bt:

You'd be better off asking murtha, pelosi and reid, who were praying for American soldier deaths in Iraq.

A great application for pelosy, reid and murtha. And, we can let "teddy the toad" kennedy drive!

Since even Democrat Murtha now admits the surge is working despite the protests of RINO Hagel and others, I'm surprised this would be brought up now.

Please, have some more rope, dems.

^ Have any facts to back that up? The GOP loves to smear Murtha..outsourced of course. Republicans don't have many awarded veterans, but plenty of draft dodgers, criminals and perverts.

Well, we already know that Murtha is a whore.

Hey mullet-head, are you denying the refernce to the 90K in the freezer?

How about that bitch Pelosi:
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070725/EDITORIAL/107250011/1013
http://www.passionateamerica.com/did-nancy-pelosi-violate-the-logan-act/

And the pig Murtha:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam

Now, since I have a job and other responsibilities, I don't have the luxury of building boring videos or living off of left-wing finances. But rest assured, the demons are no better.

And while you're enjoying that Old Milwaulkee and pork rinds, why don't you explain why YOUR demoncratic congress sucks more the Bush according to all polls? Because they're not doing what they said they'd do. Instead of finding some brains and figuring how to end the war (like they said they would), they're chasing Attorney Gonzales and other smoke screens.

During the last state elections, I voted for as many demoncrats as repuglicans, including a demoncratic governor. So pull that mullet out of yer ass and vote your intelligently instead of being a friggen sheep.

First it has to pass the Senate. But I have a feeling that because Bush has promised to veto it, there will be a handful of Republican Senators that will vote for it. So yeah, it will eventually make its way to the President's desk. However, if he vetoes it, then he will have to resubmit a request for supplemental spending. If he fails to do that, then he will either have to start closing bases and redirecting funds or start to withdraw the troops.

I gave a rather detailed analysis of the politics of this bill in the comments of the video I submitted with Rep. Murtha discussing the bill.

“I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy,” the vice president told ABC News. “The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people … try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit.”

It's still curious to me that a member of congress who was against every piece of war spending is suddenly giving a tear jerking speech about how a vote against this bill is tantamount to leaving soldiers high and dry with no support or training.

Your lack of sourcing for this opinion made me curious. especially since it was opposite of my thinking on John Murtha, so I decided to do a little digging.

Here is his voting record on defense issues since 1993
for those that don't click the link, he always votes for appropriation bills and has consistently voted against any condemning statements of the military
Here are his rankings according to military interest groups
again, for the non-clickers: he usually rates somewhere in the 80 to 100 percent category
Here are some of his rankings according to peace interest groups
here he runs middle of the road, but their formulas are a bit more complicated because they take into account foreign aid and human rights intervention, not just military spending

And this is from his bio on his website:
Military/defense service

"Congressman Murtha is so well-respected for his first-hand knowledge of military and defense issues that he has been a trusted adviser to presidents of both parties on military and defense issues and is one of the most effective advocates for the national defense in the country. He is the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, a Vietnam combat veteran and a retired Marine Corps colonel with 37 years of service, a rare combination of experience that enables him to understand defense and military operations from every perspective."

So basically, I have no idea where you got the idea that he votes against war spending or hasn't always been looking out for our troops. Maybe you are confusing him with Feingold??? Sorry to bring facts into the matter, but somebody had to do it.

"Big Agriculture would go under if they did. Murtha gets on my nerves. "

Big Agriculture is hardly in danger of going under. American farms produce so much food that they tend to drive the price's in other parts of the world down. Farm subsidy bills are incentives for farmers to produce and sell less so the international markets can compete.

It's still curious to me that a member of congress who was against every piece of war spending is suddenly giving a tear jerking speech about how a vote against this bill is tantamount to leaving soldiers high and dry with no support or training.

But I guess according to some other people, you're not allowed to ask those questions.

Appropriations bills rarely limit themselves to a single subject matter.

Big Agriculture would go under if they did. Murtha gets on my nerves.

"Anyone find it ironic or a little bit Orwellian that Dems are begging Republicans for another $124 BILLION in war funding??"

It's not the war funding they're asking for. What Murtha is not telling you is that this bill is loaded to the brim with pork and pet projects such as:

-- $25 million for payments to spinach producers
-- $120 million to the shrimp industry
-- $74 million for peanut storage
-- $5 million for shellfish, oyster and clam producers
-- $24 million to sugar beet producers
-- $283 million for the Milk Income Loss Contract program
-- $120 million to compensate for the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the shrimp and menhaden fishing industries
-- $100 million for citrus assistance
-- last but not least...A minimum wage increase

And that's the short list. None of these have anything to do with the war, but they have everything to do politicians getting local projects passed that they couldn't get through otherwise to please their constituents. It's not about the war, it's about getting reelected.

Ah how soon we forget. Well, at least some people choose to forget.

When the War on Terror started, Bush went to Congress to ask for funding. With only 1 or 2 exceptions, everyone voted in favor of it. In fact, the 'left' couldn't wait to stampede to the microphones saying how much they agreed with him.

FF to the War in Iraq to topple Saddam. Again, Bush passed resolutions at the U.N. which authorized him to proceed. If they were so dead-set that it was an 'illegal' war, they certainly didn't vote that way. Neither did left-wing politicians in Congress. They all voted to authorize it (with 1 or 2 exceptions), and indeed they wanted TWO debates over the resolution (which they got) so there would be no mistake that they voted in favor of it. One notable vote in the matter was John "F'n" Kerry, who 'voted for it - before he voted against it.'.

FF to Nov. 2005 (just last year). John Murtha, who voted for the war, ran screaming to every camera he could jump in front of that we should leave Iraq. Left-wing politicos had been saying so for months - thinking the war was 'too hard'. They used such rhetoric as "illegal war", "unjustified", "imperialistic", "unauthorized" and so on and so forth, praying to a God they didn't believe in that no one in the country would remember they voted for it in the first place.

If the Dems are so hell-fire sure that the war is wrong, illegal, unjustified and ignoble - why don't they vote to cut off funding? There's all sorts of stuff they could do to sabotage the war - it they REALLY think it's wrong. And you people? Why not write your congressman and demand that they cut off funding for the war? Or demand that we 'bring the boys home'?

Oh yes - Murtha. He was so proud of his new courageous resolve that we must leave Iraq. Finally, the Republican leadership had enough. They introduced a resolution - which would have granted the Dems everything they CLAIMED they wanted. A resolution to withdraw from Iraq. Here was their big chance for the Dems to put their votes where their big mouths were.

The vote came in November 2005. Only THREE Dems voted in favor of the "cut and run" bill. Again - if they are so sure of their position - why won't they vote to quit? Or cut off funding? Or any of the other measures which would bring their 'war is illegal' rhetoric to it's logical conclusion? For that matter - the UN. If they're so sure it's an illegal war - why don't they vote to condemn Bush as a war criminal?

Because that's all they've got - hot air. They know that they themselves voted for the war. They know at the UN they passed the resolutions to authorize it. Because the war was not, is not, and never will be illegal or unauthorized. It was sanctiond by the Dems, the UN, everyone - except the terrorists and Saddam.

Time for another Rush Limbaugh profundity. In a parody of "Do-Run-Run", they wrote a song which outlined the situation so well the Dem's linguini-spined position:

Kennedy: They had a bona-fide and our hearts stood still!
We do run run run, we do run run!
Murtha demanded that we pull out up on capital hill!
We do run run run, we do run run!
Yeah, up on capital hill! At hill, we had to vote on a bill!
That's when we ran away! We do run run run, we do run run!
Thanks a lot Murtha!

I know just what you're thinking that we don't have a spine!
We do run run run, we do run run!
I've got one around here somewhere!
Clinton: I loaned out mine!
We do run run run, we do run run!
Yeah, we got no spine! That's why we're behind!
And if you stand up to us - we do run run run, we do run run!

Kennedy:
They picked on me at 7 on the network news!
We do run run run run, we do run run!
Called us on the carpet to defend our point of view!
We do run run run, we do run run!
Yeah, we said Bush lied!
I never meant it personally, I just improvised!
I, uh, think it's time to run away again!
We do run run run, we do run run!
Over here - this way! Uh, that's not EXACTLY what I meant!
We're, uh, we're all for the troops!
We, uh, we never said withdraw RIGHT NOW!
Just a timetable! Or an estimated timetable....!

Odd, a man tells the truth and people attack him for it. This country has troops in a place where they do no good at all, they merely make things more divided. Murtha knows what he is talking about. Damn, if its not "Swift Boat Veterans for Mudslinging Lies" its something else drug around to discredit people that oppose the situation in the Middle East because their ideas makes sense.