GOP Letter to Pelosi: Get Back to Work!

[Gan]

Today, GOP Leaders from both chambers urged Speaker Pelosi to call the House back into session immediately to finish its work on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill for the troops. Speaker Pelosi neglected to appoint House conferees before the two-week break, further delaying negotiations on a final bill. The joint letter to Pelosi is attached. Text follows:

Dear Speaker Pelosi:

We are writing to urge you to call the House back into session immediately so that Congress can finish its work on the emergency legislation to fund the Global War on Terrorism. This funding request has been pending since February 5, but your leadership team chose to leave town for more than two weeks rather than completing this bill. As a result, our troops have been put at risk.

We are especially troubled by the House's failure to appoint conferees. The Senate appointed conferees on March 29, moments after passing its bill, but the House never did so despite passing the bill a week earlier. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told the Senate that he hoped the House-Senate conference would begin on March 30. That hoped-for progress has been thwarted by your failure to act.

It should go without saying that our military leaders are in the best position to know the needs of our troops, and they have left no doubt that this funding is needed urgently. General Peter Schoomaker, United States Army Chief of Staff, has written that, "without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our Soldiers and their families." Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has also emphasized the dangers of delay: "This kind of disruption to key programs will have a genuinely adverse effect on the readiness of the Army and the quality of life for soldiers and their families."

Our troops need this funding, and they need it soon. The Senate is in session and ready to work. We respectfully request that you cancel the remainder of your break, call the House back into session, appoint conferees promptly, and work in good faith to pass a clean supplemental funding bill that the President can sign as soon as possible. Every day we don't fund our troops is a day their ability to fight this war is weakened.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm
__________________________________________________ _

It will be interesting to see what her response is. (Translation: I can hear the spin machine winding up now.)

[Back]

Pelosi's Office Responds To GOP Letter (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/)



House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) office questioned the motives of Republican congressional leaders Monday after they sent the speaker a letter urging her to cut the Easter recess short so Congress could move a spending bill to fund the war in Iraq.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly issued the following statement:

"Coming from the Republicans, who ran the ‘do-nothing’ Congress, this letter is a cheap political stunt.

"The American people overwhelmingly support the Democratic plan for change in Iraq, yet the President has threatened to veto legislation that contains his own benchmarks for success in Iraq, ensures our troops have the training they need, and supports our veterans.

"The President and Republican leaders want a blank check to continue the war without end, while Democrats and the American people want accountability and a safe and responsible end to the war.

"The only reason a supplemental is needed is the President's failure to request funds for the war in his budget. Despite the overblown rhetoric of the Republicans in their letter, a recent report from the Congressional Research Service concludes that the Army could maintain its wartime operations well into July with funds the Army has already been provided.

"House and Senate leaders have been hard at work over this district work period working to identify differences and points of consensus on the Iraq Accountability Act. The House and Senate will soon pass a conference report giving the President every penny he requested for our troops, but it will also require accountability, for the first time since the Iraq war began.”

[Artha]

I was thinking at least 3 sentences until the political backbiting, but damn it I lost the pool.

[Sean of the Thread]

What a crock of shit.

[Daniel]

What a crock of shit.

So basicly, it's his fault. No he did it! It's not my problem! Neener Neener.

Wtf.

Who cares why, whose fault it is, what caused it or what was done in the past.

Do the fuck what YOU are supposed to do at this point in time for the troops.

[Apathy]

Is anyone else as disgusted as I am that the lives of thousands of our troops are being used as pawns in political discourse by these mother fucks? What more proof do we need that they care only about themselves and nothing more?

[Dropped_In]

Meh. They are only being used as placeholders. Gates himself admitted that the current budget will support military operations in Iraq quite adequately till June 1st, and the liberal estimate in the article suggests July 1st. Congress will continue to be wishy-washy and asinine up until the very critical moment of action when they will inevitably provide the necessary funds. The only question that remains is whether or not stipulations will be attached.

Moral of the story? Political nonsense. Neither side would risk being accountable for underfunding the troops.

[Sean of the Thread]

So basicly, it's his fault. No he did it! It's not my problem! Neener Neener.

Wtf.

Who cares why, whose fault it is, what caused it or what was done in the past.

Do the fuck what YOU are supposed to do at this point in time for the troops.

Agreed for the most part.

[Back]

The budget is there, adds more money for Iraq and Afghanistan than was asked, provides for many other national security and troop related issues and has been provided in less time than the previous two years requests.

http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/08SuppSummary.pdf

[Parkbandit]

The budget is there, adds more money for Iraq and Afghanistan than was asked, provides for many other national security and troop related issues and has been provided in less time than the previous two years requests.

http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/08SuppSummary.pdf

VETO

Sorry.. it was clear from the beginning that if there was a bill put in front of the President asking for Congress to lead the war it would get the big VETO. Not only that, but then they added another big slice of bribes and pork.

VETO

[Back]

Congress funds. The president can veto and delay those funds at his “pleasure.”

[Warriorbird]

The "pork" had nothing to do with the veto. Nice try though.

[Back]

I guess “pork” is in the “other items” section of this bill...

http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/08SuppSummary.pdf

in which the president himself requests $450 million in food aid to various African countries (a good thing) and congress includes $100 million over that request.

[Parkbandit]

The "pork" had nothing to do with the veto. Nice try though.


Nice try?

Weird.. I didn't just make that shit up.. I actually read what the President said about it.

"They set rigid restrictions that would require an army of lawyers to interpret. They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal with no regard for conditions on the ground. And they tacked on billions in pet projects that have nothing to do with winning the war on terror," Bush said.

Nice try though.

[Stanley Burrell]

Politics give me teh hemorrhoids.

As such, I'm'a give $10 to The U.S.O. tomorrow. Woop, woop?

[Warriorbird]

He vetoed it because of the deadline. The rest is just grandstanding. If he hated pork that much maybe he would've done something to Congress during his Presidency. The Republicans are even more prolific at it than the Democrats have ever been.

You're listening to the words of someone who "thinks about God" before he makes a foreign policy decision. You have to take them with a grain of salt.

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."

"I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?"

He's the decider.

[Parkbandit]

He vetoed it because of the deadline. The rest is just grandstanding. If he hated pork that much maybe he would've done something to Congress during his Presidency. The Republicans are even more prolific at it than the Democrats have ever been.

You're listening to the words of someone who "thinks about God" before he makes a foreign policy decision. You have to take them with a grain of salt.

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."

"I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?"

He's the decider.


VETO = Presidential power
Commander in Chief = Presidential Power

Funding the War = Congressional Power


Now.. if they all do their jobs, we won't have to worry about you trying to pretend to know what the President was saying when he said something.. since it makes you assume alot.

[Warriorbird]

Thank you for illlustrating my point about the veto being about the deadline with your post. I appreciate it.

[Parkbandit]

Thank you for illlustrating my point about the veto being about the deadline with your post. I appreciate it.

If you needed me to post which branch of the Government has which powers.. then you are more ignorant than I first believed.

[TheEschaton]

I bet you if I made a PB clone and posted it in the same style the real PB does, with the same sig and same avatar, no one would know the difference. I could call him PorkBandit. No one would ever notice the o/a switch.

-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

I think you're right. I could try to respond to the "he gets called out then backpedals with a left field insult" routine but there's not much point. You'd probably get in trouble with the board monitors for harassment, sadly. You could become the Stephen Colbert of the PC.

[Parkbandit]

I bet you if I made a PB clone and posted it in the same style the real PB does, with the same sig and same avatar, no one would know the difference. I could call him PorkBandit. No one would ever notice the o/a switch.

-TheE-

You don't have the intelligence necessary to post in my style.

Sorry chump.

:(

[TheEschaton]

I would only need to make claims unsupported by facts and then (and this is where the PB clone differs from the Backlash clone), when people present contrary ideas with a possible factual basis, I would, instead of denying them outright (a la Backlash), I would make ad hominem attacks on the person posting the idea.

That doesn't take intelligence....Bill O'Reilly does it every day.

-TheE-

[Davenshire]

I would only need to make claims unsupported by facts and then (and this is where the PB clone differs from the Backlash clone), when people present contrary ideas with a possible factual basis, I would, instead of denying them outright (a la Backlash), I would make ad hominem attacks on the person posting the idea.

That doesn't take intelligence....Bill O'Reilly does it every day.

-TheE-


LAUGH!

[Tsa`ah]

The budget is there, adds more money for Iraq and Afghanistan than was asked, provides for many other national security and troop related issues and has been provided in less time than the previous two years requests.

http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/08SuppSummary.pdf

You're missing the point completely. We're talking about human LIVES here ... it should NOT be about politics.

Stop thinking about the next congressional election and your job's life expectancy and do what has to be done.

If it's an imminent veto that has put the brakes on things, get back to work, stop the childish bickering, and get the fucking job done.

Cut out the pork, make it strictly military funding and manpower, compromise on the pull out ... and get the fucker passed.

There is absolutely no reason why congress needs 2 weeks for the god damned easter bunny or Jesus. The holiday is over, get back to work like the rest of us.

[Back]

You're missing the point completely. We're talking about human LIVES here ... it should NOT be about politics.

That IS my whole point. The money is on the table with more than what was asked for and more added for national security and veterans healthcare. This bill is ALL ABOUT lives.


Stop thinking about the next congressional election and your job's life expectancy and do what has to be done.

I think they are doing the job they were elected to do which is what they should be doing.


If it's an imminent veto that has put the brakes on things, get back to work, stop the childish bickering, and get the fucking job done.

Cut out the pork, make it strictly military funding and manpower, compromise on the pull out ... and get the fucker passed.

You want congress to compromise. What about the president? Compromise is a two way street. I’m more than willing to bet congress is willing to compromise with the president but I am not so sure the president is willing to compromise with congress.


There is absolutely no reason why congress needs 2 weeks for the god damned easter bunny or Jesus. The holiday is over, get back to work like the rest of us.

That GOP letter is a fucking joke. Why they aren’t the laughingstock of the United States is beyond me. Everyone knows how liberal the past two congress were with their “vacation” days. No one bitched about how long it took them to pass the other supplementals or bitched at them to not take so many vacations during their 3 DAY WORK WEEKS.

[Daniel]

Backlash,

Play games with lives aren't at stake. If you and the democratic party wants to play fuck around with the soldiers, than let them. However, don't be surprised when everyone calls them on that.

The reason why the GOP Is not the laughing stock of the US is because people don't give a flying fuck about politics when you're talking about lives. If this was any other issue they would.

[Ilvane]

Don't you all get it, it's all about politics. If either side wasn't out for their own politcal stakes, they would have passed the bill and that would have been it.

What shouldn't be done is attaching bills to something for the troops. That is disgusting.

Do I think we should limit some of the spending, maybe stop giving no-bid contracts, AND start to think about coming up with a plan for leaving as soon as we can, without compromising Iraq. Yes.

With the unrest there and now people coming out with Anti-American protests and so forth, I say it's about time for us to let them fend for themselves.

They said that the troops are okay until June 1, but I think they should have all worked on this issue before going on break, compromising for the benefit of the troops. Both sides are being ridiculous at this point.

Angela

[Warriorbird]

What would you do if you were in the Democratic Party leadership on this and opposed the war, Daniel?

[Gan]

The polarity of this is amazing.

If it were about the funds, then Congress would not have had to 'buy' the votes to get it to pass. If this were about the funds, then Congress would have heeded the President's advice and not put any time restrictions or strings that amount to Congress controlling the management and direction of the war.

Lastly, if this were about the funds, then Pelosi would not be lollygagging all about the middle east and back in her fucking office, doing her fucking job.



That GOP letter is a fucking joke. Why they aren’t the laughingstock of the United States is beyond me. Everyone knows how liberal the past two congress were with their “vacation” days. No one bitched about how long it took them to pass the other supplementals or bitched at them to not take so many vacations during their 3 DAY WORK WEEKS.
And yet the Democrat party sold their voters a bill of goods promising a 5 day workweek and a harder working Congress. Looks more like status quo to me. Thanks for supporting such a referrendum of change (that really has not happened). Sucker.

[Artha]

Don't you all get it, it's all about politics. If either side wasn't out for their own politcal stakes, they would have passed the bill and that would have been it.

What shouldn't be done is attaching bills to something for the troops. That is disgusting.

Holy shit. I agree with Ilvane about anything involving politics. I think a pig just flew past my window?

[Gan]

Holy shit. I agree with Ilvane about anything involving politics. I think a pig just flew past my window?

That or you're listening to Animals by Pink Floyd...

[Daniel]

What would you do if you were in the Democratic Party leadership on this and opposed the war, Daniel?

I'd start holding congressional inquiries, not just into the US military but the Department of State, USAID and every other department and office that has worked in Iraq to get a full accounting of what went wrong with our rebuilding efforts. The point of this will not be for political grandstanding but to identify, highlight and ultimately address the glaring organizational inadequatecy of the US government in engaging in prolonged and massive reconstruction efforts.

In the process, I would start putting all of these organizations on notice that if they do not start producing real tangible results that they will be held accountable. Note that this also requires stipulating what actually constitutes success in the long and short runs. Something that neither the Republicans or Democrats seem capable of doing.

However, it also entails accepting the fact that we are where we are. That means that we have to stop focusing on "scoring a point" against the other party and start doing what the fuck the United States needs for its interests. Not just what the republican and democratic party need to get re-elected.

[Ilvane]

Yeah, Artha..something strange is happenning to me. I've agreed with PB and you in a week? Damn..

Angela

[Parkbandit]

I would only need to make claims unsupported by facts and then (and this is where the PB clone differs from the Backlash clone), when people present contrary ideas with a possible factual basis, I would, instead of denying them outright (a la Backlash), I would make ad hominem attacks on the person posting the idea.

That doesn't take intelligence....Bill O'Reilly does it every day.

-TheE-


Or you can make up shit all day long.. get caught doing so.. and claim that you are talking about your fantasy world.. because the real world hurts your feelings.

Oh wait.. that would be you.

[Back]

In 2005, with the republican controlled congress, Bush made his $82 billion request on February 14 then signed on May 11. 86 days.

In 2006, with the republican controlled congress, Bush made his $72 billion request on February 16 then signed on June 15. 119 days.

There were no words about undercutting our troops or putting them in danger before, after or during the signings of those.

Its only been 64 days so far on this 2007 request.

[Parkbandit]

In 2005, with the republican controlled congress, Bush made his $82 billion request on February 14 then signed on May 11. 86 days.

In 2006, with the republican controlled congress, Bush made his $72 billion request on February 16 then signed on June 15. 119 days.

There were no words about undercutting our troops or putting them in danger before, after or during the signings of those.

Its only been 64 days so far on this 2007 request.

You may have a point actually... just like Ilvane had a point saying this is political posturing. I haven't looked, but in 2005 and 2006.. was the military under the same type of 'out of money' situation?

Jesus.. Backlash AND Ilvane... I must be coming down with something bad.

[Artha]

Yeah, Artha..something strange is happenning to me. I've agreed with PB and you in a week? Damn..
The stars must be out of alignment or something.

[Warriorbird]

"I'd start holding congressional inquiries, not just into the US military but the Department of State, USAID and every other department and office that has worked in Iraq to get a full accounting of what went wrong with our rebuilding efforts. The point of this will not be for political grandstanding but to identify, highlight and ultimately address the glaring organizational inadequatecy of the US government in engaging in prolonged and massive reconstruction efforts.

In the process, I would start putting all of these organizations on notice that if they do not start producing real tangible results that they will be held accountable. Note that this also requires stipulating what actually constitutes success in the long and short runs. Something that neither the Republicans or Democrats seem capable of doing."

I wish our country was that mature. The Democrats couldn't handle the power (It'd get abused by the non pragmatic wing.) and the Republicans would totally flip out and start screaming about the Democrats working for the enemy (Dick Cheney thinks everything is perfect!). Thank you for your thoughts though.