House Rejects War-Funding Bill

[Alonzo]

WASHINGTON -- In a surprise, the House voted down Thursday a proposal to continue funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bill, which would have allocated $162.5 billion to pay for the wars into 2009, was defeated by a vote of 148-141, with 146 Democrats voting against the measure and 132 representatives abstaining.

The vote came after Republicans withheld support for the funding measure to protest the tactics by the Democratic majority. Some 132 Republicans voted "present." That kills the war funding for now, but it will be revived next week in the Senate.

The measure was the first of three on a wider bill that would have funded the wars, changed U.S. policy toward the wars and paid for an unemployment insurance benefits extension -- a program to pay for military veterans to go to college and other spending initiatives.

The second vote to implement a troop withdrawal timeline and several other policy changes was voted through by a margin of 227-196. The third vote on the funding to the additional programs passed easily 256-166.

The bill, with no war funding attached, will now proceed to the Senate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121088161312296299.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

So all those republicans who voted "present" to protest the democrats, but support the war, where they just playing politics with soldiers lives then?

[BoogyMan]

Was Dianne Feinstein playing politics with the soldiers lives when she snuck an amnesty bill into the supplemental?

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=13161

[Alonzo]

Boogy, I think the point is that they're torpedoing a bill they support. Was Feinstein torpedoing the passage of a bill she otherwise supported? From your link it doesn't look like she did.

[BoogyMan]

Of course she didn't, she made complete political hey from the misuse of the bill by amendment. If you want to call hypocrisy I would think that we could stand together in condemnation of both sides of the isle in our scurrilous and sorry body of legislators.

[Alonzo]

Boogy, my whole point is they allowed a bill to pass that they opposed, simply to play political games against the democrats. If/When the democrats allow a bill to take a course of action they oppose, and they take action to make that happen, then they should be condemned.

[BoogyMan]

They should be condemned now Zo, the House and Senate stink on ice.

[CharlesMartel]

We've seen this all before. The Dems will put timelines for exit from Iraq into provisions stuck into this bill. Should the Repubs sign it, they're technically supporting withdrawl even though the Resolution is non-binding. Meaning, it's merely for show exposing what Party has been consistently playing political games.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Boogy said:
Was Dianne Feinstein playing politics with the soldiers lives when she snuck an amnesty bill into the supplemental?

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=13161

THANK YOU FOR POSTING THAT! I doubt many even KNEW that this happened.

I was so utterly and entirely pissed off when I found out about them sneaking this bill in to the war funding bill, I just can't describe it......

Typical bi-partisan politics.......lie to your face and then do the opposite as soon as the public catches a nap.

These scumbags are all traitors.....


Also.... I would have voted down the war funding bill with or without the amnesty bill inclusion. Its time to leave the Iraqis to fend for and take care of themselves.