News Perspectives --be heard-- or click the graphic for other topics. -Rules-F.A.Q.- News Policy Bush Threatened To VETO Legislation Providing Body Armor To Our Troops... - UnitedStates.com DOMESTIC U.S. events - NEWS - forums
forums Home We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union... -Constitution

Search
   
Members

Help

Home
Not logged in - login | Register 
forums > NEWS > UnitedStates.com DOMESTIC U.S. events > Bush Threatened To VETO Legislation Providing Body Armor To Our Troops...


Bush Threatened To VETO Legislation Providing Body Armor To Our Troops...
 Moderated by: VT-R, TD, Paula Ticks, MM66, mb, Lynne, kC, Jeƒƒro  

New Topic

Reply

Print
AuthorPost
dem4life
Member


Joined: Tue Aug 10th, 2004
Location: I Kissed Flo's Grits!
Posts: 31498
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Sep 27th, 2004 05:44 am

Quote

Reply
From AmericaBlog: "Here's something I REALLY hope John Kerry and Senate Democratic candidates will use in their attack ads. EVERY GOP SENATOR save one voted AGAINST legislation sending body armor to our troops, and George Bush threatened to VETO the body armor legislation TWICE. How did that happen? It happened when John Kerry voted FOR the legislation but the Republicans almost unanimously voted against it, and Bush threatened to veto it twice. The legislation (Biden amendment #1796 to S. 1689) had everything President Bush and the military wanted for Iraq, but on October 2, 2003 the Senate Republicans opposed it and President Bush threatened to veto it because it gave new federal employees union rights, something that has NOTHING to do with the body armor our troops dearly needed. Oh, but it gets better than that. Bush also threatened to veto the final legislation EVEN AFTER the Biden amendment was defeated. Yes, Bush threatened to DENY BODY ARMOR TO OUR TROOPS."
http://americablog.blogspot.com/archives/2004_09_19_americablog_archive.html#109569255095400842

jailkerry
Member


Joined: Sat Sep 4th, 2004
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 1998
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Sep 27th, 2004 05:49 am

Quote

Reply
Well how bout the rest of the story...the second veto threat, which you would have read had you followed that link past the part that states the President threatened to veto it (the part that suited your purpose) was to force the removal of a provision inthe appropriation bill which would have changed part of the aid package to Iraq and Afghanistan into a loan mechanism, saddling the new Iraqi and Afghan governments with large amounts of debt, right from the git go.  So maybe instead of bashing the president you should applaud him for trying to support new democratic governments.

Last edited on Mon Sep 27th, 2004 05:50 am by jailkerry

dem4life
Member


Joined: Tue Aug 10th, 2004
Location: I Kissed Flo's Grits!
Posts: 31498
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Sep 27th, 2004 06:00 am

Quote

Reply
jailkerry wrote:
Well how bout the rest of the story...the second veto threat, which you would have read had you followed that link past the part that states the President threatened to veto it (the part that suited your purpose) was to force the removal of a provision inthe appropriation bill which would have changed part of the aid package to Iraq and Afghanistan into a loan mechanism, saddling the new Iraqi and Afghan governments with large amounts of debt, right from the git go. So maybe instead of bashing the president you should applaud him for trying to support new democratic governments.But forget about our troops, huh...

mcmik49
Member


Joined: Mon Jul 26th, 2004
Location: Virginia USA
Posts: 1857
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Sep 27th, 2004 06:03 am

Quote

Reply
Bush threatend, Kerry actually did it.

jailkerry
Member


Joined: Sat Sep 4th, 2004
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 1998
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Sep 27th, 2004 06:04 am

Quote

Reply
No.  Just don't cave in on something that is wrong.  Why don't you show the same contempt for those who attempted to hijack this bill in the first place by putting those conditions on it?

Pigasus
Member


Joined: Mon Jul 26th, 2004
Location: Flying The Friendly Sties
Posts: 20793
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Sep 27th, 2004 06:05 am

Quote

Reply
jailkerry wrote: Well how bout the rest of the story...the second veto threat, which you would have read had you followed that link past the part that states the President threatened to veto it (the part that suited your purpose) was to force the removal of a provision inthe appropriation bill which would have changed part of the aid package to Iraq and Afghanistan into a loan mechanism, saddling the new Iraqi and Afghan governments with large amounts of debt, right from the git go.  So maybe instead of bashing the president you should applaud him for trying to support new democratic governments.
Source? Link?

a soldier
Member


Joined: Sun Aug 15th, 2004
Location: MAIMed OUT -n WA, USA
Posts: 48444
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Sep 27th, 2004 06:24 am

Quote

Reply
In the 80's , John Kerry was a member of the Board of Directors for "Jobs With Peace." Their charter was to gain public support for the cutting back of the defense budget. Referring to the "military-industrial corporate welfare complex that chewed up taxpayer dollars," Kerry called for cuts totalling 50 billion dollars. He voted against the F-15, F-14A, F-14D, AV-8B, the Aegis Defense Cruiser, Trident Missle and the Peacekeeper Missle.

In 1990, Kerry voted against the B-1, the B-2, F-14, F-15, F-16, Patriot Missle, Aegis Defense Cruiser (again), Trident Missle (again), M-1 Abrams Tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and the Tomahawk Cruise Missle.

In 1995 he voted agianst the Marine AV-8B Harrier (again), and the Army's Apache Helicopter.

He has also voted NO on twelve different occasions to raise Military Pay. He has repeatedly and consistently voted against every weapon system that our fighting forces rely on today!

How can he be considered as a candidate for Commander-in-Chief, with his demonstrated total lack of support, for ALL branches of the military, while in the Senate. Does anybody really believe that he is going to change his views in the next two months?

I fail to understand the logic behind considering the Senator for Commander-in Chief of the world's finest military force during the war on terror. Am I missing some crucial point on this subject?
[usa]

jailkerry
Member


Joined: Sat Sep 4th, 2004
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 1998
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Sep 27th, 2004 06:26 am

Quote

Reply
Pig..just follow the original link and find the link to the letter from Joshua B. Bolten to the Chairman of the House appropriations committee.


 Current time is 10:15 am

Free speech & free membership. Profanity prohibited.

Spammers ("thieves") are not welcome here. Ads cost US 5000 per post or PM plus our legal fees to collect it.
Content is responsibility of authors & is not necessarily fact. Don't post private info/your identity. IPs are not private.
Dedicated volunteer moderators make this site possible! They're not representatives of this company (except admin).
Account disabled? If you break site rules we may ban you. Email mods if in error. For legal email click terms.

Meet me @MyPlace.com - LLC about us/*site use terms - Please link your site to ours!

Powered by WowBB 1.7 - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez