On "Meet the
Press" yesterday, Tim Russert asked Congressman Charles
Rangel why $20 billion dollars of pork was included in the
emergency war supplemental that passed the House last week.
Rangel responded:
"Because they needed the votes. That bill, we lost so many
Democrats, one, because people thought we went too far and
others because we didn't go far enough. And so a lot of
things had to go into a bill that certainly those of us who
respect great legislation did not want in there."
Yea, "great legislation" wasn't exactly the term that came
to my mind either....but thanks for your honesty, at least
someone finally admitted that this was really all about one
thing: buying votes.
The President, of course, has said all along that he'll veto
the bill -- not just because of the pork, but also because
it includes arbitrary dates that we'd have to start pulling
our troops out of Iraq. That lead to a little war of words
between the President and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last
week, which ended with Pelosi saying, "there's a new
Congress in town."
Actually, Nancy -- no there's not, because the Real Story is
that the new, spineless, overspending Democratic Congress
that replaced the old, spineless, overspending Republican
Congress has left for vacation. Yep, with no troop funding
yet approved, Nancy lead a delegation -- including a
Republican -- for a little sun, sand and unauthorized
negotiations with our enemies in Syria. But don't worry!!!
New Secretary of State Pelosi says everything will be just
fine, because she has "great hope" she can make progress
over there.
Ohhhh, so all we have to do is just "hope" nut-jobs will
listen to reason; why didn't you just say so! Maybe you
could swing by Iran and use a little of that "hope" to free
those hostages or end the nuclear program standoff?
Unfortunately, Nancy's little play date in the Middle East
is distracting everyone from what she's not doing here.
Helloooo...is anyone concerned about the "emergency" part of
the emergency war spending bill? Whether you agree with the
war or not, I think everyone short of Cindy Sheehan would
agree that stopping all funding immediately before
withdrawing all the troops is probably not in our best
interest.
But how long do we really have before the bank account runs
dry? A new report out this weekend says that the Army could
fund itself through July, but the politicians who are using
that to justify their vacations are conveniently ignoring a
section of the same report that says the military would have
to limit maintenance and repairs and slow down troop
training to do that. That would result in troops who aren't
certified for combat, meaning longer tours for the troops
already there. Congratulations Nancy, you and the Democrats
have now managed to break every campaign promise in just one
bill and you've done it all on the backs of our troops...
|
|
Research Articles
Show Transcript
Send us Your Real Stories!
If
you've seen a news story lately and thought to yourself that
the media has it all wrong, we want to hear from you! Send
us the story you saw, along with what you think the Real
Story should be, by filling out the form below.
|
