Democrats hard at work blowing the 08 election Part II

[MobBoss]

The Pentagon has plenty of money...

Well.....thats not entirely true. Granted, the emphasis will remain on troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; but this would mean funds would have to be transferred from other accounts/pools/sources to do this. The overall effect will be a lowering of our readiness posture which in turn hurts the military in its ability to do its job. If moneys designated for training, sustainment, and operations for things outside of Iraq/Afghanistan are redirected to those zones, the readiness of the units preparing to go/not yet in theatre will surely be affected.

 

[JollyRoger]

Because Im Mr Excitement, I watch alot of CSPAN. Unfortunately, they take alot of phonecalls, and if you listen for any length of time, it becomes pretty obvious that the average Joey Belch out there doesnt support Democrats defunding the war. What Ive been trying to get across is that, IMO at least, the focus is now on Democrats cutting funding to the troops in the field, its no longer about the dangerous incompetence of Bush and the Republican leadership. This is not good. If youre a Democrat, and you want to get a Democratic President elected in 08, you want to keep the conversation on the lousy governing performance of the Republican Party. You dont want to shift it to you 'cutting and running'. How anyone can fail to understand this is completely beyond me.

Stop watching CSPAN call-ins. There are always a disproportionate number of callers touting Republican talking points. Most of America doesn't watch CSPAN and when 2008 rolls around, if we are still in Iraq and sttill without a plan, the blame will fall on the GOP. The war will still be funded, but most of America will still be on board with the incompetence theme and there will be a trail of vetos by Bush and bad votes by Republicans.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well.....thats not entirely true. Granted, the emphasis will remain on troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; but this would mean funds would have to be transferred from other accounts/pools/sources to do this. The overall effect will be a lowering of our readiness posture which in turn hurts the military in its ability to do its job. If moneys designated for training, sustainment, and operations for things outside of Iraq/Afghanistan are redirected to those zones, the readiness of the units preparing to go/not yet in theatre will surely be affected.

That the danger the Commander-in-Chief risked when he decided not to put the war in his regular budget. Playing the supplemental funding game is basically a way to hide behind the troops. Look at all the supplementals when the Republicans controlled Congress - they kept cramming in pork and unrelated measures like ANWR drilling - and claimed that a vote against the supplemental was a vote against the troops. Bush can sign the supplemental as it is if he wants or he can delay funding. The choice is his alone to make right now.

If Bush didn't want to play games with the troops, he would fund his wars through his annual budget.

 

[Little Raven]

Well.....thats not entirely true. Granted, the emphasis will remain on troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; but this would mean funds would have to be transferred from other accounts/pools/sources to do this.

Unless your bosses have been engaged in some shady accounting, though, that shouldn't be an issue. Previous emergency appropriates should keep the Pentagon pretty flush until at least June, by which point the real bill should have passed.

Which brings up a secondary, but still poignant question. Given that nobody, least of all Republicans, think that we're going to be leaving Iraq or Afghanistan any time soon, why do we still insist on funding those theatres through emergency appropriations? Why not simply add them into the defense budget?

edit - Damn, Jolly, you couldn't wait 3 minutes? You just had to go rain all over my parade?!?

 

[Mark1031]

Democrats would never go so far as to actually vote for defunding? Well, they have...

The Dems voted for more funds than Bush requested. If he vetos it he has defunded his own war. how is a 125 B$ bill defunding? Don;t buy the spin.

 

[Little Raven]

Why are you so sure of that? Correct me if Im wrong, but in the previous thread, didnt you say that the Democrats would never go so far as to actually vote for defunding? Well, they have...

No, I said they would never actually defund anyone. And they won't. Trust me, if they actually had the votes necessary to override the veto, this bill would never have passed.

The Democrats don't want us out of Iraq before 2008. They're hoping for a repeat of 1932, and they know that Iraq is the only chance they have of seeing that happen. You can almost hear them giggling as they pass this bill...they're not pushing policy, they're painting their opponents into corners. I honestly believe that most Democrats care about the troops, at least as much as any politician does, but I'm sure that another ~1000 casualties seems a small price to pay measured next to a decade of ascendancy for the Democrats . They'll pony up, have no fear.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Deleted..... not completely on topic.

 

[Hygro]

I always thought c-span was disproportionately republican... until I realized so was congress and the executive. And when callers finally got fed up with bush, democrats swept in 2006. I'll take some stock in them.

 

[Keshik]

The Dems voted for more funds than Bush requested. If he vetos it he has defunded his own war. how is a 125 B$ bill defunding? Don;t buy the spin.

How much of that $125 Bil was for pork?

 

[JollyRoger]

How much of that $125 Bil was for pork?

About the same as every other supplemental funding bill for the war so far. Bush did not veto a single one.

 

[FriendlyFire]

See? You did it too--made a big deal out of a body count smaller than the number of people who died worldwide while I wrote this reply.

well put when those airmen training in italy died during kosovo it made the headlines. 4 non combat deaths as a result. Now were lossing that many almost (3.15 per day?) daily in Iraq hardly makes a mention.

54 dead in Black Hawk down ? Why American public was outragged (though the mutilation of the corpses was really shocking).

33 dead in Virgin Tech shooting worest killing in US history. Shocking!

-------------

Thats human nature.
The most cited was why Arab world were not outranged at Saddam salughter of humdreds of thousands yet angry at the west. Often called (mis)directed outrage.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Now come on, what the hell does any of this have to do with CG and his weaving back and forth?

FF I really wonder about your sanity sometimes..

Iam just taking you to task over "Filp Flopper Kerry"
If "10 positions" Kerry is bad then "I dont make no mistakes" Bush must be the devil himself in your eyes.

“No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th.” President Bush, September 17, 2004.

“We went to war [in Iraq] because we were attacked.” President Bush, June 18, 2005.