The Democratic-led Congress authorized more Iraq war spending on Friday, sending President George W. Bush a defense bill requiring no change in strategy after failing again to impose a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals.
The defense policy bill, approved 90-3 by the U.S. Senate, also expanded the size of the U.S. Army and set conditions on the Bush administration's plan to build a missile defense system in Europe.
The measure already had passed the House of Representatives and now goes to Bush, who is expected to sign it into law. It authorizes Pentagon programs expected to cost $506.9 billion during fiscal 2008, which began in October.
The bill authorized another $189.4 billion for the Iraq and Afghan wars, for which Congress has already approved some $600 billion. But it does not deliver the new money. That is done by appropriations legislation at the center of a big dispute on Capitol Hill.
90-3. That's not a close vote caused by DINOs like Dianne Feinstein. That's an entire Senate full of frightened, craven Democrats so unable to articulate a message that they have no answer to "Democrats don't support our troops." I'm getting really tired of writing this, but the only reason to continue to appropriate this money is if the Democrats know that this president is so evil that he WILL leave troops in Iraq whether they are funded or not -- even if that means they have no food, no clean water, no changes of clothing, no armor, and no weapons. This president will allow 150,000 troops to be sitting ducks rather than compromise one iota. That much is clear to me. And since that seems to be the case, then why aren't the Democrats saying so? The only reason other than sheer gutlessness is if they are in the pockets of Halliburton and KBR and Blackwater and the other deep-pocketed corporations making a killing (if you'll pardon the expression) off of this war.
So which one is it?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire