Posted on 09/21/2007 8:38:22 AM PDT by 7thson
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2947 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)
Statement of Purpose: To reaffirm strong support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.
There was an amnesty amendment attached to it.
Devil’s in the details..
This should be totally illegal to do this. Ammendments should only deal with the original bill. Just like all the pork that is attached to bills. Congress has stated that the sponsor of the pork must be stated in the bill. This is wrong also...........the pork should never be added to any bill if it does not address the original purpose of the bill.
I don’t mean to seem rude, but passing an Amendment confirming support for our troops is akin to them passing a non-binding resolution saying they don’t like what’s going overseas. They’re both a non-factor.
Line item veto is the only answer.
it was an alternative to the one that passed yesterday condemning the moveon.organizationofidiots ad. the point was to include condemnation of attacks by the swiftboat vets on Kerry and others on Murtha, which is ironic considering the slime that SOB put out about our Marines, and Kerry’s tales before Congress.
In sum, it was BB playing games.
It took some digging, but like a lot of amendments, it seems the full body is not what the title makes it appear:
SA 2947. Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Durbin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2011 proposed by Mr. Nelson of Nebraska (for Mr. Levin) to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:
At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:
SEC.X—SENSE OF SENATE.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The men and women of the United States Armed Forces and our veterans deserve to be supported, honored, and defended when their patriotism is attacked;
(2) In 2002, a Senator from Georgia who is a Vietnam veteran, triple amputee, and the recipient of a Silver Star and Bronze Star, had his courage and patriotism attacked in an advertisement in which he was visually linked to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein;
(3) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and Vietnam veteran as ``reprehensible’’;
(4) In 2004, a Senator from Massachusetts who is a Vietnam veteran and the recipient of a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts, was personally attacked and accused of dishonoring his country;
(5) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and Vietnam veteran as ``dishonest and dishonorable.’’
(6) On September 10, 2007, an advertisement in the New York Times was an unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus; who is honorably leading our Armed Forces in Iraq and carrying out the mission assigned to him by the President of the United States; and
(7) Such personal attacks on those with distinguished military service to our nation have become all too frequent.
(b) SENSE OF SENATE.—It is the sense of the Senate—
(1) to reaffirm its strong support for all of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces; and
(2) to strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.
Look at #4, they are using this to condemn what they say are attacks agaisnt their friends... Guess who #4 is about..
Even if it had nothing attached to it, this ammendment is pure horse crap! Look at Murtha, he is a pathetic military & America hating turd, he served in the military. I was in the army for 9 years, my brother is currently a Marine, sorry folks, serving in the armed forces is not a free pass.
Ironically, it would’ve addressed their attacks on Bush too.
Check #8, they made specific lines in their amendment to condemn ‘attacks’(sic) against Kerry.
>> What’s the deal?
It was supposed to be an alternative to the condemnation of the “General Betrayus” ads. It would’ve taken the focus off of the condemnation of moveon.org. Also, it was written intending to include the Swift Boat Veterans attacks on John Kerry, and any attacks on Murtha, to dilute the impact of the condemnation of Moveon.
H
There was an amnesty amendment attached to it.
This was intended to keep people from criticizing Murtha for his overt socialist tendencies.
Hey - great work! I see it now. Thanks to all. Free Republic has become a good resource for me.
This wasn’t an amnesty amendment. Boxer offered 2947 as a substitute for Cornyn’s amendment 2011 condemning the moveon.org ad. Boxer’s amendment didn’t mention moveon.org. Cornyn’s amendment passed. Boxer’s didn’t.
The Dream Act was an amendment to Defense Appropriations Bill.
Was S.Amdt. 2947 not about the Appropriations bill?
Wanting to be all inclusive, a Boxer is also a bitch.
:)
------------------------------
SA 2947. Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Durbin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2011 proposed by Mr. Nelson of Nebraska (for Mr. Levin) to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:
At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:
SEC.X—SENSE OF SENATE.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The men and women of the United States Armed Forces and our veterans deserve to be supported, honored, and defended when their patriotism is attacked;
(2) In 2002, a Senator from Georgia who is a Vietnam veteran, triple amputee, and the recipient of a Silver Star and Bronze Star, had his courage and patriotism attacked in an advertisement in which he was visually linked to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein;
(3) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and Vietnam veteran as ``reprehensible’’;
(4) In 2004, a Senator from Massachusetts who is a Vietnam veteran and the recipient of a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts, was personally attacked and accused of dishonoring his country;
(5) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and Vietnam veteran as ``dishonest and dishonorable.’’
(6) On September 10, 2007, an advertisement in the New York Times was an unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus; who is honorably leading our Armed Forces in Iraq and carrying out the mission assigned to him by the President of the United States; and
(7) Such personal attacks on those with distinguished military service to our nation have become all too frequent.
(b) SENSE OF SENATE.—It is the sense of the Senate—
(1) to reaffirm its strong support for all of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces; and
(2) to strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.
ping for later blistering ridicule of libs
“This attack was aptly described by a Senator and Vietnam veteran as ``dishonest and dishonorable.’’
Which of course said Senator immediately proved by providing a Form 180, right?
Hmm...and yet no mention of current Congress critters who called our Marines “murderers” and “nazis”...
Why? Why couldn't they make it unlawful at the Congressional level to add any non-relevant pork to bills?
(I know, we'd be asking Congress to vote to restrict themselves, silly me...)
As long as congress is trying to pass all these amendments about honoring and respecting our military, how about including the position of Commander in Chief.
Regardless of how anyone might think politically, the Commander in Chief is in the chain of command and as such, deserves the same respect as the boots on the ground, in my opinion
Your post plus line item veto is needed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.