact truth, justice and the very genuine American Way Of Life.

So far, the Republican examples of any of that are failing miserably.

[5stringJeff]

All the GOP uis saynig is that, if the Democrats attach a "poison pill" to the spending bill, they won't sign it. And a timetable for surrender would be a poison pill for sure. Far from not supporting the troops, the GOP's move here would keep the troops from withdrawing on a political timetable and allow them to withdraw when the mission is complete and/or able to be handed over.

[Psychoblues]

As I said earlier in this thread, jeff, "Read it and weep".

All the GOP uis saynig is that, if the Democrats attach a "poison pill" to the spending bill, they won't sign it. And a timetable for surrender would be a poison pill for sure. Far from not supporting the troops, the GOP's move here would keep the troops from withdrawing on a political timetable and allow them to withdraw when the mission is complete and/or able to be handed over.

The pukes are not defending anything as you state. The Dems are not proposing anything as you state. Read the goddamn bill and give it something other than a Foxnoise response.

That ain't asking much but at least consider your ass kicked and kicked very well.

[gabosaurus]

I can't believe that both Stephanie and Hobbit hate our troops. You two need to take the next plane to Iran, so you can hang with your mullah friends.