Saturday, March 24, 2007

More Pork than a Hog Farm. The Iraq War Funding Bill.

The Appropriations Committee approved of the Iraq war funding bill 37-27. It passed the house 218-212 this past week. There is a lot of added pork to this funding proposal that will help California farmers (What the Iraq war money has to do with California farming is not a real mystery, this money tried to force hard line Republicans in the valley to support their constituents.) Some highlights for Cal farmers are $1.8 billion in part that helps crop disaster in San Joaquin. $20 million for clean up of freeze situations. $25 million for spinach growers. $60 million for salmon fishermen. $1.4 billion for livestock producers hurt by natural disasters and $263 million for dairy producers………We have to bribe the Republicans in the Valley to stop this war? How can people keep supporting this illegal occupation? We toppled Saddam. We organized an election. We trained their security. We helped redo some of the infrastructure. We are entering our 5th year there. It is time to leave and save our troops for better causes.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

They always add stuff to almost every bill that is written. Add the things that most will think are important to pass to make the questionable bill go through. I had heard that a lot of the farm bills were going to be put forward but didn't know it would be tagged onto the Iraq payola. If we can't get the Iraq troops trained in five years then where are we? Our troops don't stay in boot camp very long and then are sent to Iraq.

Carson Park Ranger said...

Perhaps the Chinese yellow-ribbon magnets should say "Support our troops (and my subsidy).

Anonymous said...

All hope all of you that voted for Bush are happy.

Fred said...

I hope you'll remember that the Democrats are the majority in the House now. This was arguably their bill.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't matter Fred. Demicans and Republicrats at the Federal level are one and the same. All corrupt, bought and paid for.

Fred said...

That's true, for the most part, 8:21. I was simply resposnding to the comment; "All hope all of you that voted for Bush are happy.", which seems to suggest the Republicans are responsible for the bill in question.

Richard himself suggests all the pork in the bill is the fault of Republicans, if I'm reading him right.

Carson Park Ranger said...

Bipartisan pork smells so much like the Republican pork we've had for the last several years.

Shane said...

this is a war funding bill, plain and simple. more money for the occupation. this is not how you end a war. the DNC just wants to drag the war out unil the election. it's pretty disgusting.

Fred said...

Congressman (and Republican Presidential Candidate) Ron Paul's take on the bill in question:

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10727

Anonymous said...

Here is what Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Howard Dean said about the Iraq bill:

"Last November the American people demanded a new direction in Iraq, and that is exactly what the Democrats offered today. President Bush's open-ended commitment to a failed Iraq policy is not good enough for our brave men and women fighting in Iraq. Democrats will continue to wholeheartedly support our troops by providing the resources to keep them safe and get them home, holding this Administration accountable, and demanding that Iraqis take responsibility for their own country. President Bush’s decision to stifle the essential debate on our course in Iraq by threatening to veto this bill stands solidly against the will of the American people, and is an insult to the brave men and women serving in Iraq. It is time for Republicans to put partisanship aside and join our Democratic leadership in fighting for the new direction in Iraq. It’s what our troops deserve and what the American people have demanded.”

That sounds different than what you said, Shane. Aren't you on the local Dem committee?

samoasoftball said...

Fred: I am not blaming the Republicans totally, I am just saying the bill was written as such to be more palatable for the conservative voters in the House that just so happen to depend on their voters in the valley that would be directly affected financially. Almost a bribe if you will.

Personally, I prefer immediate withdrawl. The consequenses? Civil war? It is happening right now under our armed forces nose.

And yes, I support our troops. I support them to come home and be with their families.

Cut and run. This administration has caused enough havoc in this world.

Carson Park Ranger said...

Fast. That's the best way out.
If we announce a withdrawal date, it just gives insurgents thee will to hurt us as much as possible on the way out.

We threw them into civil war, but there's nothing we can do militarily which would make any difference.

Even worse than being losers, we are now irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

Just because Richard and Shane are Dems doesn't mean they have to agree with Dean. Setting arbitrary dates to pull out and then funding the war just doesn't make sense. There was already enough money in the pipeline to pull troops out in an orderly fashion right away. Instead Democrats chose to give Bush more money for the war.

Eric V. Kirk said...

I think a lot of opposition was blunted by the projection that Bush will veto the bill because of the pullout timeline. Assuming he does, then somebody would have to introduce a new bill.

Thing is, the anti-war Democrats couldn't have pulled the timeline off if the funding was handled in the normal budget process.

Greg said...

Call it realism or call it cynicism, but congressional Democrats seem to be going for the public response to a veto. Then we will see what happens and how long it takes. Remember, Bush has promised to veto both the House and Senate versions of the bill, and congressional Democrats do not have enough votes to override a veto. IF Bush remains true to his word (?!) and vetoes the bill, he will continue his war without funding. If he signs some form of the bill (my guess is he will, after negotiation) he will simply blow off the part is does not want. If this sounds outrageous, take another look at his record.

8:21 does have a point. It may take public financing of elections to make much difference in the kind of people running our government. It takes big bucks to run campaigns that win, and corporations have the bucks - and the power.

Shane said...

It looks like Bush will find a way to continue the war, with or without funding. At this point, impeachment may be the only option. Call Thompson and tell him to put impeachment on the table. As Dennis Kucinich has pointed out, Bush's recent threats against Iran are illegal and probably justify impeachment in and of themselves. Add to that all of the violations of civil liberties and the war on Iraq. There is a strong case for impeaching both Bush and Cheney.

samoasoftball said...

Shane: Tomorrow Mike will be at the HCDCC Headquarters from 3-4pm to talk to HCDCC members. Good chance for you to verbalize your points. Robin will be there. (I will be at Evergreen. I may be working a 16 hour shift Sunday.)

Shane said...

Yeah... I went. It was Ok. Then I went over to his pasta dinner and got in a big verbal confrontation with him. Then he told me to "just stop voting" and then eventually he walked away. Nice guy.

samoasoftball said...

Shane: That "Nice Guy" told you to not practice your Democratic right to vote? Next thing you know he will be endorsing Republicans!

Oh, c'mon that was funny!

I think Mike was a little stressed this visit over the protesters and negative publicity over his war stance.

We all agree that the troops need to come home, it is how quickly we can pull it off and what method of withdrawl that causing division with Democrats. I support any action that brings them home, preferably the fastest.