Posted on 10/01/2007 8:00:31 PM PDT by mdittmar
The US Senate Monday passed a mammoth 648 billion dollar defense policy bill, shorn of attempts by disappointed anti-war Democrats to dictate President George W. Bush's Iraq strategy.
The bill included around 128 billion dollars for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate.
The legislation passed by 92 votes to three after Democrats lost several attempts to dictate US troop levels in Iraq.
While the Department of Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 2008 sets the size of programs, funds can only be disbursed after the passage of a Senate defense spending bill due to be taken up by the chamber this week.
The most significant Iraq related portion of the bill was an amendment backed by Democratic Senator Joseph Biden which passed last week, calling for a federalization of Iraq, with large amounts of power ceded to the provinces.
The amendment was however non-binding and will not force Bush to change strategy in the unpopular war.
Democrats failed by only four votes to include an amendment which would require troops who served in Iraq or Afghanistan to be granted as much time at home as they spent on combat deployments.
The bill would have effectively limited the number of troops available for deployment, and cut the size of the 160,000 strong US force in Iraq more quickly than the gradual reductions which Bush has promised.
The House of Representatives has already passed its version of the Defense authorization.
Last I read Pres. Bush wanted 90 Bill, the dems took 90 bill to over 640?
I can’t believe how powerful those democrats are......
snicker snicker
Nothing like a powerless “Lame Duck” president
Biden less of a television hungry whore than Schumer is, but c'mon! What a waste of energy and words. That amendment will have zero effect on Iraq.
Let’s see: 648 total, less 128 for the wars = 520 left. Even taking out salaries, pensions, routine maintenance, fuel, etc., we’re buying a LOT of new toys. I’d be curious to know which ones.
Is this the bill that Kennedy attached the ressurected DREAM act illegal alien amnesty provisions? If so, it needs - and fully deserves - a veto, and support for that veto by enough Senators to make it stick.
Who you voting for in “08”?
enjoy!
it’s back to a democrap pres, house and senate in 2009.
Can’t wait to see the mile-long list of government waste and pork spending attached to this bill. Countless billions and billions worth of earmarks . . .
Who you voting for in “08”?
who voted against?
Is this some joke? BUsh asks for 90 and the dems run it up?
Yeah! Thanks to all you cut-and-run conservatives who stayed home last year! Now we have universal healthcare, Iraqi civilians are being slaughtered because our troops aren't there, and Bush is getting impeached!
Oh wait....
“Who you voting for in “08”?”
Fred. I think that Duncan Hunter is more of a conservative, but not by much at all. Hunter has little name recognition and simply cannot win the nomination - nor could he beat Hillary after starting out so far behind the 8-ball. He will, however, make a superb Secretary of Defense under Fred, and be a great complement to John Bolton over at State (and he won’t have much house-cleaning to do there, not after half of those SOB’s keel over from shock upon Bolton’s nomination).
Fred, OTOH, is well-known because of his acting career, has some impeccable credentials in his professional career, appears to be incorruptible (in contrast to Mrs. Beast), has humility and a gift for connecting to the average person; is very pro-American (unashamedly so, something that we don’t hear much anymore), pro-kicking the asses of our enemies, pro-gun, pro-original intent (which’ll be great when he gets to replace Stevens and Ruth Buzzie), pro-border control, anti-tax, anti-gay marriage, etc., etc. IOW, he’s a classic conservative.
The lower tier Republicans (Huckabee, Hunter, Brownback, Tancredo and Paul) will be out by the end of January. McCain is about out of money and seems to shoot himself in the foot every week or so - he’ll be out when NH is over and he gets hosed there. Where are most of those voters going, to Rudy, Romney or Fred? I’ll bet that 80% go to Fred. When that happens, Romney is toast. Probably 60% of his voters will end up with Fred, and then Hizzoner will end up losing (even if he keeps campaigning until the primaries end).
Fred is, IMHO, the only Republican who can beat Hillary. He speaks from the heart spontaneously and openly, and is thus the antithesis of the programmed type of candidate that Mrs. Beast is. He will not hesitate to point out that all of her economic positions are socialist, and how well socialism has worked in Europe and elsewhere. He’ll get virtually every gun owner - and the NRA, etc. will be whipping up the crowd against Hillary (and her likely choice of Chuck the Schmuck Schumer for AG-and, hence, BATFE). Will ANYone who is pro-family or pro-traditional values vote for Hillary instead of Fred? His lack of corruption will stand out vs. Hillary and Bill’s constant connections to criminals. Hillary will lose us the WOT and fail to prepare us to face China and a resurgent Russia a decade or two down the line - whereas I don’t see Fred doing that. What Bush ‘04 states can Hillary win against Fred Thompson?
Here’s my prediction: Fred will trounce Hillary like Reagan trounced Carter. The shock will be as great as it was 28 years before (I had the biggest s-eating grin on my face for the next several days, esp. when the uber-libs at my college started foaming at the mouth about it - those were the days!).
Bush asked for 90 for the wars. The Dems bumped it to 128 (probably with a bunch of help from Republicans). The 648 figure is the TOTAL defense budget, which would be several hundred billion even without the WOT.
“The 648 figure is the TOTAL defense budget.”
How much taxes do we take in in a year?
Don't be on it. Hillary is intensely disliked and feared by a LOT of people. She'll have trouble winning the Bush '04 states, esp. up against a genuine conservative with good stage presence (Thompson, who I expect to be the nominee). Additionally, in the red states Hillary on top of the ticket will likely cost the Dems votes.
Conventional wisdom is usually wrong (though if Rudy is the nominee, Mrs. Beast will be moving to the White House in about 16 months).
OK who volunteers to post this at the DUmp?
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.