House conservatives pledge allegiance to Bush veto.
By on Apr 3rd, 2007 at 10:00 am
House conservatives pledge allegiance to Bush veto.
“In a letter sent to the White House on Monday, House GOP members assured President Bush that they would support his decision to veto the emergency supplemental spending bill. ‘We are greatly concerned about the extraneous and excessive non-security related funds contained within the Global War on Terror supplemental spending bill currently under consideration in the Congress,’ the letter read. ‘If you choose to veto this measure over this spending, we will sustain your veto.’”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
It is all about ‘Allegiance’….I think the press conference of Bush is there to say it is the Democrats problem… Bush:’Don’t look at me’
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:03 amSo, the extra money on pork is a problem, but not continued funding of this travesty of a war?! Come ON!!
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:04 amIf he vetos the bill, and Congress doesn’t pass another, the war is over. Veto away, monkey man!
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:08 amThat’s not really newsworthy or meaningful to any degree though is it ?
The veto will stand unchallenged whether conservatives support it or not.
Now if conservatives had offered Bush $20m worth of pork to veto the bill then THAT would be news here.
Unlike the pork in the bill itself which, without bothering to check your archives, I’m sure you would have failed to mention. In accordance with your partisan see-no-evil policy.
It really would boost your credibility if you ditched that and took the TPM route of criticisng blatant wrongs regardless of political party.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:09 amSorry ? Has ThinkProgress suggested, insinuated or even mentioned the pork in the bill is a problem yet ?
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:11 amI’d like to read that post. I’d be suprised if it existed though.
This shouldn’t be a surprise. Republicans have already proven they are utterly immune to shame when it comes to hypocrisy.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:13 amHouse conservatives: Party above country — every time.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:13 amGood…then in 2008, they can explain themselves when they go up for re-election.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:15 amSo, GOP Pork is OK even when it’s 100 times more pork than any other pork-laden piece of legislation ever pushed through congress.
Any other pork is bad. I guess that means that (for now) all GOP-pers are all Jewish and cannot abide pork. Until they regain majority status in which all pork is good pork.
Porkers!
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:15 am‘We are greatly concerned about the extraneous and excessive non-security related funds
God, these republicanists are full of shite. Greatly concerned my ass.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:16 amQuick! Look over there!
RNC representative Kilo
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:16 amSo, the extra money on pork is a problem, but not continued funding of this travesty of a war?! Come ON!!
Well, there’s pork and then there’s the other white meat . . . chickenhawk.
LOL
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:16 am#1 – I’m watching the press conference right now. Bush IS indeed dumping this on the Dems. It’s all about “Do you support the troops or not?”
This guy is an absolutely disgusting, filthy liar.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:17 amKilo, you must be new here, because there is PLENTY of criticism of the Democratic party at TP. It must not have occurred to you to even look for it before shooting your mouth off, having no doubt spent much of your time over at Red State where they do things differently.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:18 amAnd if you choose to sustain his veto we will vote you out of office. Besides, it’s all just a game for them now. Apparently General Pace met with these Republic stalwarts and they told General Pace that if things haven’t improved by August, they (meaning the Republics) will pull the plug and bring our troops home. Now, I wonder why they would do that? Could it be that Pace reassured them that the Iraq government would have approved the oil deal Bush is making them broker wherein 80% of Iraq’s oil will go to Exon, Chevron and BP? That’s all the Republics are waiting for. The day the Iraq government signs that deal, we will be pulling our troops out of Iraq, leaving behind enough to protect our oil interests. That’s what this whole war has been about, stealing Iraq’s oil.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:18 amKissinger has stated the war in Iraq has been lost. NATO commanders in Afghanistan have said the war against the Taleban has also been lost. Here we have a Commander-in-Chief who has mismanaged two wars, will not concede that he’s having a losing season, will not change strategy, and thinks that expanding the war to Syria or Iran might be the solution. We are about to see America’s “Battle of Dien Bien Phu”. When will Bush listen to the commanders in the field? Military incompetence is defined as willful blindness and micromanagement by the top brass in complete ignorance of the reality on the ground.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:18 am“Sorry ? Has ThinkProgress suggested, insinuated or even mentioned the pork in the bill is a problem yet ?”
There is very little real “pork” in the bill. The majority of the “pork” is funding Katrina victims (which should have been done a long time ago) and fully funding implementing the 911 commission recommendations. Besides, every budget bill the Republics have passed in the last 5 years have been full of pork. I didn’t hear anyone screaming about them. As a matter of fact, the Bush Administration has passed more pork in the last 5 years than passed by the last 5 presidents!
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:21 amJust goes to show, IOKIYAR, right, Kilo?
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:27 amSimple solution:
Remove the “pork”. Retain the deadlines.
Dare the shrub to veto it then.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:30 amThere is very little real “pork†in the bill.
Comment by Kate Henry
Kate, you might want to try the decaf kool-aid next time.
Pork is pork — no matter which party is serving it.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:30 amThe “war” in Iraq IS pork!
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:30 amWhy does it matter if these ‘conservatives’ support the veto or not? None of them voted for the funding bill in the first place. Because they don’t support the troops!!
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:33 ama pledge of allegiance to stand with the guy who’s got 30% approval ratings? what a great idea!
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:33 amI like to think of it this way, “i support the troops, bring them home now!”
The $$ extras that the pukes seem to be muttering about are peanuts compared to the pork they stuffed into their pockets for the past six years.
All pigs aren’t bad.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:35 am“The “war†in Iraq IS pork!”
totally not true
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:35 amI think that’s GREAT! Frankly, I’d be overjoyed if NO MONEY gets approved to continue dumbya’s ill fated invasion and occupation of Iraq.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:35 amThe blind leading the blind.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:36 amSign the war funding bill or you don’t support the troops Bush.
I like this simple minded black and white thinking. Screw nuance, I’m going to act like a Republican when I say that Bush either signs the war funding bill or he doesn’t support the troops. It’s THAT SIMPLE!! Why do you hate America and the troops Bush, do you wish for our defeat in the great war on terror against the islamofascists of the world?!
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:39 amKilo,
The Repugs are suggesting it is a problem, not TP:
“We are greatly concerned about the extraneous and excessive non-security related funds contained within the Global War on Terror supplemental spending bill currently under consideration in the Congress”
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:46 am“If Congress fails to pass a bill that I can sign by mid-April, the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on equipment, equipment repair and quality of life initiatives for our Guard and Reserve forces,” Bush said.
“If Bush fails to pass a bill that I can sign by mid-April, the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on equipment, equipment repair and quality of life initiatives for our Guard and Reserve forces,” Congress said.
Cool. Works both ways.
Bush needs to prove he supports the troops by signing the war funding bill.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:47 amRemove the “porkâ€. Retain the deadlines.
Dare the shrub to veto it then.
Comment by RantingTommy — April 3, 2007 @ 10:30 am
I second that.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:49 amI’d like to read that post. I’d be suprised if it existed though.
Comment by Kilo — April 3, 2007 @ 10:11 am
Are you suggesting that TP should complain about the “pork” in the bill? Because its basically for Katrina victims and farm aid and not exactly the kind of “bridge to nowhere” pork Republicans love so much. In fact it is kind of disingenuous to suggest social programs for the truly needy are “pork”.
However, it would be nice to see democrats take the funding for these programs out of this bill and then see what Bush gives for his reason for vetoing it.
How will he explain that he has to keep the war going at any cost, financial and human. One because he doesn’t know how to end it and two because he’s uses it to cover his own ass. If he didn’t have a war to hide behind, the congress would be able to come after him faster for all the laws he’s broken.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:53 amRemove the “porkâ€. Retain the deadlines.
Dare the shrub to veto it then.
Comment by RantingTommy
That would be perfect. Bush would then sign it and totally ignore the deadlines, which is his right as Commander-in-Chief. Then the Dems would have to decide if they want to take it to the supreme court — they would lose that argument based on the constitution.
Once again, the Dems have painted themselves into a corner.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:57 amFurther to this, saying that pork in this bill is ther reason for this veto is a cop-out. Everyone knows that it’s the deadline placed therein that is the problem. Well, guess what…the real world deals in deadlines!! I don’t think it’s too onerous a proposition to suggest that there should be a deadline to have the job (read – war) done. He’s had since 2003 to “git’r'done” and has failed miserably. Look at it this way:
Wouldn’t I be the luckiest person in the world if my boss gave me a job to do which I worked on for 4 years, still didn’t have done, and had no idea when I was going to get it done, despite giving me a massive budget to complete the project?! Yes, I would! By all rights, I should be fired for that kind of performance! Therefore, fire Bush through impeachment…(or at least make him take a project management class to learn about scope creep) ;)
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:58 amPork is pork — no matter which party is serving it.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — April 3, 2007 @ 10:30 am
No Cyclops Ignoramus pork barrel programs are unnecessary projects used to garner votes. Are you suggesting that the government should fund nothing unless it is war from now on?
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:58 amMembers of the Republic Party think that money for soccer fields and water treatment plants in Iraq is vital, but money for Hurricane Katrina relief is pork.
Maybe they can all move to Iraq and open up a carpet shop with Linseed Graham-Cracker.
-GSD
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:00 amThe “war†in Iraq IS pork!â€
totally not true
Comment by hal e. burton — April 3, 2007 @ 10:35 am
Your right because it doesn’t help the general public in the US and definitely isn’t garnering votes for the GOP. It is pure and simple GRAFT in a scale that has never been reached before.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:00 amOnce again, the Dems have painted themselves into a corner.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — April 3, 2007 @ 10:57 am
No once again Bush is proving that he has elevated himself to Dictator Status and no longer is functioning as President. Since he refuses to listen to voters and has stacked his Supreme Court with people more interested in Bush than the Constitution or the American People he may win in the end.
What’s interesting is that people like you are happy about the situation. I guess America as it has existed since the founding fathers wrote the constitution has been so awful for you that you are happy to see it go away.
How nice for you.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:06 am“That would be perfect. Bush would then sign it and totally ignore the deadlines, which is his right as Commander-in-Chief. Then the Dems would have to decide if they want to take it to the supreme court — they would lose that argument based on the constitution.”
ha ha! you’re the smartest!! just think of how many more soldiers would die so that bush could prove that he has the right to ignore congressionally mandated deadlines!
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:08 amAre you suggesting that the government should fund nothing unless it is war from now on?
Comment by shane
Not at all. We need roads too.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:12 amYes, the loyal party members must pledge their unending support for the Führer and his war. With the help of the party, Fatherland Security, and Barney, by god, our fearless leader will decide us to victory!
Sieg Heil!
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:15 amSo when Democrats attach funding provisions for things (albeit unrelated) that are LONG overdue funding due the “Do Nothing Congress” of the Republican years, it’s obviously pork. But when the President starts a war that costs billions and billions, it’s a good spending bill? S’portin’ thuh troops?
I DARE the trolls to find anything even CLOSE to “the bridge to nowhere” of porkiness in this supplemental. I DARE THEM! It’s all conservative media non-sense.
Learn what supplemental bills are actually supposed to be used for before throwing around the word “pork” just because you heard Rush say it. The “war” was improperly funded and requires a supplemental because Bush never, EVER, in his presidency asks for the right amount of money so he can pretend the war is “on the cheap” to the tax payer. Then he plays politics when he’s called for it.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:15 amjust think of how many more soldiers would die so that bush could prove that he has the right to ignore congressionally mandated deadlines!
Comment by pgw
So — exactly what is the acceptable number of deaths? Based on this thought process, Congress is almost as bad as Bush because they are allowing more deaths than if we pulled out immediately.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:16 amIndeed, they are almost as bad. And who’s fault is that, exactly? Let’s see here… If my favorite ultra-left Dems said “pull out now” and got a vote on this bill and it somehow passed despite the DINOs in Congress and the conservative media onslaught, Bush would obviously sign it into law, right? And the Senate would have the 2/3 it needed should he veto it?
Mmmmm…. I love the smell of burning strawmen in the morning.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:19 am“if we pulled out immediately.”
which, of course, is something that only happen theoretically. another good point, smartacus.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:20 am#40…………
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:20 amYes, roads, and Railroads to Nowhere too….
Does anyone have a link detailing what is or isn’t in the bill? Seems like everyone is arguing over it’s merits or lack thereof without citing the actual details.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:21 am#43 – ZERO. Zero is the acceptable number of deaths. dumbya has already racked up over two thousand. And you seem to support the evil twit. What does that make you?
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:24 amOh, Why do the GOP hate our Troops so much?
First they don’t send proper Armor and now they refuse to fund them. I mean, they could have passed a spending bill prior to November 7th and yet they didn’t.
I can only guess at the reasons they hate our troops…
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:27 am#43 – ZERO. Zero is the acceptable number of deaths. dumbya has already racked up over two thousand. And you seem to support the evil twit. What does that make you?
Comment by kindness
a twit-enabler? a twit-ophile? a twit-ty bird? You pick ;-)
Seriously, kindness, you gave the only possible answer for anyone who is truly anti-war. You are true to your convictions and I salute you for that.
I happen to think that war is sometimes required — a necessary evil, if you will — and this is one of those times. I know I will never convince you of this so I won’t try.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:39 amI can only guess at the reasons they hate our troops…
Comment by S.D.
Nice try SD, but it is the folks here who hate the military.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:49 amOnce again, the Dems have painted themselves into a corner.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — April 3, 2007 @ 10:57 am
Sorry, but that would not be an issue for the Supreme Court. The Constitutional remedy for a President who overreaches his/her powers is impeachment.
As long as impeachment is off the table, we have a dictatorship.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:50 amHey, I didn’t like invading Afganistan, but I supported it grudgingly, because we had to.
Iraq…..Iraq never threatened us. Iraq wasn’t involved in 9/11. The invasion of Iraq was all the PNAC boys wet dream. No, I didn’t & don’t support the invasion of Iraq. We the American people allowed bush43 to shoot ourselves in the foot.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:50 amComment by Cynicon Implant — April 3, 2007 @ 11:39 am
Please support your argument that this war was and is required. And kindly restrict yourself to facts which were not “fixed around the policy” of going to war.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:53 am“Nice try SD, but it is the folks here who hate the military.”
yes, t.p. readers, it is you who are sending troops back to iraq only 10 months after they get home; all the problems with walter reed are also your fault, t.p. readers.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:54 amNot at all. We need roads too.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — April 3, 2007 @ 11:12 am
So that’s it war and roads funded but nothing else. So we can get rid of Medicare and Social Security?
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:03 pmSo — exactly what is the acceptable number of deaths? Based on this thought process, Congress is almost as bad as Bush because they are allowing more deaths than if we pulled out immediately.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — April 3, 2007 @ 11:16 am
So YOU want to pull the troops out immediately now?
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:04 pmI like the idea of sending back the current military funding with a deadline back to Bush without the other appropriations, but I think we should send the other appropriations, especially the Katrina relief, first. Tell Bush, sign this and show you support those in need here, then we can talk about Iraq. Then send him the Iraq funding free of other appropriations but with the Senate’s more aggressive withdrawal deadline.
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:08 pmNice try SD, but it is the folks here who hate the military.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — April 3, 2007 @ 11:49 am
And did you hear this from that little voice in your head or are you still watching the liars at Fox News. Either way you should take your meds.
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:08 pmI wasn’t aware that there were any “conservatives” in the House.
Call them what they are – neocons, bootlickers or Republicans – but not conservatives.
There should be an apology to conservatives.
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:20 pmwhooreesss!!!!
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:21 pmThere are no Conservatives, only Republican-ists.
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:23 pmSo that’s it war and roads funded but nothing else. So we can get rid of Medicare and Social Security?
Comment by shane
Absolutely. Although I would probably start with things that are even more ridiculous like the Dept. of Education.
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:27 pmWE repugnant-repubs PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE CHIMPya FAG
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:46 pmOF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERIKKA,
AND TO THE DICTATORSHIP FOR WHICH Bushland Uber Allies STANDS:
ONE TOTALITARIAN REGIME SHUNNED BY GOD, DIVIDE AND CONQUER,
WITH SLAVERY AND INJUSTICE FOR ALL(BUT OURSELVES OF COURSE)!!!!!
“Absolutely. Although I would probably start with things that are even more ridiculous like the Dept. of Education.”
comedy gold. [or "a love-letter to grover norquist"]
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:52 pmIt’s funny how the wingnuts who gave us George W. Bush are now saying he isn’t really “conservative.”
Whoa–what the hell? Wingies–he was your boy just a few years ago! You touted him no end and brooked no disagreement with him–remember? You helped push this whole catastrophic thing down America’s throat…
…and now that things have turned against your guy, you’re just now realizing he’s not conservative. Doh!
So…back there when GWB was your boy, were you lying, or just confused? And the next time you say some guy is “really conservative,” shouldn’t we assume that you’re just confused again?
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:27 pmIt is worth noting that the “pork” contains money to build levees in new Orleans, for wildfire prevention, for agricultural disaster relief (the citrus frost in California is one instance), for treatment of commercial fishing areas in Louisinia that are being invaded by salt water, etc… The hypocrisy of the Republicans knows no bound. As for the spoiled underachiever himself, he is close to a meltdown because he can no longer have his way.
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:55 pmIt’s truly sad to hear folks like Congressman Dingell explain that the reason for all the non-military spending is that without it the bill “wouldn’t have the votes”. The fact is, this Congress was voted in on the assumption that they would reduce the ridiculous out-of-control spending spree the Republicans have been on, provide more oversight, and bring the troops home. That it takes “bribes” (yes, that’s what they are!) to get Congressmen to “represent” the will of their districts is really unfortunate. Vote your conscience, or vote the will of the district you represent, but DON’T sell your vote to the highest bidder!
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:31 pmApparently you’d have to be an RNC operative to suggest such a thing.
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:31 pmI know. That is what I said.
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:34 pmTP also having taken issue with excessive non-related funding in other bills proposed by Republicans in the past. But not here.
BS. You must be new in general if you think anyone’s buying that lie.
It must have occurred to you that the date stamps on an linked post critical of Democrats would show you to be delusional, which is why you can’t or won’t link to any.
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:37 pmYet not as disingenuous as portraying the pork in the bill as relating to disaster relief and social welfare.
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:15 pmI am guessing the funding for peanut storage would fall under the “farm aid” umbrella.