House votes to ban aid to Saudi Arabia

Reuters ^ | Jun 22, 2007 | Richard Cowan

[frankiep]

First Impeach Bush

Now you're talking!!

[mmichaels1970]

Then we’re left one bad heart-valve away from President Pelosi. Wonderful.

[frankiep]

So it’s either death by a thousand paper cuts, or death by firing squad. Either way we are f****d.

[Nathan Zachary]

"I’m really wondering who it is I voted for two times.",/i>

Me too. I feel so dirty and used...

[Eaker]

What do these posts have to do with military bases?

[mmichaels1970]

I disagree. Especially as it relates to this specific article. President Bush is vetoing this to protect our country from funding "family planning" centers overseas and we're out here calling for impeachment.

Amnesty is a HUGE mistake and the President needs to lose on that one, and lose badly. Maybe be tought a lesson about turning his back on the base.

His compassionate conservativism has certainly weakened him as well.

However, I don't see the "high crimes and misdemeanors" in making a stupid mistake (or a series of them).

I'm glad I'm not so pessimistic. It would be hard to get up in the morning.

[Rodney King]

Looks like Hunter has something better to do...

[mmichaels1970]

It is the “unrelated provision” mentioned by Reuters that is causing President Bush to veto the bill.

[Rodney King]

An easier thing to do would be to just cut off aid to everybody. Why bother picking and choosing?

[mmichaels1970]

Now that, I certainly agree with. At least a check-list of conditions that need to be met to even be considered for funding, and on an annual review basis.

[ellery]

In the past three years, Congress has passed bills to stop the relatively small amount of U.S. aid to Saudi Arabia, only to see the Bush administration circumvent the prohibitions.

I hadn't heard about this. Another example of Dubya unConstitutionally treating the Congress as merely advisory, like the Roman Senate?

[frankiep]

I disagree. Especially as it relates to this specific article. President Bush is vetoing this to protect our country from funding "family planning" centers overseas and we're out here calling for impeachment.

I certainly don't agree with or condone "family planning centers". Having said that, I believe that given the choice between protecting the country from abortion clinics, or refusing to send taxpayer funds to the birthplace of the very Islamofacism that wants to anihilate us, that the latter is of much greater importance. Call me crazy.

[takenoprisoner]

Aid or bribe money? Obviously the rich kings and princes of SA don’t need our financial aid. So I figure it must have been bribe money to allow us to post troops on their soil.

According to the article, most if not all troops are now gone from SA. So yea, it’s time to end paying them rent for us to be there.

The bigger question is why is the US training saudis in our skills of war? So they can use them against us in the future? To fight terrorism? Yea right. How bout some swampland in Florida? They hate us alright, but not more than they love our money.

[bnelson44]

I certainly don't agree with or condone "family planning centers". Having said that, I believe that given the choice between protecting the country from abortion clinics, or refusing to send taxpayer funds to the birthplace of the very Islamofacism that wants to anihilate us, that the latter is of much greater importance. Call me crazy.

I have a feeling the Democrats who designed this bill wanted you to say just that.

[nycgal]

OMG!!!
We’ve been supporting people who are supporting murderous terrorists? Is Bush going to veto the bill? I won’t be surprised if he does.

[mmichaels1970]

Having said that, I believe that given the choice between protecting the country from abortion clinics, or refusing to send taxpayer funds to the birthplace of the very Islamofacism that wants to anihilate us, that the latter is of much greater importance

You're right. So petition Congress to send up a clean bill that only addresses the foreign aid issue and doesn't threaten to destroy a policy first enacted by Reagan that the Dems are actually targeting.

[frankiep]

And I have a feeling that my tax money is going to support a known terrorist state DURING A TIME OF WAR because our president would rather “protect” us from family planning centers.

When abortion clinics start blowing up buildings I may take them as a threat equal to Islam. I have yet to see this happen.

And what about the fact that Congress has voted to cut off funds to the Saudis for the last three years only to be ignored by Bush each time. I don’t seem to recall the democrats running Congress for the past three years...

[mmichaels1970]

He will veto it (I hope), because the same bill will remove restrictions first enacted by President Reagan against funding “family planning centers” overseas....i.e. this is a pro-abortion bill. bnelson44, the original poster of this article did a great job digging that part up and explaining it to me. We are playing right into the hands of the left by reacting with such fury over his potential veto. Reuters is covering this fact up and referring to it as simply an “unrelated provision”.

[frankiep]

Did you not see that Bush has ignored Congress on this for the past three years....while the REPUBLICANS were in charge.

I’m sorry, but the arguement that Bush is only doing this to block a dem scheme does not hold water here.

[mmichaels1970]

Did you not learn from how this article is slanted that there is more to these bills than meets the eye? I’ll start looking for an HR that mentions the Saudi’s specifically, and only the Saudi’s that the President has blocked. Now, I think he’s only vetoed like 3 bills in his entire term, so we know he hasn’t vetoed anything.