Sunday, July 22, 2007

Here's How Dem Congress 'Supports' the Troops:

Reid: Pull Troops or We Won’t Pay Them
By Amanda Carpenter

If Majority Leader Harry Reid can’t start pulling troops out of Iraq, he doesn’t want to start paying them any more either.

After an amendment to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days failed to receive the 60 votes needed to proceed, Reid set the entire defense authorization bill aside. By doing so, he shelved a 3.5 percent pay raise for all uniformed service personnel, $4 billion in equipment upgrades and a new program to treat traumatic brain injuries.

To increase pressure on Republicans to support the measure, sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D.-Mich.) and Sen. Jack Reed (D.-R.I.), Reid threw the Senate into an all night session on Tuesday evening that lasted through Wednesday morning. Levin-Reid fell eight votes short, 52-47.
“There are two things that I want to accomplish,” Reid told reporters immediately after the amendment vote. “One is to pass a defense authorization bill, but with a deadline dealing with Iraq. Once we put that together, we'll move forward on it.”

The defense authorization bill stipulates what defense projects receive federal money. After the authorization bill is passed, the Senate must pass a separate defense spending bill to release money to fund the authorized projects. The Senate has until September 30, when the fiscal year 2007 ends, to pass both bills.

In a Friday speech, President Bush stressed the importance of quickly passing the authorization bill. The President said, “The House and Senate are now scheduled to leave for their August recess before passing a bill to support our troops and their missions. Even members of Congress who no longer support our effort in Iraq should at least be able to provide an increase in pay for our troops fighting there. When Congress returns after Labor Day, there will be less than one month before the fiscal year ends and current funds for Defense Department operations run out.”



Blogger Patsy said...

The one thing that just might be the saving grace for our troops is the fact the Democrats have placed the absolute, biggest idiot elected to the Senate in their majority leader position. Their taste, their lack of judgment, I mean, really...... Is this the best they could do? My God......

It boggles my mind that someone this ignorant, this weak, this pathetic even got elected to any elective office, let alone to the United States Senate. Then this pantywaist was appointed by his peers as the Majority Leader of that body. How is that even possible?

10:26 AM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

Goodness, you have our whole household laughing like apes. You're a gal after my own heart--I tell ya, if we were in high school, we'd a been laughing in study hall together!

You're absolutely right!

11:13 AM  
Blogger Patsy said...

Think about it Donal. When I was growing up, a leader was a strong man. Even the Democrats were strong men. Remember Hubert H. Humphrey, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Tip O'Neill, Sam Nunn. There were exceptions like Jimmy Carter. But the majority were men who exuded large amounts of testosterone

You can't even detect a drop of it coming from Harry Reid. Hell, he looks like a decent wind gust would knock him over. No wonder he wants to retreat from Iraq, he's probably had his ass kicked his entire life, if he ever did actually get into a scrape, that is.

What I don't understand is all of the other Democrats following this wimp's lead. Is there not a single man among them with any cajones, either? Hell, Hillary Clinton has a bigger set of you-know-whats than Harry Reid and she doesn't even have any. (Oh, God -- a horrid thought just flashed in my mind, I sure hope she doesn't have any).

And to think that this is the Democratic Party that led this nation to victory in WWII. Can you believe it? How can no one in their party, other than a couple who they've shunned, see what's happened to them?

12:08 PM  
Blogger The Merry Widow said...

Patsy-You mean as in, hermaphrodite? :shudder:


3:23 PM  
Blogger The Merry Widow said...

As for this situation, why punish the troops by delaying the pay raise and denying them the funds to fight?
Unless you despise the troops and you are a smarmy POLITICIAN who is also an America-hater. Then it makes perfect sense, after all, dhimmis ARE traitors!


3:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We're seeing the downside of electing a bunch of Demtraitors. Is it just me or is Hairyreeds starting to morph into Jimmy Carter? I wonder what lesisblack has to say about this?


3:55 AM  
Anonymous catfleas said...

What a horrid little creep! Our troops need everything we can give them. Even if they were not fighting somewhere in the world, we would need these great guys and gals.

It's very disturbing to me to hear plans to thwart recruitment for our military.

6:26 AM  
Blogger Russet Shadows said...

Patsy nailed it. The Dems have pretty much lost the male vote for president in '08, and they're working hard at losing the Senate in '08 by pursuing a similar strategy. The one common thread is that the Dems never fail to miss an opportunity. Remember the last time that the Dems held the Senate and whom they appointed then? That man's man, Tom Daschle. The Republicans took the Senate back quickly thereafter.

5:40 PM  
Blogger Les Ismore said...

A blast from the past!

"The Bush administration today threatened to a veto a House defense spending bill over a 3.5 percent pay raise for U.S. soldiers and a $40/month increase in benefits for military widows, among other provisions. The legislation passed the House today 397-27.

"Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill. […]

The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.

Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.”

The White House says it also opposes:

– a $40/month allowance for military survivors, saying the current benefits are “sufficient”

– additional benefits for surviving family members of civilian employees

– price controls for prescription drugs under TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for military personnel and their dependents
Why does our President hate our troops so much

8:45 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home