TV Schedule

House rejected the $162.5 billion war funding bill



  3. merasyad
  4. related topics
Democrats and angry Republicans in the House today torpedoed a $162.5 billion proposal to continue funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into next year, eliminating, for now, the one part of the controversial bill that had seemed certain to pass.

Instead, House members voted to demand troop withdrawals from Iraq, force the Iraqi government to shoulder more war costs and greatly expand the education benefits for returning veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflict.

"The surprise on war-funding left antiwar activists on and off Capitol Hill exultant and Democratic leaders baffled. House leaders had broken the war-funding bill into three separate measures, the first to fund the wars, the second to impose strict military policy measures opposed by President Bush, and the third to fund domestic priorities, including expanded education benefits and flood control work around New Orleans."
merasyad

14 responses // House rejected the $162.5 billion war funding bill

  • The last thing we need to do in this country is to waste any more money. Smart move.
    SpeedingUptoStop
  • clayjj05, How do you think they stopped the war in Vietnam? All they have to do is write into the bill a clause allocating the funds. Whether that be to fly them home or to supply ammo or armor. The congress has the power of the purse. Thats what they are suppose to do anyway.
    mrtodd724
  • Well, IT'S ABOUT TIME: Are they finally getting our message? I have been telling my Representatives that this war needs to be defunded to end it. I am happy to see they are finally understanding this. To Bush: NO MORE MONEY FOR HAlLIBURTON. And excuse my caps, but it is good to see they finally remembered their power under the Constitution and used it. Oh, and clay, the money was not going to the troops. It was going to their little corporate pig pals to build golf courses and amusement parks while our troops drink tainted water, eat crap food, and get insufficient help for their mental and physical ills with a lack of armor and other needs. This government doesn't give two****** about our troops.
    JanforGore
  • american party politics renders "real war" impossible - the US is up against an "enemy" which doesn't operate in terms of one president's time in office - an american president will start a "war" and when it looks like the war will last longer than his presidency , the public gets pissed off , and everything goes to hell . however it's managed , this "war" will bleed this country into a recession so deep that only the generosity of china can save it unless this country gets some consistency . my suggestion - we need a good dictator ....
    malathion
  • It is an odd position for the Legislature. In the past, if they cut funding, they would be seen as being insensitive to the "war on terror". The "war" that was being fought preempitvly to protect the american populous. But, as always happens, Americans have said enough is enough. Remember, the main goal of politicians is to get reelected. They side with the moral and ethical status quo of their constituency. This move shows, maybe in a small way, the direction America is now moving.
    AtticusSimonFinch
  • Oh look! The Legislative branch has grown back it's cajones!
    Dmitri_Molotov
  • Oh how I love that typical brainwashed neocon response: "you're not supporting the troops!".

    As if sending our volunteer military overseas to fight a war of choice with inadequate armor and embarrassing leadership meant standing 100% behind them?
    magnusdeus
  • We don't have enemies! That is pure bullshit! The case of terrorism is ridiculously exaggerated! You got to wonder how much of the violence in Iraq and elsewhere is perpetrated by Blackwater and the other murderers for profit American tax dollars are funding under the Busheney gang.

    When America acts like the great country we are - the world loves us.
    VoyagerFilms
  • $162 billion could go a long way in addressing some of the problems on this side of the pond and hopefully some of that will.

    And, what the hell is up with the GOP's congressmen? Grow some and vote "Nay" if you don't want a measure to pass.
    mako2424
  • finally were gonna start pulling troops out! Why are we gonna wast more money on this undefined war? The republicans can stay angry all they want! this is one of the best decisions the house has made in a long time!
    way to go TEAM!
    currentkid
  • i wouldn't hold my breath. remember these are the same cats that let W. circumvent the constitution & start the war in the first place.

    i guess we should just let the first trillion that the war costs go & fawn over the hope of maybe getting table scraps [insert sarcastic chuckle].
    blackdaylight
  • Well this should be interesting.
    Oh yes, this IS how the war in Vietnam ended. The US and the South never lost a major military engagement, the money to fund the South was pulled by a Dem Majority, the North won the conflict and the killings began.
    We have a history or sending troops to a shootout then putting stupid rules of engagement on them or otherwise undermining them. Then the very people, the onesin the previous sentence, who sent them there complain about how the job isn't getting done in a timely enough fashion.
    Just as valid as the need to alleviate problems such as JanForGores, "while our troops drink tainted water, eat crap food, and get insufficient help for their mental and physical ills with a lack of armor and other needs" (both of my sons in Iraq never saw or heard of the first two) is the responsiblity to support them and the mission. This is where many on the Hill have fallen down. The Democrat leadership, and many republicans, have thrown the troops under the bus after sending them to Iraq. Given the support for the troops on the Hill I hope every one of them get out of there and my kids never have to fight again for a bunch of ungrateful vermin.
    Paratus
  • I agree with you that Blackwater is evil Voyager. Besides, they charge waaayyy too much for their gear (50 bucks for a holster? No thanks). Instead, there should be a guild for mercenaries. That way they don't have a billion dollar megacorp backing them and it's easier to prosecute the bastards.
    Dmitri_Molotov
  • (Sorry for double post) Also, heres what I'm wondering: When I ask most people why they support the occupation they say "If we leave it's going to just like Vietnam". Well, it already is like Vietnam. And if America cares so much about people being murdered by militants every day, why don't we have troops in Darfur?
    Oh right, no oil.
    Dmitri_Molotov

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.