Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
VFW and American Legion weigh in on the veto
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, May 02, 2007

I highlight these because I think, for the most part, they probably reflect, as well as any, the thinking of the majority of the veteran community:
The national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. (VFW) said President Bush's veto yesterday of a $124 billion war funding bill should have come as no surprise to any American.

"Everybody knew going in that the president would veto any funding package that contained artificial troop withdrawal dates," said the VFW's Gary Kurpius, who is again reminding Congress that the time to debate the war in Iraq is not in the funding package that keeps American troops alive.

"The war is in Iraq and Afghanistan, not on Capitol Hill," he said. "Our troops are fighting a very eal and very dangerous enemy. It's a mission we sent them on, and it's a mission they want to complete. The very least we can do is to give them a chance to succeed by providing them the funding and patience they are requesting."

Kurpius is now calling for both branches of government and their political parties to put aside their differences and do what's best for the troops from the troops' perspective.

"The administration must recognize that the new Congress is exercising its legitimate oversight powers to ensure they have a voice in the conduct of America's wars," he said.

"Similarly, Congress must also recognize that there is only one commander-in-chief of our armed forces - and both sides must clearly understand that our military comes from and belongs to the American people, not to the Democratic or Republican Party."
IOW, the political points have been made, time to leave the politics behind and fund the troops.

The Commander of the American Legion was much less nuanced in his response:
"Sad but necessary," was the way The National Commander of The American Legion Paul A. Morin described President Bush's veto earlier today of an Iraq war-spending bill that included timelines for withdrawing troops from the region.

"The American Legion is glad that the president vetoed this irresponsible legislation but saddened that Congress let it get this far," Morin said. "First the House passed a blueprint for disaster and then the Senate passed a recipe for surrender. There can only be one commander in chief and he should be the one to determine when the mission is complete."

Morin said it is essential that Congress immediately pass a bill that the president can sign - one that contains the necessary funding but not the deadlines. "The troops need Congress to fund their mission. It is immoral for Congress to approve a military mission and then not want to pay for it once the troops are in harm's way. You can not possibly say `I support the troops but I don't want to pay for their bullets, beans and billeting while in combat.'"
Reading between the lines, I think Democrats risk some serious political blowback if they continue to play games with this funding package.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
You seem to be placing a lot of the blame for this on the democrats, but I think that in this case the blame is shared by the republicans as well. I think it is unfair of you to categorize this as only the Democrats playing games.

If George Bush had included the necessary military funding in his original budget requests, this supplemental bill would not be required.

Also, if the republican congress of 2006 had deigned to approve the necessary budgets for 2007 while they were in office, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. So, there were actions that republican congress members as well as the president could have taken before the democratic congress came into power that would have completely negated the current funding issue. The fact that they refused to take them, and are now blaming the democrats for this crisis is well, lets say, interesting.

Also the president has chosen to take a hard line non negotiable stance on the war. I do not understand why the only possible options here are a bill that gives George Bush yet another Carte Blanche, or a bill that demands a near immediate withdrawl. Surely the two groups could work together to find a compromise for our troops. Something that requires some accountability on the part of the president and his generals, but does not give a clear timeline.

I think the democrats could be doing more to find a compromise, but based on how we arrived at this point I don’t think it is fair to treat the Bush administration and republicans as though they are blameless.
 
Written By: Shinobi
URL: http://liesandstatistics.blogspot.com
Well, first, writing about the reaction of the VFW and American Legion doesn’t equal "the Republicans are blameless".

Secondly, I’m not a journalist, I’m a blogger, and thus being "fair" isn’t a particular priority, nor my job.
You seem to be placing a lot of the blame for this on the democrats, but I think that in this case the blame is shared by the republicans as well. I think it is unfair of you to categorize this as only the Democrats playing games.
It has been clear from the beginning that timelines were unacceptable. It is and always has been a non-negotiable point. Yet knowing it was a no-go from the beginning, they sent a DOA bill to the president claiming he should sign it and essentially held the funding hostage to that demand.

Additionally, Democrats have played games with passage (do it right before a two week recess and then don’t appoint conferees to the committee until after they return, precluding any work on preparing the bill for final passage until after they returned) and delaying its delivery until they could make a political statement with the "mission accomplished" nonsense.

Oh, and then the Speaker delayed it further so she could ’read’ it (saying she’d voted for it before reading it ... how nice).

Those are ’games’.

And back to the 1st law of politics - perception is reality - the folks I cite above perceive it as the Democrats playing games, not the Republicans, and it is that and its consequences the Democrats risk if they continue to screw with this bill.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
they sent a DOA bill to the president claiming he should sign it and essentially held the funding hostage to that demand.
Don’t forget all that pork that was packed in to make the real cost of the bill excessive and beyond.
 
Written By: cap joe
URL: http://
The shame of it all is that Bush would have signed it with the pork, except for the timeline. Of course, had the Republicans learned that lesson, they’d still control both houses of Congress...

Maddeningly, the Democrats are turning out to be just as corrupt. (Yes, we mean you, Senator Feinstein.)
 
Written By: MarkD
URL: http://
If George Bush had included the necessary military funding in his original budget requests, this supplemental bill would not be required.
Predicting what things will cost is not always easy.
Also, if the republican congress of 2006 had deigned to approve the necessary budgets for 2007 while they were in office, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
We can also blame the American voters for this I suppose; they made the mistake of voting for Democrats. Americans should have know that the Democrats would pull this c**p.
Also the president has chosen to take a hard line non negotiable stance on the war. I do not understand why the only possible options here are a bill that gives George Bush yet another Carte Blanche, or a bill that demands a near immediate withdrawl.
Timetables are simply unacceptable.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"...the Democrats are turning out to be just as corrupt. (Yes, we mean you, Senator Feinstein.)"
Didn’t you, perhaps, leave out a word of that sentence: "Apparently..."? Did we learn nothing from the Duke lacrosse cases?
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
The shame of it all is that Bush would have signed it with the pork, except for the timeline.
Good thing they didn’t attach the immigration policy that he wants to the bill.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
The shame of it all is that Bush would have signed it with the pork, except for the timeline.
What’s Pork?" We’re all against it, but what is it? I’m against Child Pornography too, but is Anna Nicole in Catholic School girl outfit, child porn? Just thought I’d ask....I’m thinking MY bridge is YOUR pork, and vice versa.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider