There is democrat leadership, sadly for them it is feckless. They had the bill passed but decided to go on vacation instead of presenting it to the president, why?

CW, I don't think the House and the Senate did their compromise magic and came up with a single bill to present to Bush for veto--I could be wrong.

OT, but President Bush went and appointed Fox to be Ambassador to Belgium. Chrissie Dodd is livid. This is gonna be great!!!

Thats true, they may not have arrived at the necessary compromise, yet the houses are controlled by democrats.

With Reid's teary sobbing of "not one more drop of blood" still echoing in the chamber, I would think the politicians would work towards a quick ratification before departing for their resort chateaus.

No, CW, the politicians work towards embarrassing this president at every opportunity. I'm past being sick of them...

If it's that important, Bush can call congess back into session, but considering that last year's congress didn't get the supplemental bill done until June and Bush is planning on taking a vacation himself that won't happen.

Excpet for the fact that Bush has no authourity to call Congress back and he will only be away over the weekend... not 2 weeks like Congress.

But hey who cares about the facts

Actually, The President does not have the legal authority convene the Senate as a legislative council.

Mark,

Dubya is a hypocrite, and a buffoon. This makes you the leg-hugger of a hypocrite, and a buffoon.

Lack of leadership? Let’s see if you war pigs get anymore funding.

Will you post this? Nope. You think your leg-hugging is a secret and you want to keep it that way.

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

If he thinks this is an extraordinary occasion he can reconvene congress tomorrow.

I would guess that the democrats are a bit sick of being four years into a planned war and still having to deal with its funding as a separate supplemental bill to the already passed budget. Also, what's it been? less than 60 days since he presented?
Under republican congresses it took 86 days in 2005
and 119 days in 2006 to pass the bills.
He'll have time to veto and even veto a second bill but time is not on his side.

1. The current Congress has not delayed the spending bill by as much as the GOP-controlled Congresses of 2005 and 2006 did. So, do you consider said GOP-controlled Congresses to be even more irresponsible? Of course not--because they're Republicans.

2. Bush has been on vacation more than any president in history. Including, you know, the one he's heading out on right now.

Back to the drawing board with your "profound" quote choices, I'm afraid....

Of course if he did call congress back into session, would he still be able to appoint Sam Fox as an Ambassator?

I know the Preznit is on a "working" vacation himself. Please. Spare me, working vacation? Come on now...don't you think that its just a little bold to hammer the "vacation" line when Junior goes on one himself? Really isn't it hard to keep from groaning and slapping your forehead screaming, "you gotta be Shiite-ten me!"

What a joke, what a maroon.

Regarding the "absence of a war on terror", here's an update on this suddenly non-existant global war:

TheReligionOfPeace.com:

Jihad du Jour (Latest News of the Day)
Muslim Arrested for Having Sex with Sheep...
Pakistan Charges Four Christians with Blasphemy...
Chad: Arab Militias Massacre 65 African Villagers...
Pro-Khomeini Imam to Pray Before Texas Senate...
US Democrats Defeat 'War on Terror'...
Australian Finds that Terrorism Pays... Big...
al-Qaeda Slits the Throat of an 11-Year-Old Iraqi Boy...
Italy: Imam Calls for 'Death to Christians'...
CAIR Blames Bush for Muslim Violence...

Islamic Terror's War on You
Jihadis Have America's Children Squarely in Their Sights...
US Homeland Security Chief Fears 9-11 style Attack by European Muslims...
'Freedom Fighters' Kidnap 22 Iraqi Shepherds...
Indonesian Police Thwart Massive Religion of Peace Bombing...
Islamic Fundamentalists Kill 3 Algerian SOldiers in Ambush...
Afghan Police Raid Islamic School Used to Train Terrorists...

Casper,

The President may convene congress to address, Senate Rule XXIX has long provided that the President may call the Senate into executive session this rule does not give the President the power to modify the Senate's other rules of procedures. In other words, convene the Senate as a legislative council (required, if the President is "requiring" Congress send him an appropriations bill.)

Raker, if you have nothing to add, dummy up.

Rathaven, what about an emergency appropriations bill?

"OT, but President Bush went and appointed Fox to be Ambassador to Belgium. Chrissie Dodd is livid. This is gonna be great!!!" Posted by: keefer

Bwahaha!!!!
:)

Good for President Bush! Also, President Bush is right-Democrats are irresponsible.

Supplemental bills for funding ongoing military actions are not (and never have been) part of the Federal Government’s Budget process. The Budget is for operating funds and expenses; military action, disaster relief and other items are off-budget. This isn’t an accounting trick; it’s actually what’s required by law.

Thanks Bane. And it's good to "see" you!

Irresponsible is sitting in a classroom, (with that incredible look on his face) while America was attacked by terrorists. Lets not forget, he didn't want to scare the kids. Oy.

Irresponsible is getting photographed playing the frickin guitar while Katrina kicks the South around. Oy.

That's just a couple. The list goes on and on

Freedom1,
Can we get over the verbage over the name?
“We actually misnamed the war on terror, it ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world.” President Bush

“I don’t think I would have called it the war on terror. … Why do I say that? Because the word ‘war’ conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War. It creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. It isn’t going to happen that way. Furthermore, it is not a ‘war on terror.’ Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control. So ‘war on terror’ is a problem for me.”
Donald Rumsfeld

“General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had ‘objected to the use of the term war on terrorism before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution.’ He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremism, with the recognition that ‘terror is the method they use.’”

the American people will not rule out the right in their search for leadership come 2008.

Posted by princella at April 4, 2007 05:58 PM

Phoenix Fox 10 News ran a poll to see who is "the most foolish American" and the winner was ……George Bush…. So, Princella, in order for the conservative candidate to win a leadership role in 2008, there needs to be some serious distance established between him and the current 'fool' taking the role of President.

Prior to 2006, the Republican Congress had repeatedly requested inclusion of war costs in the president’s budget proposals, requests routinely ignored by the administration. For the first time, pursuant to statutory requirements passed by Congress and signed by the president in 2006, the
administration finally included Iraq and Afghanistan war funding proposals in its budget
proposal for FY 2008. (By historical comparison, funding for the Vietnam War was supplied
through one initial supplemental appropriation, but in subsequent years, all Vietnam War funding
proposals were submitted in annual presidential budget proposals.)

How about this for a quote:

Gabe Neville, Pitts' chief of staff, said Monday the conference between Assad and the three Republicans was intended to be "low profile."

"It was done in cooperation with the administration," he said.

Really, you can't make this stuff up.

Rico,
I can handle that one; emergency appropriations bills are sent to Congress, but, like supplemental bills, the President cannot force the Senate to act on the request. The Senate would normally call the vote and agree by unanimous consent in Executive session to fund the President’s emergency, but remember that that doesn’t require the Senate to meet with the House to work out a compromise bill. I believe this was tested in the case of judicial appointments and Senate rules allowed for them to ignore the President’s request for action.

Dasein Libsbane
Perhaps you spoke too soon about legislation you claim to know about.
Would you like to provide a source to back up your claim?

Carsick,
Again in 2007 the Congress “requested” that Bush include all costs for the combined wars in the Administration’s Budget Request. For the reason stated, that being the law requires that emergency funding be supplemental, the Administration included only $50.0 million in the Budget with no costs after 2007.

Vietnam was included in the budget much the same way beginning in 1966, with supplemental bills actually funding the war beyond the Budgeted amount. Remember that Congress withheld funds necessary to continue the fighting in Vietnam effectively stopping the conflict; if the entire cost of the war was part of the Federal Budget that would have not been possible.

John McCain June 16,2006
"Mr. President, we have not always funded our war efforts through routine supplemental appropriations measures. It is worth examining history to perceive how the practice has been exploited beyond all reasonable defense:

For the Korean War, which lasted 3 years, there was only one supplemental appropriations bill;

During the 11-year Vietnam War, there were 4 supplemental appropriation bills. As soon as troop levels in Southeast Asia stopped climbing, the Johnson and Nixon Administrations requested funding for ongoing operations in the regular defense authorization and appropriation bills;

Since 9/11, there have been 9 supplemental appropriation bills in 5 years to fund the ongoing War on Terror, including 2 in each of the years of 2002, 2004, and 2005. Over 90 percent of the funding for Iraq and Afghanistan ongoing operations has been funded through 1 to 2 emergency supplemental appropriation bills each year for the past 5 years. It now totals over $420 billion in emergency supplemental funding, Mr. President, despite the fact that during this same period of time, Congress provided over $ 2.2 trillion for defense related expenditures in the regular annual defense spending bills.
John McCain June 14, 2006
"Mr. President, this amendment is about fiscal responsibility. Most of us have voted in recent years to support several Sense of the Senate amendments stating that the war should be budgeted for in the regular process. In fact, just this past April 27, the Senate voted 94 to 0 to approve such an amendment. I fully supported that proposition each time it has been offered. Now, this amendment before us would put real meaning into the positions we previously voted to support.

Let me also be clear about what this amendment does not do. It does not seek to prevent any future emergency funding requests for war operations. But it does require budgeting for the ongoing expenses we know are going to occur. If next year, after the budget is submitted in February, a totally unforeseen expenditure arises that must be urgently addressed, the Administration would have the ability to submit a supplemental request. But simple "costs of doing business" expenditures - costs that can be estimated and budgeted for, but are more conveniently funded without any offsets - would not be allowed..."

Dasein Libsbane
So far I am hearing the beep beep beep of a truck backing up (and I'm afraid of what that truck contains!) but I haven't seen you backing up your assertions with anything more than more assertions.
Got any sources?

By the way, Congress cut off funding in the ANNUAL BUDGET for "foreign assistance" to South Vietnam and their military, not our military. Nixon had resigned and the Paris Peace Accords had already been signed (however faulty they were).
Robert McNamara writes that " there is no evidence that the South Vietnamese would ever have been able to accomplish on their own what they failed to achieve with massive American assistance. The level of congressional funding was irrelevant ..."

carsick

You being a democrat, do you feel anything toward those that fight and die to protect the very freedoms you live by?

Quote of the Day

Actually, the President was on such a role that he gets 2 recognitions:

"They need to come off their vacation, get a bill to my desk,
Posted by princella at April 4, 2007 05:58 PM
--------------------------------------------
I think you missed his 911 babble in the same speech. He said in effect 911 proved the oceans no longer protect us. Has the great decider never heard of ICBMs. God will we survive until 2009.

Crickets, Dasein Libsbane, crickets?

John McCain is correct, as far as he went; for Vietnam funding for the war in regular defense appropriations bills, even before full and accurate estimates of costs could be projected.

Subsequently, both the Johnson and Nixon Administrations also requested, and Congress provided, supplemental appropriations for operations in Southeast Asia in 1966, 67, 68, and 69, just like now.

In other words, as McCain pointed out, “As soon as troop levels in Southeast Asia stopped climbing” Congress refused any future spending, and no supplemental spending bills were submitted/approved.

McNamera is dead wrong; DoD Southeast Asia spending was cut from $25.0 in 1969 to $1.3 in 1974. Foreign assistence is paid out of State Department funds, not DoD.

Phoenix Fox 10 News ran a poll to see who is "the most foolish American" and the winner was ……George Bush….

Well thats it then! Pack up the GOP and stash it away in the attic forever, Phoenix Fox 10 has a poll which obviously represents all of America.

Jaysus, you must have searched a while to find that gem.

CO, Ill bet youre a hoot at parties, crazy people are always good for a laugh.

God will we survive until 2009.

Yes, but only if we fully accept the dictates of Al Gore, otherwise we will all be burned to a crisp. You libs will believe anything, par for the course for fools who think 911 was an inside job.

BTW, Lake Minnetonka in my lovely home state just had its ice go out, though it didnt beat the previous record. The earliest date of the ice disappearing on the lake was set 113 years ago. There must have been quite a few SUV's at the end of the nineteenth century.

Tom,
Do I feel anything for our soldiers? That's a comment you think will aid this discussion? Why do you think I care to discuss this in the first place? Some might think your feeble level of involvement, illustrated by your comment, shows you a bit lacking in that department though.

Dasien,
And yet, give or take 10 or 20k troops, our level of presence in Iraq has remained relatively stable for our years there. Whereas, our troop levels went from 180k+ in '65 to 380k+ in '66 and 480k+ in '67 in Vietnam.

Also, defense appropriations bills are not the the same as "emergency" supplemental appropriations bills. Yes, I know the BEA was allowed to expire in 2002 (how convenient) but not having offsets for "emergency" appropriations allowed cooking of the books and tax cutting during a time of war.

"Yes, but only if we fully accept the dictates of Al Gore, otherwise we will all be burned to a crisp." by: Bacon-I Will Miss Thee

At least Mars will burn up first. Global warming hits Mars too: study-

AFP: Global warming could be heating Mars four times faster than Earth due to a mutually reinforcing interplay of wind-swept dust and changes in reflected heat from the Sun, according to a study released Wednesday.

Well thats it then! Pack up the GOP and stash it away in the attic forever, Phoenix Fox 10 has a poll which obviously represents all of America.

Posted by: Bacon-I Will Miss Thee at April 4, 2007 10:12 PM

Just found it amusing that this poll was conducted by the almighty 'Fox'. The supporter of all things 'Bush'.

Carsick,

The correct name for this global war is: Islam vs. the Non-Muslim World.

ReligionOfPeace.com-Question:
Is Islam compatible with democracy?

Summary Answer:
Islamic law is absolutely incompatible with democracy. It is a theocratic system with Allah alone at its head. Allah's law is interpreted by a ruling body of clerics. There is no room for a secular political system in which all people are treated as equals.
************************************************

Question:
Can Muslims force others to accept Islam?

Summary Answer:
Muslims are commanded to fight unbelievers until they are either dead, converted to Islam, or in a permanent state of subjugation under Muslim domination. Allowing people of other faiths to live and worship independently of Islamic rule is not an option.
**************************************************

Question:
Can Muslim citizens be loyal to a non-Muslim government?

Summary Answer:
Many are loyal, of course, but it is in spite of Islamic teaching. Unlike other faiths, Islam is not just a religion but a political system as well. The state is intended to be inseparable from religious rule. Islamic law, or Sharia, is complete and not designed to coexist with or be subordinate to other legal systems.

Muslims are not meant to be ruled by non-Muslims. The Qur'an is very clear that they are to fight unbelievers until Islamic rule is established over all the earth. This doesn't mean that everyone must be forced to become Muslim, but rather that everyone must submit to Muslim rule.

Forget the other comments, here's the quote of the day.

President Bush:

"The solution to Iraq — an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself — is more than a military mission. Precisely the reason why I sent more troops into Baghdad."

You have got to be kidding me. You own him. You throw yourselves on the grenades for him.

Buffoons.

Just found it amusing that this poll was conducted by the almighty 'Fox'. The supporter of all things 'Bush'.

Just found it amusing that you're stupid enough to associate the "Fox" television network with the "Fox" news channel. Actually, it's par for the course for a stupid lefty Canuck to spin past the facts and make crap up. CO, you've been doing this for years. Good try, son...

Freedom1
Orthodox Jews, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, among others, all see the Old Testament as a primary foundation of their faith. Their interpretations of that text are not interchangeable though.
You seem to think all Muslims have a simple monolithic interpretation of their texts. Are you not aware of what's going on in Iraq? Sunni, Shia...any of this ring a bell?

Just found it amusing that you're stupid enough to associate the "Fox" television network with the "Fox" news channel

Posted by: keefer at April 5, 2007 05:35 AM

My mistake, keefer. I wasn't aware of the separation. Thought all Fox channels were owned and operated by the same operation.