Independent Senator Joe Lieberman gave a good speech regarding the recent war appropriations bill passed by the Democrats.

In his speech Monday, the Majority Leader described the several steps that this new strategy for Iraq would entail. Its first step, he said, is to "transition the U.S. mission away from policing a civil war—to training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. forces, and conducting targeted counter-terror operations."

I ask my colleagues to take a step back for a moment and consider this plan. When we say that U.S. troops shouldn't be "policing a civil war," that their operations should be restricted to this narrow list of missions, what does this actually mean?

To begin with, it means that our troops will not be allowed to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias who are trying to terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has argued should be the central focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would instead be ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them—no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes.

In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians—men, women, and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone. It means turning our backs on the policies that led us to intervene in the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the principles that today lead many of us to call for intervention in Darfur.

This makes no moral sense at all.

It also makes no strategic or military sense. Al Qaeda's own leaders have repeatedly said that one of the ways they intend to achieve victory in Iraq is to provoke civil war. They are trying to kill as many people as possible today, precisely in the hope of igniting sectarian violence, because they know that this is their best way to collapse Iraq's political center, overthrow Iraq's elected government, radicalize its population, and create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East that they can use as a base. That is why Al Qaeda blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra last year. And that is why we are seeing mass casualty suicide bombings by Al Qaeda in Baghdad now.

The sectarian violence that the Majority Leader says he wants to order American troops to stop policing, in other words, is the very same sectarian violence that Al Qaeda hopes to ride to victory. The suggestion that we can draw a bright legislative line between stopping terrorists in Iraq and stopping civil war in Iraq flies in the face of this reality. I do not know how to say it more plainly: it is Al Qaeda that is trying to cause a full-fledged civil war in Iraq.

The Majority Leader said on Monday that he believes U.S. troops will still be able to conduct "targeted counter-terror operations" under his plan. Even if we stop trying to protect civilians in Iraq, in other words, we can still go after the bad guys. But again, I ask my colleagues, how would this translate into military reality on the ground? How would we find these terrorists, who do not gather on conventional military bases or fight in conventional formations?

By definition, targeted counterterrorism requires our forces to know where, when, and against whom to strike—and that in turn requires accurate, actionable, real-time intelligence. This is the kind of intelligence that can only come from ordinary Iraqis, the sea of people among whom the terrorists hide. And that, in turn, requires interacting with the Iraqi people on a close, personal, daily basis. It requires winning individual Iraqis to our side, gaining their trust, convincing them that they can count on us to keep them safe from the terrorists if they share valuable information about them. This is no great secret. This is at the heart of the new strategy that General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out.

And yet, if we pass this legislation, according to the Majority Leader, U.S. forces will no longer be permitted to patrol Iraq's neighborhoods or protect Iraqi civilians. They won't, in his words, be "interjecting themselves between warring factions" or "trying to sort friend from foe."

Therefore, I ask the supporters of this legislation: How, exactly, are U.S. forces to gather intelligence about where, when, and against whom to strike, after you have ordered them walled off from the Iraqi population? How, exactly, are U.S. forces to carry out targeted counter-terror operations, after you have ordered them cut off from the very source of intelligence that drives these operations?

This is precisely why the congressional micromanagement of life-and-death decisions about how, where, and when our troops can fight is such a bad idea, especially on a complex and changing battlefield.

In sum, you can't have it both ways. You can't withdraw combat troops from Iraq and still fight Al Qaeda there. If you believe there is no hope of winning in Iraq, or that the costs of victory there are not worth it, then you should be for complete withdrawal as soon as possible.

There is another irony here as well. For most of the past four years, under Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the United States did not try to establish basic security in Iraq. Rather than deploying enough troops necessary to protect the Iraqi people, the focus of our military has been on training and equipping Iraqi forces, protecting our own forces, and conducting targeted sweeps and raids—in other words, the very same missions proposed by the proponents of the legislation before us.

That strategy failed—and we know why it failed. It failed because we didn't have enough troops to ensure security, which in turn created an opening for Al Qaeda and its allies to exploit. They stepped into this security vacuum and, through horrific violence, created a climate of fear and insecurity in which political and economic progress became impossible.

For years, many members of Congress recognized this. We talked about this. We called for more troops, and a new strategy, and—for that matter—a new secretary of defense. And yet, now, just as President Bush has come around—just as he has recognized the mistakes his administration has made, and the need to focus on basic security in Iraq, and to install a new secretary of defense and a new commander in Iraq—now his critics in Congress have changed their minds and decided that the old, failed strategy wasn't so bad after all.

What is going on here? What has changed so that the strategy that we criticized and rejected in 2006 suddenly makes sense in 2007?

The second element in the plan outlined by the Majority Leader on Monday is "the phased redeployment of our troops no later than October 1, 2007." Let us be absolutely clear what this means. This legislation would impose a binding deadline for U.S. troops to begin retreating from Iraq. This withdrawal would happen regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus, in short regardless of reality on October 1, 2007.

As far as I can tell, none of the supporters of withdrawal have attempted to explain why October 1 is the magic date—what strategic or military significance this holds. Why not September 1? Or January 1? This is a date as arbitrary as it is inflexible—a deadline for defeat.

How do proponents of this deadline defend it? On Monday, Senator Reid gave several reasons. First, he said, a date for withdrawal puts "pressure on the Iraqis to make the desperately needed political compromises." But will it? According to the legislation now before us, the withdrawal will happen regardless of what the Iraqi government does. How, then, if you are an Iraqi government official, does this give you any incentive to make the right choices?

On the contrary, there is compelling reason to think a legislatively directed withdrawal of American troops will have exactly the opposite effect than its Senate sponsors intend. This, in fact, is exactly what the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq predicted. A withdrawal of U.S. troops in the months ahead, it said, would "almost certainly lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict, intensify Sunni resistance, and have adverse effects on national reconciliation."

Second, the Majority Leader said that withdrawing our troops, and again I quote, will "reduce the specter of the U.S. occupation which gives fuel to the insurgency." My colleague from Nevada, in other words, is suggesting that the insurgency is being provoked by the very presence of American troops. By diminishing that presence, then, he believes the insurgency will diminish.

But I ask my colleagues—where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel'Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?

On the contrary—in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence. So I ask advocates of withdrawal: on what evidence, on what data, have you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency, when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that this legislation will strengthen it?

Consider the words of Sheikh Abdul Sattar, one of the leading Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province who is now fighting on our side against Al Qaeda. This is what he told the New York Times when asked last month what would happen if U.S. troops withdraw. "In my personal opinion, and in the opinion of most of the wise men of Anbar," he said, "if the American forces leave right now, there will be civil war and the area will fall into total chaos."

This is a man whose father was killed by Al Qaeda, who is risking his life every day to work with us—a man who was described by one Army officer as "the most effective local leader in Ramadi I believe the coalition has worked with... in Anbar [since] 2003."

In his remarks earlier this week, the Majority Leader observed that there is "a large and growing population of millions—who sit precariously on the fence. They will either condemn or contribute to terrorism in the years ahead. We must convince them of the goodness of America and Americans. We must win them over."

On this, I completely agree with my friend from Nevada. My question to him, however, and to the supporters of this legislation, is this: how does the strategy you propose in this bill possibly help win over this population of millions in Iraq, who sit precariously on the fence? What message, I ask, does this legislation announce to those people in Iraq? How will they respond when we tell them that we will no longer make any effort to protect them against insurgents and death squads? How will they respond when we declare that we will be withdrawing our forces—regardless of whether they make progress in the next six months towards political reconciliation? Where will their hopes for a better life be when we withdraw the troops that are the necessary precondition for the security and stability they yearn for?

Do my friends really believe that this is the way to convince Iraqis, and the world, of the goodness of America and Americans? Does anyone in this chamber really believe that, by announcing a date certain for withdrawal, we will empower Iraqi moderates, or enable Iraq's reconstruction, or open more schools for their children, or more hospitals for their families, or freedom for everyone?

Mr. President, with all due respect, this is fantasy.

The third step the Majority Leader proposes is to impose "tangible, measurable, and achievable benchmarks on the Iraqi government." I am all for such benchmarks. In fact, Senator McCain and I were among the first to propose legislation to apply such benchmarks on the Iraqi government. But I don't see how this plan will encourage Iraqis to meet these or any other benchmarks, given its ironclad commitment to abandon them—regardless of how they behave.

We should of course be making every effort to encourage reconciliation in Iraq and the development of a decent political order that Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds can agree on. But even if today that political solution was found, we cannot rationally think that our terrorist enemies like Al Qaeda in Iraq will simply vanish.

Al Qaeda is not mass murdering civilians on the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenues. Its aim in Iraq is not to get a seat at the political table. It wants to blow up the table—along with everyone seated at it. Al Qaeda wants to destroy any prospect for democracy in Iraq, and it will not be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. It must be fought and defeated through force of arms. And there can be no withdrawal, no redeployment from this reality.

The fourth step that the Majority Leader proposed on Monday is a "diplomatic, economic, and political offensive... starting with a regional conference working toward a long-term framework for stability in the region." I understand why we are tempted by these ideas. All of us are aware of the justified frustration, fatigue, and disappointment of the American people. And all of us would like to believe that there is a quick and easy solution to the challenges we face in Iraq.

But none of this gives us an excuse to paper over hard truths. We delude ourselves if we think we can wave a legislative wand and suddenly our troops in the field will be able to distinguish between Al Qaeda terrorism and sectarian violence, or that Iraqis will suddenly settle their political differences because our troops are leaving, or that sweet reason alone will suddenly convince Iran and Syria to stop destabilizing Iraq.

Mr. President, what we need now is a sober assessment of the progress we have made and a recognition of the challenges we face. There are still many uncertainties before us, many complexities. Barely half of the new troops that General Petraeus has requested have even arrived in Iraq, and, as we heard from him yesterday, it will still be months before we will know just how effective his new strategy is.

In following General Petraeus' path, there is no guarantee of success—but there is hope, and a new plan, for success. The plan embedded in this legislation, on the other hand, contains no such hope. It is a strategy of catchphrases and bromides, rather than military realities in Iraq. It does not learn from the many mistakes we have made in Iraq. Rather, it promises to repeat them.

Let me be absolutely clear: In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost—but if we follow this plan, it will be. And so, I fear, much of our hope for stability in the Middle East and security from terrorism here at home.

Lieberman is Bush Lite. He's dead in the water in opinion polls from both parties so I won't read his nutty manifesto.

Why are we still listening to the crapola slingers who have so clearly demonstrated their poor judgment and mistaken views of reality over the past five years of this war?

Joe Lieberman has been consistently and flagrantly wrong about Iraq from a year before day one.

There are people who have demonstrated insight and understanding on the subject of this war, through sound predictions and enlightening analyses. We should listen to them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQRD6aXeePM

- N

Genji, Ice Aura, you are not getting the point. Lieberman is stating facts. the Democratic congress is trying to take a step backwards. Not only that but willfully trying to hinder out military response. I mean come one, Bush finally listened and revised his plan and we are seeing some progress, albeit at a cost, and now Concress is basically saying "Well you had your surge it didn;t work over night so it isn't going to work." The willfully ignore the fact that every succussful counterinsurgency operation has taken an average of nine years.

Bush finally listened and revised his plan and we are seeing some progress
Thats a fantasy.

Thats a fantasy.

Alright, since you make that claim prove it. I mean even the newcasters are noticing improvements in Baghdad including the reopening of an amusement park among other things.

Thats a fantasy.

There has been progress in Iraq since 5 years

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/13/the-daily-show-reverse-progress-in-iraq-vetoes-and-war-czars/

Yeah, there was progress. More troops are dying since the surge. Also the military doesn't count people blown up by IEDs into the casualty figure to brighten stats...

I mean even the newcasters are noticing improvements in Baghdad.
Are they deaf dumb and blind?

Syzygys,

Yeah, there was progress. More troops are dying since the surge. Also the military doesn't count people blown up by IEDs into the casualty figure to brighten stats...

And you can prove this? so can I the tempo of operations have gone up, there are more troops in country, and there are more contacts taking place, what the hell do you think is going to happen if you go after the enemy? the tempo of the fighting has increased, guess what, the death toll for the terrorist has gone up to, we are killing more of them to.

the death toll for the terrorist has gone up to, we are killing more of them to.

Can you prove this?

Because I can mine:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/17134253.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation

"U.S. officials who say there has been a dramatic drop in sectarian violence in Iraq since President Bush began sending more American troops into Baghdad aren't counting one of the main killers of Iraqi civilians.
Car bombs and other explosive devices have killed thousands of Iraqis in the past three years, but the administration doesn't include them in the casualty counts it has been citing as evidence that the surge of additional U.S. forces is beginning to defuse tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims."

The death toll is going up. Whether or not they are terrorists is anyones guess.

Ha! The Cons consider funding for veteran care to be "pork". These scum cannot lose power soon enough.

Genji, Ice Aura, you are not getting the point. Lieberman is stating facts. the Democratic congress is trying to take a step backwards. Not only that but willfully trying to hinder out military response. I mean come one, Bush finally listened and revised his plan and we are seeing some progress, albeit at a cost, and now Concress is basically saying "Well you had your surge it didn;t work over night so it isn't going to work." The willfully ignore the fact that every succussful counterinsurgency operation has taken an average of nine years.Public opinion is no longer with you guys. You had 7 years and you blew it.

Alright, since you make that claim prove it. I mean even the newcasters are noticing improvements in Baghdad including the reopening of an amusement park among other things.I hear one can even take a STROLL through Baghdad and enjoy the Spring air!:crazy:

Independent Senator Joe Lieberman gave a good speech regarding the recent war appropriations bill passed by the Democrats.
Independent senator Joe Lieberman is an orthodox Jew. Need I say more? He's going to fight war on terror to the last American soldier.

BTW, are you enlisting? Those soldiers could use your medical help.

Independent senator Joe Lieberman is an orthodox Jew. Need I say more? He's going to fight war on terror to the last American soldier.

BTW, are you enlisting? Those soldiers could use your medical help.Armchair warriors are too chickenshit to suit up and back up their patriotic hot air and enlist. They want OTHER people and THEIR kids to fight their wars on the world. Easy to type pro war bs but another thing entirely to dive into the bloodbath.

Armchair warriors are too chickenshit to suit up and back up their patriotic hot air and enlist. They want OTHER people and THEIR kids to fight their wars on the world. Easy to type pro war bs but another thing entirely to dive into the bloodbath.
Genji,
Must you resort to tired cliches and name calling? So no one who is not actually in the military may be in favor of military action? Is that what you're saying?

Should the president call for all able bodied men to enlist, I'll be there. Otherwise, I have a wife and four kids to support and I'm way out of shape.

How many people do you actually know who are serving in Iraq or Afganistan? I know several. Many of my seventeen year old son's friends are serving right now. Who knows, he may decide to enlist. Although I'm pretty sure his plans are to go to college.

Genji

Armchair warriors are too chickenshit to suit up and back up their patriotic hot air and enlist. They want OTHER people and THEIR kids to fight their wars on the world. Easy to type pro war bs but another thing entirely to dive into the bloodbath.

I served my country? Did you?, all it would have taken was keeping your mouth shut for two or three years, depending on how long you enlisted for, or as I suspect your all mouth and no go, using your homosexuality to keep from serving.

Makes complete sense now why the US government does not care about the education system. They want a nation of idiots with poor reading comprehension and even less logical and analytical abilities.

Makes complete sense now why the US government does not care about the education system. They want a nation of idiots with poor reading comprehension and even less logical and analytical abilities.

I greatly doubt that reasoning ability correlates well with reading comprehension, factory "educated" are way easier to handle mentally (need I to say that "educated" heads are stuffed with the ideas and thoughts of few dozens "intellectuals" and PR gurus) + educated have more material stuff at the stake = ease of handling.

Genji



I served my country? Did you?, all it would have taken was keeping your mouth shut for two or three years, depending on how long you enlisted for, or as I suspect your all mouth and no go, using your homosexuality to keep from serving.


Country is an abstraction, you should have say something like that "I served puppetmasters and deep wallets of my country, cause I was brainwashed from childhood that this is a "patriotic" thing to do"

Independent Senator Joe Lieberman gave a good speech regarding the recent war appropriations bill passed by the Democrats.

When are you joining the military keyboard jockey? Oh let me guess, your another one those chicken hawk republicans who has a medical condition that's preventing you from enlisting? We've been bombing Iraq for 3 fucking administrations. For the last 15 fucking years. Why in the Hell do we need to remain there?

Genji,
Must you resort to tired cliches and name calling? So no one who is not actually in the military may be in favor of military action? Is that what you're saying?

Should the president call for all able bodied men to enlist, I'll be there. Otherwise, I have a wife and four kids to support and I'm way out of shape.
QUOTE]

That's right, you're out of shape, you have a wife & kid. And they're more important to you then securing voting rights for some fanatics in fulluja. Our poor soldiers on average have been doing 2 to 3 tours? If you really cared about this war, or the soldiers, you would get off your ass and let one of them come home. Since they're fighting for YOUR freedom. But oh no, you keyboard jockeys are all talk. I can't respect anyone who's pro war, but refuse to put their asses on the line where it really counts.

Ganymede, and what have you done? did you go to Iraq and become a human shield to stop the war?, Have you thrown yourself in front of a Tank to protect the al Queda innocents?, have you put your body in front of a bulldozer to stop the Israelis?, Yes tell me, the only thing that I can respect Rachel Corrie for is the fact that she went there and tried to back up her beliefs with actions, so what have you put on the LINE?

I can't respect anyone who's pro war, but refuse to put their asses on the line where it really counts.
So in your view, support for any military action should be zero outside of those actually serving?

Genji,
Must you resort to tired cliches and name calling? So no one who is not actually in the military may be in favor of military action? Is that what you're saying?

Should the president call for all able bodied men to enlist, I'll be there. Otherwise, I have a wife and four kids to support and I'm way out of shape.

How many people do you actually know who are serving in Iraq or Afganistan? I know several. Many of my seventeen year old son's friends are serving right now. Who knows, he may decide to enlist. Although I'm pretty sure his plans are to go to college.
If the US were being invaded I'd volunteer too. Also needing some conditioning and all. I know of two relatives and the son of a family friend in Iraq now. I'm just opposed to this war. Feeding more trillions of dollars and more bodies into the meat grinder has only strengthened Islamic fundamentalism and has alienated all support from the Iraqi population. Expanding this civil war will be a catastrophe. I'm just tired of leaders that have never served or got out of combat duty ordering our young into UN- necessary wars with no end in sight. If you can't see the flaws in the planning, selling and execution of this criminal assault on the people of Iraq perhaps it is best you stay home and play soldier online.

I can't respect anyone who's pro war, but refuse to put their asses on the line where it really counts.

I saw him say he would go to war if the time called for it. He was never asked, so he never refused, and he demonstrated a willingness to go if the time came. Where did he refuse service.

Ganymede, and what have you done? did you go to Iraq and become a human shield to stop the war?, Have you thrown yourself in front of a Tank to protect the al Queda innocents?, have you put your body in front of a bulldozer to stop the Israelis?, Yes tell me, the only thing that I can respect Rachel Corrie for is the fact that she went there and tried to back up her beliefs with actions, so what have you put on the LINE?
??????

Ganymede, and what have you done? did you go to Iraq and become a human shield to stop the war?, Have you thrown yourself in front of a Tank to protect the al Queda innocents?, have you put your body in front of a bulldozer to stop the Israelis?, Yes tell me, the only thing that I can respect Rachel Corrie for is the fact that she went there and tried to back up her beliefs with actions, so what have you put on the LINE?

You forgot: joining the army so he can help train sectarian death squads in Iraq, so they can help incite the civil war, so Bush can use the continuing violence as an excuse to stay in Iraq, so he can keep control of the oil.

Ganymede, and what have you done? did you go to Iraq and become a human shield to stop the war?, Have you thrown yourself in front of a Tank to protect the al Queda innocents?, have you put your body in front of a bulldozer to stop the Israelis?, Yes tell me, the only thing that I can respect Rachel Corrie for is the fact that she went there and tried to back up her beliefs with actions, so what have you put on the LINE?

False dilemma fallacy. Not supporting the invasion of Iraq does not equal support for the fallen regime of the late Hussein, nor for any of the anti-western/Israeli forces engaged in the chaos that now reigns there. It wasn't a matter of invade or do nothing; there were many other options available.

The rush to war was because the Bush administration realized they had to strike while the country was in a mood for revenge following the terrorist attacks. And even then, they used ridiculously optimistic projections, and the bare minimum of men and equipment, because they realized the support for this reckless adventure ran about as thick as the skin on a pudding.

If it had been up to me, our government would never have legitimized Hussein's regime by supporting it. I never believed that he was a threat to the US.

Oh yes, don't forget this Kodak moment.
http://www.saber.net/~z31/rummy-saddam.jpg

Repo Man, and what has any of this to do with the question posed? my question to Ganymede, is what has he done in support of his cause against the war? what has he put on the line? did he do what Rachel Corrie did, she had more gut than Ganymede will ever have, that I can admire her for even if I don't agree with her, she did something more than bitch and moan, and pound a computer key board, and that is all Ganymede has done, sit at home on his overdeveloped brain and bitch. That seems to be a genetic trait of the liberal, let some one else do it, bitch and criticize.

Why should Ganymede have gone to Iraq as a human shield? If he is anything like me, he detested Saddam Hussein. So why should he try and protect him?

Being against the war did not mean you were pro Hussein.

Why should Ganymede have gone to Iraq as a human shield? If he is anything like me, he detested Saddam Hussein. So why should he try and protect him?

Being against the war did not mean you were pro Hussein.Exactly. The chickenhawks are like the Iranian mullahs or the Taliban. They do not tolerate dissent nor do they tolerate any view not in line with AM radioshows. Independent thinkers are a threat to them. Any opposition to GOP (Party of God) commandments and one is a traitor and or aiding the enemy. Tehran and Riyadh run things this way too. American rightists and Islamic fundamentalists have a true disdain for democracy.

Repo Man

Why should Ganymede have gone to Iraq as a human shield? If he is anything like me, he detested Saddam Hussein. So why should he try and protect him?

If he detested Saddam, why didn't he go to Iraq and protest Saddam and help remove him? Again Rachel Corrie, did more for her beliefs than you or Ganymede, she did something, she protested the Israeli government actions, if you were so against Saddam why didn't you go to Iraq and protest against his actions against the Iraqi people? Maybe because Saddam killed those who protested against him?, in some very inventive ways, feed them to his dogs, lions, boiled them in acid, threw them off of high building to test their aerodynamics, yes, if you were so much in solidarity with the Iraqi people, why didn't you do something?

That seems to be a genetic trait of the liberal, let some one else do it, bitch, moan and criticize, but make sure that you don't get hurt, that is for everybody else, that is why I don't believe that if something ever went down in this country that you and your liberals would do jack-shit to stop it, you would cut a deal for one more day of breathing.

Genji

That seems to be a genetic trait of the liberal, let some one else do it, bitch, moan and criticize, but make sure that you don't get hurt, that is for everybody else, that is why I don't believe that if something ever went down in this country that you and your liberals would do jack-shit to stop it, you would cut a deal for one more day of breathing.

Yes I think this describes you to a T.

Genji

That seems to be a genetic trait of the liberal, let some one else do it, bitch, moan and criticize, but make sure that you don't get hurt, that is for everybody else, that is why I don't believe that if something ever went down in this country that you and your liberals would do jack-shit to stop it, you would cut a deal for one more day of breathing.

Yes I think this describes you to a T.I'm not a liberal.

Repo Man

Why should Ganymede have gone to Iraq as a human shield? If he is anything like me, he detested Saddam Hussein. So why should he try and protect him?

If he detested Saddam, why didn't he go to Iraq and protest Saddam and help remove him? Again Rachel Corrie, did more for her beliefs than you or Ganymede, she did something, she protested the Israeli government actions, if you were so against Saddam why didn't you go to Iraq and protest against his actions against the Iraqi people? Maybe because Saddam killed those who protested against him?, in some very inventive ways, feed them to his dogs, lions, boiled them in acid, threw them off of high building to test their aerodynamics, yes, if you were so much in solidarity with the Iraqi people, why didn't you do something?

That seems to be a genetic trait of the liberal, let some one else do it, bitch, moan and criticize, but make sure that you don't get hurt, that is for everybody else, that is why I don't believe that if something ever went down in this country that you and your liberals would do jack-shit to stop it, you would cut a deal for one more day of breathing.

There are a great many things that are wrong in this world. I am virtually powerless to stop them. I certainly do not expect the government of the country I live in to fix them all, or even a substantial portion of them. But I would be pleased if my government would at least stop doing business with bloody dictators.

It was sadly amusing to hear the right wing crowing about the horrors of Saddam in the buildup to the latest war. These same people were deafeningly silent about his atrocities when he was committing the worst of them. The response of the US government to the Halabja attack? Extending trade credits so he could buy our wheat. Talk of sanctions against Iraq were dismissed by our government. http://hnn.us/articles/862.html

After calling on the people of Iraq to overthrow the Hussein regime during the first gulf war, the Bush administration allowed Hussein to slaughter them.

But although Bush had called for the rebellion, his administration was caught unprepared when it happened. The administration knew little about those in the Iraqi opposition because, as a matter of policy, it refused to talk to them. Policymakers tended to see Iraq's main ethnic groups in caricature: The Shiites were feared as pro-Iranian and the Kurds as anti-Turkish. Indeed, the U.S. administration seemed to prefer the continuation of the Baath regime (albeit without Hussein) to the success of the rebellion. As one National Security Council official told me at the time: "Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime."

The practical expression of this policy came in the decisions made by the military on the ground. U.S. commanders spurned the rebels' plea for help. The United States allowed Iraq to send Republican Guard units into southern cities and to fly helicopter gunships. (This in spite of a ban on flights, articulated by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf with considerable swagger: "You fly, you die.") The consequences were devastating. Hussein's forces leveled the historical centers of the Shiite towns, bombarded sacred Shiite shrines and executed thousands on the spot. By some estimates, 100,000 people died in reprisal killings between March and September. Many of these atrocities were committed in proximity to American troops, who were under orders not to intervene.

In recent years Baghdad has shortchanged the south in the distribution of food and medicine, contributing to severe malnutrition among vulnerable populations. Some 100 Shiite clerics have been murdered, including four senior ayatollahs. Draining the marshes displaced 400,000 Marsh Arabs, destroying a culture that is one of the world's oldest, as well as causing immeasurable ecological damage.

The first Bush administration's decision to abandon the March uprising was a mistake of historic proportions. With U.S. help, or even neutrality, the March uprising could have succeeded, thus avoiding the need for a second costly war. (Bush's defenders insist the United States had no mandate to carry the war to Baghdad, but this is beside the point. The uprising started after the Gulf War ended, and the United States was positioned to easily down Iraqi helicopters and halt Iraqi tanks.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10874-2003Apr11?language=printer

I think the people of Iraq have had enough of our "help". We've really become like Borat in the antique shop.

Ganymede, and what have you done? did you go to Iraq and become a human shield to stop the war?, Have you thrown yourself in front of a Tank to protect the al Queda innocents?, have you put your body in front of a bulldozer to stop the Israelis?, Yes tell me, the only thing that I can respect Rachel Corrie for is the fact that she went there and tried to back up her beliefs with actions, so what have you put on the LINE?

I chose not to pull a trigger and take a life. That's the path I've chosen. You're a member of the Party of Death. The Party of Hate. Your movement can't exist without *hate* and destruction being your primary motivation. You parties main platform is centered around killing humans. And using tragic events to justify massive slaughter of humans. At the end of the day, all that matters is who kills more civilians. It doesn't matter what was intended. So my goal is to make sure that we're not the ones killing innocent civilians. How about a war of Theft buffalo? I say we go to war with all the thieves until theivery is wiped out!

Genji

That seems to be a genetic trait of the liberal, let some one else do it, bitch, moan and criticize, but make sure that you don't get hurt, that is for everybody else, that is why I don't believe that if something ever went down in this country that you and your liberals would do jack-shit to stop it, you would cut a deal for one more day of breathing.

Yes I think this describes you to a T.

Republicans epitomize the term *ChickenHawk* read it and weep right wingers.

Democrats
* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan.
1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.(Double Amputee)
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments.
Entered draft but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII.
Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.

Republicans
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Cleland's patriotism. (Can you belive it? Attacking a double Amputee who actually served, while he didn't)
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon! Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.

Pundits & Preachers
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.

THANK YOU BUFFALO FOR PROVING MY POINT, NOW TAKE THAT PATRIOTISM YOU HAVE AND UNLEASH IT ON YOUR PARTY MEMBERS WHO FAILED TO SEVER THEIR COUNTRY WHEN IT NEEDED THEM MOST.

Ganymede

I chose not to pull a trigger and take a life. That's the path I've chosen. You're a member of the Party of Death. The Party of Hate. Your movement can't exist without *hate* and destruction being your primary motivation. You parties main platform is centered around killing humans. And using tragic events to justify massive slaughter of humans. At the end of the day, all that matters is who kills more civilians. It doesn't matter what was intended. So my goal is to make sure that we're not the ones killing innocent civilians. How about a war of Theft buffalo? I say we go to war with all the thieves until theivery is wiped out!

So you don't contribute to the death toll? really? do you back abortion on demand? By your inaction have innocent people died? when you say not to interfere with the radical Islamic terrorist do you contribute to another innocent life being lost? Have you went to the point were, what you consider the evil acts of America are being done, and put your body in front of the evil American War Machine in a effort to stop the horrible Killing? Have You put your body in front of the terrorist that are Killing innocent Moslems and Christians, and any other religion, to stop the killing? or do you sit at home, keeping your cowardly ass from taking part in the world, instead of going out and try to change the wrongs that you claim are happening? Yes SAHBAM, never put your self were you might bleed for your beliefs, a true Humanitarian, I Can Respect Ghandi, I Can Respect Rachel Corie, They went out a fought and bled and died for their Ideals, what have you done, and SAHBAM, that tells me just what the total worth of your ideas are.

Ganymede

THANK YOU BUFFALO FOR PROVING MY POINT, NOW TAKE THAT PATRIOTISM YOU HAVE AND UNLEASH IT ON YOUR PARTY MEMBERS WHO FAILED TO SEVER THEIR COUNTRY WHEN IT NEEDED THEM MOST.

You have no point, these people don't condemn our military, LIKE YOU DO !they don't condemn our country, LIKE YOU DO ! They fully support or troops in the field, they don't support play politics with the lives of our troops, by screwing with the funding of the troops in combat for political gain, LIKE YOU DO !
The Democrats now are (and you support) what they are doing, which is now costing the lives of those same troops, due to lack of being able to supply protective body armor, and armor for the HUMV's, So How does it feel to pull the trigger and kill? That is what you are doing, do you realize that, you have blood on your hands, the same as you accuse others of doing, you support the killing. So tell me Bloody Hand how does it feel? to know that you support and have contributed to the deaths of others?

Duh, it was Bush who failed to provide armor. Nothing the Democrats are doing will leave troops in the field without ammunition. The Army plans in advance for their missions you know.

i love it.
all you clowns having a mass orgasm

let me ask you a question.
what could bush do to insure a victory for the US in iraq?

and.
what was being discussed when this photo was taken?
http://www.saber.net/~z31/rummy-saddam.jpg

what was being discussed when this photo was taken?
http://www.saber.net/~z31/rummy-saddam.jpg

pinochle.

The Democrats now are (and you support) what they are doing, which is now costing the lives of those same troops, due to lack of being able to supply protective body armor, and armor for the HUMV's, Granted that remembering what happened six months ago, much less last year, is far too much to ask of a conservative American; still the amnesia of such a statement is bizarre.

Desperate ?

"You go to war with the army you have" was the Republican response to observations of underfunding and under equipping. The Murtha proposal was suppoerted by Dems, opposed by Reps, not the other way around.

iceaura

Granted that remembering what happened six months ago, much less last year, is far too much to ask of a conservative American; still the amnesia of such a statement is bizarre.

Desperate ?

"You go to war with the army you have" was the Republican response to observations of underfunding and under equipping. The Murtha proposal was suppoerted by Dems, opposed by Reps, not the other way around.

??????????????????????logic??????????????????????? ??????????????????

The fact is that you do go to war with the Army you have, it has always happened that way, and the short coming are fixed along the way, the Republicans funded the equipment, and the up grades, and the body armor, along the way, show me were they didn't, but now the Democrats have for political purpose presented a Funding bill that they new was going to draw a veto, they put a time table to make what they hope will be political points, at the expense of the troops lives, there is no funding for the troops as of today, the Military Appropriations Bill wasn't passed, so there is no money for supplies for the troops, Ammunition, Body Armor, Medical Supplies, Weapons, Food, Clothing, and even for the health care of the dependents of the troops, right now the military is going through massive shifts of operating priorities, to try and keep the troops in the field supplied, but no thanks to the Democrats, the money has run out, and soon everything else will to, so don't tell me how the Democrats care for the Troops, I have been there, I have went into combat with a 100 rds in the guns and no more after that runs dry, I have flown Medi Vac, and had to wait for the grunts on the ground to move to a secure area because we didn't have the ammo to make a hot landing and pull the wounded out and to Hospital, yes Deja Vue, all over, Vietnam, screw the troops, politics comes first last and always with the democrats.

the Republicans funded the equipment, and the up grades, and the body armor, along the way, show me were they didn't, The first three years of the Iraq occupation, is one place they didn't.

Still haven't, actually.

The body armor and tinfoil Humvees and various other under-equippings were scandals from the very beginning. The Republicans did little or nothing about them until forced, and not much then.

Again: the Murtha proposition was opposed by Republicans, not supported.
I have been there, I have went into combat with a 100 rds in the guns and no more after that runs dry, I have flown Medi Vac, and had to wait for the grunts on the ground to move to a secure area because we didn't have the ammo to make a hot landing and pull the wounded out and to Hospital, yes Deja Vue, all over, Vietnam, screw the troops, politics comes first last and always with the democrats. None of the funding for the Iraq war, none of the stuff you describe, is Democratic doing. The Democrats have not had control of Congress long enough for any budget changes to have hit the the ground. All your complaints should be directed at the people responsible: Republicans, all of them.

All W had to do was include the war funding in his budget, and the Dems couldn't even threaten to cut funds - for the first time - now.

iceaura

The first three years of the Iraq occupation, is one place they didn't.
Please provide proof that the Republicans didn't provide the nessary armor as soon as it was possiable to do so, and that the troops don't have the armor nessary today.

Still haven't, actually.

Yes we know were you speak from on the subject, and again proof?

The body armor and tinfoil Humvees and various other under-equippings were scandals from the very beginning. The Republicans did little or nothing about them until forced, and not much then.

The Humv was never intended to be a combat vehicle, it was to have replaced the Jeep, and the 5/4 ton vehicles, it was a soft skinned designee from the start, if you can prove other wise please do so, but when they started to use it as a patrol combat vehicle, it was discovered, no shit that it didn't have any armor, so for a while the troops had to improvise? until the armor could be developed, manufactured, dispersed to and applied to the Humves, so we went to war with what we had, and worked like hell to improve what we had to work with, And now the democrats with their games are taking all of that progress and turning back the clock to a time when shortages existed in the protection level of the troops.

None of the funding for the Iraq war, none of the stuff you describe, is Democratic doing. The Democrats have not had control of Congress long enough for any budget changes to have hit the the ground. All your complaints should be directed at the people responsible: Republicans, all of them.

The Democrats have controal of the House and the Senate as of Friday, January 5, 2007, the Democrats have controal of all the Chairmanships, and Commitees in Congress, they wrote the Bill, They are the ones who passed it and they are the ones who sent it up to the President with a time table that they knew would draw a veto, Mr. Murtha’s is the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, he is a Democrat, and he wrote the bill, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sheparded it throught the Senate in support of Murtha, in the Senate it was a roll call vote along party lines Democrats for.

So don't tell me that they aren't responsable for the Bill as it was sent to the President, and that what they are doing isn't going to affect the troops, and risk their lives, I talk every week with a solder who has, or is going to deploy in Iraq, I have a lot of friends who are soldiers, it is a habit that I have to thank any Soldier, that I see in Uniform, or that I can Identify by the hair cut, for their service, and they all detest the democrats, and people like you who are using them as a political football for personel politics, at the danger of their lives, the democrats are doing more to change the voting preferences of the Americans people than anything that we conservative could have done, and it isn't just the troops that are feeling that way, it is their families, and friends, yes for ever trooper, their are at least 8 other people in his life that are watching the Demorats play politics with the lives of their loved ones.

War Critic Faces Test on Iraq Spending Bill - New York Times
Mr. Murtha’s power comes not just from his role as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, in charge of the huge spending bill for the war that ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/washington/25murtha.html?ex=
1330059600&en=c0267289170b7c5b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Senate Sends War Timetable To Bush's Desk - washingtonpost.com
The Senate approved a $124 billion Iraq war spending bill yesterday that ... House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid arrive for a ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042602469.html

...so there is no money for supplies for the troops, Ammunition, Body Armor, Medical Supplies, Weapons, Food, Clothing, and even for the health care of the dependents of the troops, right now the military is going through massive shifts of operating priorities, to try and keep the troops in the field supplied, but no thanks to the Democrats, the money has run out, and soon everything else will to, so don't tell me how the Democrats care for the Troops...,

Nearly half of the $94 billion in emergency funding President Bush says Congress needs to immediately make available to continue to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would actually be used to finance non-urgent items related to the so-called "longer war on terror." The revelation once again casts further doubt on the president's assertion that the Army will run out of funding this month for US troops fighting in those regions, according to a report issued by the nonpartisan research arm of Congress.

...According to a copy of the supplemental bill, $695 million in emergency funding would be used to send an additional aircraft carrier and Marine Expeditionary Force to the Persian Gulf, which many critics interpret as sending a hostile message to Iran. Furthermore, the Bush administration intends to use $10 million of the supplemental to help the State Department finance the US-established Alhurra Television (the free one) into 22 Middle Eastern countries. The channel, which broadcasts a wide variety of programs in Arabic from a studio in Springfield, Virginia, is seen as a propaganda tool whose messages are controlled by the Bush administration, according to a report in the Columbia Journalism Review.

... Finally, the Defense Department has also included a request for $500 million to expand its inventory of spare and repair parts, a "reflection of DOD's decision to expand the scope of costs permitted in supplemental requests to include costs of the 'longer war on terror' and not just emergency war costs."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042307A.shtml

spidergoat

spidergoat

Yeah?

Buffalo Roam

So don't tell me that they aren't responsable for the Bill as it was sent to the President, and that what they are doing isn't going to affect the troops, and risk their lives, Your claims were about how shortages had already affected the troops - my point was that all the shortages so far are Republican doing. No Democratic budget has affected anyone in Iraq, yet.

The Humv was never intended to be a combat vehicle, it was to have replaced the Jeep, and the 5/4 ton vehicles, it was a soft skinned designee from the start, if you can prove other wise please do so, but when they started to use it as a patrol combat vehicle, it was discovered, no shit that it didn't have any armor, so for a while the troops had to improvise? until the armor could be developed, manufactured, dispersed to and applied to the Humves, so we went to war with what we had, and worked like hell to improve what we had to work with,
There was an armored version of the Humvee, and retrofit armor for the tinfoil ones, available before the invasion. They were too expensive, for Rumsfeld's war. Requests for retrofit armor started coming in from the field by the fall of '03. As of the fall of '05, the sole source retrofit armor factory (in Ohio, state of many sole source Republican contractors) was not even at full capacity, let alone doing something radical like subcontract to larger capacity suppliers. Meanwhile about 80% of the Humvees used by the Marines in Iraq remained short of requested retrofit armor (most had some, but not the full coverage), and the army was in little better shape.

Quite a few US soldiers were killed and wounded in poorly armored humvees, during the two years it took to get the Republicans to begin to take an interest in that problem. But soldiers' deaths and maimings have never been of much interest to many current Republicans.

Interestingly, the Chairman of the Board of that company is an uncle of the current President. http://www.engineeredsupport.com/directors.htm

The problem was old news by '05, and production armored vehicles were involved as well as retrofit: http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/12/09/soldiers_headed_to_iraq_grill_rumsfeld/
In one particularly pointed exchange, Army Specialist Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee Army National Guard demanded to know why his units' Humvees do not have adequate armor.

"We're digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that's already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat," Wilson said, drawing applause and shouts of approval from his fellow soldiers. ''Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?"

Rumsfeld responded that the lack of armor is a ''matter of physics," explaining that armored Humvees are being produced as fast as they can. ''It's a matter of production and capability of doing it," he said.

The harsh questioning seemed to catch Rumsfeld off guard as he made his first major public appearance since the White House announced last week that he would remain in the Cabinet for President Bush's second term. Rumsfeld's answers also were testy, with the secretary defending the administration's policies and declaring at one point: ''You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have." Physics, is it?

http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2004/12/20/story7.html JACKSONVILLE -- The Army has asked its sole supplier of armored Humvees, Armor Holdings Inc., to immediately increase production of the vehicles from 450 a month to 550 a month.

Michael Fox, a spokesman for Jacksonville-based Armor Holdings, said it expects to achieve that production rate by February or March.

The request came Dec. 10, two days after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a gathering of soldiers in Iraq that armored Humvees were being produced as quickly as possible.

"It's essentially a matter of physics," he told the troops. "It isn't a matter of money."

But reports in The Boston Globe and other news organizations since then have indicated that Armor Holdings told the Pentagon as early as September that the company had the capacity to increase production by 100 units a month and that discussion within the Army over how many are needed had held up new orders. Even at the increased production, they were only running one shift. Not exactly emergency response behavior, from this sole source Ohio Republican supplier.
http://peoplegetready.blogspot.com/2005/06/its-time-to-wish-for-army-without.html for a typical lefty rant on the subject, in 2005 - two years into the war.
http://www.iraqnow.blogspot.com/2003_12_01_archive.html for a righty rant, same problem, already old news in January '04. - here we are over ten months into the most widely anticipated war since Yeats wrote The Second Coming, units are still scrambling to acquire the rare “up-armored” M1114 Humvees, and we still haven’t come up with a practical, authorized vehicle-hardening solution that commanders who’s units are rotating into Iraq this spring can actually implement before they hit the war zone?
- - - -
After all, urban counterinsurgencies are nothing new. After Mogadishu, after Grozny, after Afghanistan, after Belfast, after years of intifada already, and after nearly a year of our own hard experience here, and after the Humvee’s been in the inventory for nearly 20 years, and the deuce and half truck at least since Vietnam, it’s inconceivable to me that we’re still trying to figure out how to do this.

btw: Again, all the Republicans would have had to do, to fund the war for this whole year without Democratic interference, is put the funding in the regular budget. Why didn't they?

[The spending bill] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/23/AR2007042301131.html) would spend on veterans' health care $1.8 billion that Bush had not asked for and boosts funding for troop training and equipment.

On the local front, the agreement keeps Walter Reed Army Medical Center open for now, overruling the federal commission that had planned to shutter the Washington-based facility. The bill provides $20 million for repairs at Reed, keeping it open while upgrades are made to its successors.

spidergoat

Nearly half of the $94 billion in emergency funding President Bush says Congress needs to immediately make available to continue to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would actually be used to finance non-urgent items related to the so-called "longer war on terror." The revelation once again casts further doubt on the president's assertion that the Army will run out of funding this month for US troops fighting in those regions, according to a report issued by the nonpartisan research arm of Congress.

And Half of it is! The Democrats played politics with the Bill, adding a Time Table, and Loading it with ear marks(PORK) $10 Billion worth, so in the end none of it is available to the Troops.


finance non-urgent items related to the so-called "longer war on terror."

Anything else is a non-emergence, but it support the troops, it takes care of the medical needs at the Hospitals for the injured troops, it takes care of the families of the troops that are in theater, it pays for the equipment and supplies that are destroyed in combat, and that means the Body armor and Up Grade Kits for the Humvee's, it pays for the food that is consumed because the Military is bigger because of the numbers of ANG personnel now on active duty, and that is all of the 1000nds of thing that are needed to run a Army, and it is all vital to the long mission.

As for the long term moneys, It isn't available either, remember it is part of the bill, and with out the bill being able to pass, it isn't there.
But the Democrats want to play games with the lives of our Troops, and the welfare of their families, it is the Democrats, who are the one who made sure that there would be confrontation over funding Troops in Combat, and in the end leave them in the lurch.

Who's playing the game, when the Iraq War isn't even in the actual budget of the United States? Why must Bush fund this war with supplementals? I guess it's POLITICS, so he can claim our debt is low and justify tax cuts for the rich.

The lives of our troops aren't threatened by the actions of the Democrats. Bush cannot use them as pawns, they will serve to fit the policy, whatever it is. Don't even start on their families, with this administration lying at every turn about how they die (Pat Tillman). What soldier's funeral has he ever gone to? What sacrifices does he ask of the American people (nothing, keep shopping)?