Afghanistan no, but you have to think oil played into the decision to invade Iraq.

I imagine he's blocking it because there was supposed to be a new Congres "rule" that no new spending should be allowed to pass until measures were put in place until how it was going to be funded was laid out.

Of course, this "rule" has already been broken a couple times. Like with the healthcare bill... but still.


A quick check an.... yep. That's why he has a hold on it all right.

That and he objects to the fact that it mostly only goes to the veterans of our current wars and shuts out veterans who fought before then.


So... this horrible senator just wants congress to play by the rules it's passed and cover all veterans instead of just some.

The monster.  Coburn would be one of those guys that was complaining when bush was running up deficits btw.

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1351-Coburn-Blocking-Veterans-Benefits-Bill

A little bit of research will do you a lot of good.  In that article you can actually see what he proposes to get rid of to pay for it.  The fun part is counting how many times he says  a variation of "the president suggested we get rid of this."

I can't provide a graph, but I can provide the top ten...

The top ten countries that the U.S. imports oil from:

1. Canada

2. Mexico

3. Saudi Arabia

4. Venezuela

5. Nigeria

6. Angola

7. Iraq

8. Algeria

9. United Kingdom

10. Brazil

Source

Which brings me to my next point, how long will it be until USA invades Canada? J/k

But no, the war isn't about oil (Although that is a minor "spoil of war"). The cost of the war on terrorism is fast approaching $1trillion, I would be amazed if the US have made anywhere near that amount on oil from Iraq.

How about save money everywhere?

That's actually what his plan does.

His plan is to pass this... and pay for it by cutting a bunch of government orginzations that are redundent, inefficent or outright failures.

The guy just doesn't want to pass something unless it's paid for first.

It's really a list that's hard to argue against unless you know someone who's getting paid in one of those programs.

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=b64380b2-25a0-4b53-a5c3-87b2456ea41e

Yea, I could say something like "Obama wants to murder American military", and justify it by pointing out that the general in Afghanistan wants more troops to better safeguard the ones he has there, and Obama saying no is like sighing there death sentence.

It would be the same logic, and equally wrong.