Can someone please tell me why the Democrats choose to insult the US millitary by adding all that pork barrel spending to that little bill with a date to retreat from Iraq?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,263502,00.html

to bribe the lawmakers from districts that would benefit from that pork.

to bribe the lawmakers from districts that would benefit from that pork.

Um...Maybe they Like Pork.
I mean,show me a fella who don't done drool at the site of
a nice freshly sliced Honey Baked ham or even some good
Pulled Pork,an I'll show you a ....
Well I wood if only i saw fit.

It is smart politics, given their narrow majority in Congress.

Bush wants that bill passed, so he has to pass it with their riders or he doesn't get it.

Congress (both parties) have been doing that for years.

Mmm, pork...

Um...Maybe they Like Pork.
I mean,show me a fella who don't done drool at the site of
a nice freshly sliced Honey Baked ham or even some good
Pulled Pork,an I'll show you a ....
Well I wood if only i saw fit.
you gotta bring home the bacon if you wanna get out the vote:thumbs:

They have done it for the same reason that the previous Republican controlled Congress did the same thing last year. Earmarks are a good way to get votes. It is an incumbent protection measure. Both political parties have done it for years. It is a corrupt practice, but it continues because it benefits those in Congress regardless of their party affiliation. It will continue until voters make it clear that they will throw out the politicians who do it. Voters don't do that because all that pork means local jobs. I'd call it organized welfare for those whose jobs have been exported.

I have a better question...

Why is there a provision to open up Iraqs oil feilds to American business worded as a decree to the Iraqi parliment? And why did only a small number of the anti-war democrats opposse it?

Why is there a provision to open up Iraqs oil feilds to American business worded as a decree to the Iraqi parliment? And why did only a small number of the anti-war democrats opposse it?

The fact that they feel compelled to pose as being *anti-war* does nothing to mitigate that fact that their number one priority is to be pro-Corporate State and pro-Big Oil.

I have a better question...

Why is there a provision to open up Iraqs oil feilds to American business worded as a decree to the Iraqi parliment? And why did only a small number of the anti-war democrats opposse it?

I think there is a general understanding among the anti-war crowd that the opening of the oil fields already happened a long time ago under Paul Bremmer.

I have to admit I am unfamiliar with the provision to which you are referring.

read up...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3318.html
I think there is a general understanding among the anti-war crowd that the opening of the oil fields already happened a long time ago under Paul Bremmer. I know about the bremmer business and the 100 laws he passed.