As Predicted, Democrats Won't Cut Funding For Additional Troops

[FranG]

Here what I said (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=516830&postcount=4) they would say last week:

"although we disagree with the President's (the bad cop) reckless policy in Iraq, we will not deny our troops the necessary tools it needs to fight this war for our freedom. Not providing our soldiers with the necessary tools of war makes them literal sitting ducks and vulnerable to the enemy. We (Democrats) will not allow that to happen under our watch. We can only hope that the President heed the advice of his military advisors and employ a moreeffective strategy in Iraq so that we can scale back troops and get our men and women back home."


Here's what Nancy Pelosi said in an interview with Diane Sawyer.

Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way, but we will hold the president accountable. He has to answer for his war. He has dug a hole so deep he can't even see the light on this. It's a tragedy. It's a stark blunder.

It is, I think, very difficult for the president to sustain a war of this magnitude without the support of the American people and without the support of the Congress of the United States. That's why Congress will vote to oppose the president's escalation, from the standpoint of policy. We will have our disagreement.

These pricks are so predictable. Click here for the full interview (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/print?id=2805714) to get the full gist of the indiscrete war mongering.

[omnirook]

Here what I said (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=516830&postcount=4) they would say last week:

"although we disagree with the President's (the bad cop) reckless policy in Iraq, we will not deny our troops the necessary tools it needs to fight this war for our freedom. Not providing our soldiers with the necessary tools of war makes them literal sitting ducks and vulnerable to the enemy. We (Democrats) will not allow that to happen under our watch. We can only hope that the President heed the advice of his military advisors and employ a moreeffective strategy in Iraq so that we can scale back troops and get our men and women back home."


Here's what Nancy Pelosi said in an interview with Diane Sawyer.

Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way, but we will hold the president accountable. He has to answer for his war. He has dug a hole so deep he can't even see the light on this. It's a tragedy. It's a stark blunder.

It is, I think, very difficult for the president to sustain a war of this magnitude without the support of the American people and without the support of the Congress of the United States. That's why Congress will vote to oppose the president's escalation, from the standpoint of policy. We will have our disagreement.

These pricks are so predictable. Click here for the full interview (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/print?id=2805714) to get the full gist of the indiscrete war mongering.

If you recall, recently, in some thread or another, I made the point that the US will "stay the course" in Iraq until the oil is used up, no matter what the public wants or votes for. I do not expect the Democrats to do more than make the noise that will soothe the dummies on the pavement. There will be noise, carrying on, even unprecedented criticism of a sitting president - but we will not be leaving Iraq any time soon. Too much money is at stake. Too many positions of power are at stake. It does not matter if the "insurgents" wrachet up to killing hundreds of US soldiers per day. In the end, our glorious leaders and their lap dog media would turn that in itself into a patriotic cause. Only if the troops realized that their lives meant nothing to the politicians might there be some real trouble, as there was in Vietnam, when officers were showing up in the morgue w/wounds to their backs. When the government took away their healthcare benefits, the troops should have gone on strike. They did not do so. Instead, they carried on as ordered. And the whole thing makes a joke of Nuremburg, when, supposedly, it was settled - soldiers can be held accountable; following orders is not an excuse. This war is immoral. But our troops are fighting, anyway. Goes to show that only losers will ever face charges of "war crimes" - and that might be part of what is worrying our "leadership" ... We are going to "stay the course" in Iraq until every last drop of oil has been pumped up and exported to keep our society from crumbling. Only when the real figures - the ones that we do not see - show that the oil supply is running so low that we must get serious about alternatives will there be any serious efforts made to implement alternatives. As the supply now stands, the government is secure in the knowledge that it can go forward w/this war, allowing its pals to profit. The tax dollars that are being wasted mean nothing to people who do not pay taxes. Billions are being made by the people who count, so fuck everybody, especially since the troops are made up of poor folks.

[Dr. Haight]

Dude . . . can you stop writing in red font. It would is really hurting my eyes. I mean, if I read it . . . I assume it would hurt me eyes. :huh:

[immortalmack]

The dems still don't have an agenda and there in control. One of the first things they did was try to get lawyers off the hook for their student loans. Goodbye lobbyist....hello special interest.

[Zergling]

No option in Iraq is a completely good one. Styaing obviously eats up money and troops, but since a lot of the fighting is between different Iraqi groups, leaving may just allow it to become even more violent, increasing the deaths from the war even more. There's also responsibility reasons, or completion reasons, that would get people wanting to stick around to at least try to finish what they started. There's really nothing dems, reps, or anyone else can do at this point that will wrap it upin a nice and tidy way, so what you see is the standard compromise ways of acting.

As for how oil relates to this, at this point ist sounds as if very little oil is actually getting pumped, so sitting around waiting for oil wouild be a bad move no matter what.

[omnirook]

No option in Iraq is a completely good one. Styaing obviously eats up money and troops, but since a lot of the fighting is between different Iraqi groups, leaving may just allow it to become even more violent, increasing the deaths from the war even more. There's also responsibility reasons, or completion reasons, that would get people wanting to stick around to at least try to finish what they started. There's really nothing dems, reps, or anyone else can do at this point that will wrap it upin a nice and tidy way, so what you see is the standard compromise ways of acting.

As for how oil relates to this, at this point ist sounds as if very little oil is actually getting pumped, so sitting around waiting for oil wouild be a bad move no matter what.

No, the Saudi's are pumping enough oil for the time being - gambling by going against their own interests that America will be grateful. Lots of luck w/that! It's not the oil that's up and out of Iraq at the moment - it's keeping the whole region in turmoil, so that no government can afford to look after its nation's interests and cut back production and put up prices. The President of Venezuela made a point when Clinton was in office: if the US public wants to blame somebody for the high price of gas, then they should look to their own government and its taxes and to the oil companies who import the oil and do the refining. The oil producing countries make a pittance in comparison. And it is a fact that US oil companies have posted all-time highs in earnings for the past few years, pulling the pharmaceutical companies down from the pinnacle that they had long occupied as hugest earners. The profits of the oil companies during this war have been so obscene that even Congress felt obliged to hold hearings and grumble a little - not that anything was going to be done about it, but, at least, oil company executives had to sit there and take being villified for public consumption ... President Truman called making profits from a war a war crime. He railed that nobody should make money from war. Eisenhower agreed w/him and made that famous last speech, wherein he pointed out the dangers of allowing anyone to make money from war. But they are dead and out of the way, and it's open season on killing for profit. People look back on the last decades of the 19th Century and first 2 decades of the 20th Century and are horrified at the degree to which government was the slave of business and how "robber barons" were using the government to rape and murder the public w/impunity. Those "robber barons" were nickel and dime, small time thugs compared to the lot who are running this country now. And it's only since Reagan's blind and deaf but not dumb reign (but not rule) in the Oval Office that things have gotten so bad that the President of the United States would allow the Vice President of the United States to send thousands off to die, so that his company (Halliburten) could get all the fat contracts that would go along w/the war and cleaning up its aftermath. Yes - Cock Cheney did give up his post at Halliburten - but he kept all the stock, all the stock options, and he's made MILLIONS since we invaded Iraq. It stinks so bad that the whole world is gagging from the smell - but "It's only natural that in a time of war the vice president would want to use people w/whom he is familiar and whom he trusts." And that gets a pass from Congress. Nixon's Congress would have eviscerated the pair of them, the pig and the vice pig.

[FranG]

No option in Iraq is a completely good one. Styaing obviously eats up money and troops, but since a lot of the fighting is between different Iraqi groups, leaving may just allow it to become even more violent, increasing the deaths from the war even more. There's also responsibility reasons, or completion reasons, that would get people wanting to stick around to at least try to finish what they started. There's really nothing dems, reps, or anyone else can do at this point that will wrap it upin a nice and tidy way, so what you see is the standard compromise ways of acting.


Actually has the option of immediate withdrawal ever been consider by the Dems or Rep amongst all that compromising? I mean if it's messed up anyway, just leave. The people don't want the U.S. over there anyway. Seems they're willing to deal with the aftermath of a U.S. exit on their own. They don't need the U.S.'s kind of help. I can't think of one thing that went right from that invasion. Not one. Can somebody help me out with that?

[meshou]

The president is sending over more troops. He has that power.

The senate has power to fund them.

YOU try explaining to 20,000 kid's angry parents and friends why you didn't want Johnny and Suzy to have helmets or guns.

[ptGatsby]

YOU try explaining to 20,000 kid's angry parents and friends why you didn't want Johnny and Suzy to have helmets or guns.

*nod* Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. This was the natural choice for now.

[omnirook]

The president is sending over more troops. He has that power.

The senate has power to fund them.

YOU try explaining to 20,000 kid's angry parents and friends why you didn't want Johnny and Suzy to have helmets or guns.

The Senate does not have the power to fund anybody. The nation's purse strings are held by the House of Representatives.

As for the equipment, in case you have not heard, it's an international scandal. Our troops on the ground are so badly equipped that their families and friends have had to hold charity drives to raise the money to buy them the equipment that our government would not. Our government spends hundreds of billions of dollars on hightech equipment for the flyboys but will not supply our ground troops w/even flak jackets - or decent boots. Our ground troops have been short of everything, down to and including edible food. Forget about enough water to drink, much less get baths in. (Lice, fleas, filth, open sores from not bathing, rotting teeth - all endemic to the US ground troops that our pig-in-chief so loves!) ... The nastiest scandal - families have to cough up the money to fly their injured loved ones home. Apparently, the government is not willing to pay to get now effectively useless troops home. This was reported on in US News and World Report last summer ... NOBODY in power gives a damn about the children of the poor who are being killed and butchered in Iraq. Why else do you think that Congressman Rangel tried to reintroduce the draft? He reasoned that things would be quite different if even the children of the middle class got sent over - of course the children of the rich would get their nice embassy posts and guard duty at the capital and the other things that they have always gotten in times of war when the draft was on.

[meshou]

In any case, do you think it'd get better if we refused to fund them? As it is we're spending massive amounts on the war and losing, and troop safety has been the first corner cut. Cutting funding won't help.

Having a president we know would at least say "Shit! No money means I can't send them over!" would be nice, but I don't think we have that president.

[omnirook]

In any case, do you think it'd get better if we refused to fund them? As it is we're spending massive amounts on the war and losing, and troop safety has been the first corner cut. Cutting funding won't help.

Having a president we know would at least say "Shit! No money means I can't send them over!" would be nice, but I don't think we have that president.

I'm rather fond of draconian methods when it comes to dealing w/the problems that rich people create.

You might want to cue up a recording of "Impossible Dream" from "Man of La Mancha" while you read the following:

1 - I would re-institute the draft, and it would be universal. In a wheel-chair? Fuck you, you're going to serve; we've got lots of things that you could do.

2 - My universal draft would include women. Bullshit that women can't launch rockets and blow up things from miles away. This isn't the Middle Ages anymore; there's very little hand-to-hand combat going on.

2a - Nobody cares what your sexual orientation is. You can fight in drag if you want - but you're going; that's that.

3 - Nobody would get a highschool diploma or equivalency certificate until he/she had served. Time in the military would complete the requirements for graduation.

4 - No college could accept a student under the age of 45 who had not served.

5 - Not even the mentally retarded would be exempt. They would have to show that they could not do a goddamned thing before they would get an out. There wouldn't be any private scumbag contractors any more - cooking, laundry, cleaning - all that type of shit the soldiers would do, and I'm pretty sure that a lot of folks in wheelchairs can cook and sew and put files in cabinets and even learn to drive the delivery vehicles for behind the lines. If all you can do is sort paper clips, guess what, you're now the paper clip sorter in chief, and we'll even put a little paper clip on your lapel as a sign of your rank!

6 - MOST IMPORTANT - the ONE AND ONLY way to get an embassy posting or a Capital posting or a parade posting or any of the other cushy shit that goes to the rich bastards would be to have served 2 full years on the front line, under fire. In war time, the only people going to posts in areas that were not being heavily bombed would be the men and women who had already served at the front. Otherwise, no matter who you are, no matter who your daddy is, you're going - to the front line. Oh, yeah - nobody flies planes who hasn't been - on the front line. The one, the only way to get a cushy job in the military would be to have served in combat. "Oh, but if we have a long stretch of peace!" What if we do? This is the USA - we've not had a long stretch of peace since the country was founded! Things in peace time would be different. Still, nobody would get out of having been a grunt - that includes ROTC bastards. You'd not be eligible for ROTC until you'd done your stretch in the ranks. A stretch in the ranks would be the prerequisite for highschool diplomas, college degrees, marriage licenses - driver's licenses.

Yep - I bet we'd amaze ourselves at how diplomatic and peaceful a nation we became if the above came to be!

[meshou]

You can be both LibJim and I own guns for just such a development.

[meshou]

Huh? My post was deleted....

[omnirook]

Huh? My post was deleted....

Wow - I was deleting a post of my own that got posted twice - it had my avatar on it.

[meshou]

Wow - I was deleting a post of my own that got posted twice - it had my avatar on it.No, t'was something mentioning overthrowing a theoretical gumbment.

DUN DUN DUUUUN.

EDIT: QUICK, THE FRANG SIGNAL.

[Meliora]

Omnirook, if such a sweeping draft were made rule, would you do a tour of duty for a few years without bitterness?

[omnirook]

Omnirook, if such a sweeping draft were made rule, would you do a tour of duty for a few years without bitterness?

I volunteered for ROTC. They were interested because of my grades, but I was 4-F because of my near deafness in my left ear, the 1/2-inch discrepancy between my 2 legs, and the early signs of arthritis that I had because of an early injury that had shattered my rib cage.

Yep - arthritis, bad back, carpel tunnel - I'd do what I could. I don't write prescriptions that I am unwilling to fill. But it's moot, isn't it? - As they say, "pigs will fly" long before we see any such reform.

I've met soldiers. A few of them brilliant, really. But most of them plank stupid, pitifully naive. No, their best qualities are their integrity, their loyalty, their - believe it or not - generous and gentle natures. Yeah, there are some assholes, but not many. A tour in the armed services would do the public at large some good, I think - there's nothing like boot camp to kick the nonsense out people.

[libertarianjim]

Having a president we know would at least say "Shit! No money means I can't send them over!" would be nice, but I don't think we have that president.

One of the stories handed down in the lore of political science (that is, stories that get retold by professors but they never tell you where to confirm it) has to do with Teddy Roosevelt. He wanted to send a naval squadron on a world tour (I think this was the Great White Fleet) but Congress wouldn't give him the funds for it. He did, however, have the funds on hand (back in the times when presidents had more authority to impound or redirect funds) to send them HALFWAY around the world.

So he sent them and made Congress vote the rest of the funds to get them the rest of the way home.