[Grovenet] Resolution: Iraq is no longer a treat to the US and the UN resolutions against Saddam are no longer relevant.

Tue Apr 3 22:44:29 PDT 2007

I keep hearing of this but I would like to see a 
list of what it consists of.
Ed

-------------

Here's a few links and excerpts to get you started.

It looks to me like many Democrats are determined to make the President look
good - or better - in order to line the pockets of their constituents.

I'm sure if you download a copy of the bill you'll have more details than
you ever wanted. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 

WASHINGTON - Like their counterparts in the House, the Senate has larded its
version of an "emergency" war spending bill with nearly $20 billion in
pork-barrel outlays, including $100 million for the two major political
parties' 2008 presidential conventions.

The $121 billion bill includes $102 billion for the troops fighting in Iraq
and Afghanistan, as well as $14 billion for Hurricane Katrina aid and more
than $4 billion for "emergency farm relief."

"Congress will have to make the choice between booze and balloons or bullets
and body armor," John Hart, a spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., told
The Examiner on Monday. Coburn and a handful of other senators hope to shame
their colleagues into stripping the pork out of the war spending bill.

The Senate bill is $18 billion more than President Bush requested for
military operations. The House bill, which passed last week, exceeded the
administration's request by $21 billion and included money for spinach
growers, peanut storage and citrus farmers. 

If the Senate bill goes to conference committee as written, the two chambers
may find themselves fighting over the best cuts of pork.

Full story at

http://www.examiner.com/a-640957~Senate__emergency__war_bill_has_almost__20_
billion_in_domestic_spending_tacked_onto_it.html

--------------------------

WASHINGTON - Congress has loaded up President Bush's request for "emergency"
spending on the Iraq war with more than $20 billion in "pork" for members'
districts.

Money for peanut storage in Georgia, spinach growers in California, menhaden
in the Atlantic Ocean and even more office space for the lawmakers
themselves is included in what has ballooned into a $124 billion war bill. 

"This emergency supplemental bill has more ornaments hanging over our many
branches of government than the White House Christmas tree," Rep. Jerry
Lewis, R-Calif., said. 

Originally, Bush asked for $105 billion in emergency funding. Democratic
leaders say they want to grant the request to continue funding the war
despite their desire to end it.

"We have provided all of the money the president requested- and more,"
boasted House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer.

That includes $74 million for peanut storage, $25 million for spinach
growers and $100 million for citrus growers.

It also includes $16 million to convert the old Food and Drug Administration
building in southwest D.C. into more office space for the Capitol. That
"emergency" expenditure comes at a time when taxpayers already shell out
$600 million "more than double the original estimate" for a mammoth
expansion of the Capitol, which includes 160,000 feet of new office space...

Full story at:
http://www.examiner.com/a-619204~Congress_loads_up__20_billion_in_pork.html

-----------------------

Updated: 10:08 a.m. PT March 31, 2007
WASHINGTON - President Bush, seeking to one-up Congress' Democratic majority
in a showdown over the Iraq war, suggested Saturday that lawmakers should be
ashamed that they added non-war items to an Iraq spending bill.

"I like peanuts as much as the next guy, but I believe the security of our
troops should come before the security of our peanut crop," Bush said in his
weekly radio address, referring to a provision in the war funding
legislation that earmarks $74 million for secure peanut storage....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17887549/

----------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Ed Davie
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 8:42 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Resolution: Iraq is no longer a treat to the US and
the UN resolutions against Saddam are no longer relevant.

I keep hearing of this but I would like to see a 
list of what it consists of.
Ed
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ron D'Eau Claire
  To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
  Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 7:56 PM
  Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Resolution: Iraq is no 
longer a treat to the US and the UN resolutions 
against Saddam are no longer relevant.

  Whatever happened to all the "pork" the 
Democratic congress dumped into the
  funding bill?

  Yeah, they are saying, We support the troops, if 
I get XXX millions for my
  pet project at home...

  If it's still there, by vetoing the bill the 
President cuts off an obscene
  money grab by the Democratic majority in the 
Congress and likely a number of
  Republicans who have joined forces. I haven't 
kept track of all the
  additions tacked onto that bill.

  Ron D'Eau Claire

  -----Original Message-----
  From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com 
[mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
  Behalf Of David Morelli
  Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 6:28 PM
  To: grovenet
  Subject: [Grovenet] Resolution: Iraq is no 
longer a treat to the US and the
  UN resolutions against Saddam are no longer 
relevant.

  There seems to be a question in circulation 
asking if Congress can
  limit the activities of the military in Iraq, or 
even pull them
  home.  They already limited the President's 
actions when they gave
  Bush permission to invade Iraq to eliminate the 
treat to the US from
  Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.

  ************************************************************************
  ********************************
  Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United 
States Armed Forces
  Against Iraq

  "SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES 
ARMED FORCES.
  (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized 
to use the Armed
  Forces of the United States as he determines to 
be necessary and
  appropriate in order to

  (1) defend the national security of the United 
States against the
  continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

  (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security 
Council Resolutions
  regarding Iraq."

  http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
  ************************************************************************
  *********************************

  1) What is the "continuing threat posed by Iraq" 
that requires
  defense of our national security?

  2)  What "United Nations Security Council 
Resolutions regarding Iraq"
  are still in relevant?

  Those are the only two questions that need to be 
answered to
  determine if the President has authority to 
conduct military
  operations in Iraq.  If neither apply, the 
authorization is sunset.

  I suggest that Al-Qaeda is not the government of 
Iraq, and never had
  authority or weapons in Iraq until after the 
Bush invasion.  I
  suggest that the UN resolutions governed the "no 
fly zone",
  government persecution of Iraq citizens, and 
inspection of weapon's
  production facilities, and I suspect that the 
current Iraqi
  government is in full compliance with all of 
them.

  The job of nation building may not be done, and 
the job of building a
  democratic Iraq may not be done.  But, that 
wasn't in the
  authorization to go to war.

  David

  _______________________________________________
  GroveNet mailing list
  GroveNet at rdrop.com 
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

  _______________________________________________
  GroveNet mailing list
  GroveNet at rdrop.com
  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet