Please sign up for our email list!
Democracy For America
Iraq (Iran?) Occupation
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
Election Integrity
Impeachment
User login
Get Involved
Progressive Radio & TV
Other great sites
Middle East Conflict
Bush's Days Left in Office
Search our Site
The Culture of Corruption
Social Security
POLLBOOTH KNOCKDOWN!
POLLBOOTH KNOCKDOWN!Voter Awareness Concert Series! |
Dispelling the Lies, Myths, and Disinformation of Defunding
submitted by
on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 10:34pm PSTClick the header for the full blog with all the links
Defunding Iraq: Misperceptions, Disinformation And Lies
The Bush Administration, and Republicans and Democrats in Congress alike, repeat almost daily that they will not defund the troops, with both sides vying for public support with the same bullsh*t. It's the biggest load of crap there is. The Democratic Leadership apparently is afraid of not funding the Iraq occupation either because they are afraid of being attacked by Bush and the GOP for not funding the troops, or because they want to continue the occupation. They know it is a lie when Bush says it. Yet they turn right around and tell people (repeating the lie) that advocating not funding the occupation is advocating not funding the troops. Emergency supplemental funding for a war or for an occupation is not for the troops. It never has been for the troops. It will never be for the troops. NOT passing emergency supplemental funding does not hurt the troops. It never has hurt the troops. It will never hurt the troops. Not passing emergency supplemental funding is simply NOT FUNDING the occupation. That is all it is. DEAN BAKER, Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research: [h/t to MO Blue]:
"This argument is garbage. Congress has the authority to require the top military commanders in Iraq to produce a plan for safely withdrawing our troops from the country. It can also require these commanders to give their best estimate of the cost of this plan. It can then appropriate this money, specifying that the funds be used for the withdrawal plan designed by the military." --Institute for Public Accuracy The situation is process analogous to to a business enterprise that has, for example, 100 employeees to whom they pay salaries and provide food and lodging. The budget for that is something planned for every year. We'll call that the budget for the 'troops'. One year they decide to take on an extra contract to complete a project in another city and they send those 100 employees (troops) to the new city. The project will require incurring added costs over and above the budget for the employees (troops), so management arranges a bank loan to pay for the added costs for transportation, materials, overtime, extra fuel required, etc. etc. They then begin to run into delays, extreme competition from a better suited and skilled company, and start incurring huge cost overruns, which they cover with repeated visits to the bank for more loans. Eventually the bank says look - this is bankrupting you and placing your employees in danger of being abandonded in the new city if you continue down this path - here is your last loan - it will cover you for 90 days, after which the bank will provide no more money for this project. Your regular budget covers your employment (troop) costs. Bring them home to their original city and continue operating there. Your project in the new city is failing. None of the bank loans had anything to do with the regular budget for the employees (troops). UPDATE June 14: Senator Russ Feingold, Fact Sheet
The funding is not for the troops. When President George Bush claims that the money is for the troops, he is quite simply lying. The funding is not for the troops. When Senator Barack Obama or Senator Carl Levin claims to want to pressure Bush to end the war, while at the same time promising to fund the war forever in the name of funding the troops, we are being told something that cannot possibly make any sense. The funding is not for the troops. It is for the war. You can't end the war while providing it. You can't hurt a troop by denying it. ...the money that would be required to bring our troops safely home is such a small fraction of the Pentagon's budget, or even of the cash that the Pentagon has "misplaced" in Iraq, that there can be no question of ever cutting it off. The Pentagon could fund a withdrawal and never notice the financial expense. So, when we talk about cutting off funding "for the troops," what are we really talking about? We must be talking about their meals and armor and vehicles. But there are several problems with making that sort of claim. First, by cutting off funding after a certain date and demanding that the troops be brought home before that date, you are not denying them anything they need while they are deployed. Second, we have never provided them adequate supplies and services, and the Congress Members who have pushed to cut off the war funding are some of the same ones who have pushed hardest to try to change that. Third, the war funding has nothing to do with changing the level of equipment and services we provide the troops; the big bucks go to mercenaries, not troops; and the really big bucks go to the profiteers providing the worst services for the highest prices. Fourth, if we start to talk about the need for troops to protect other troops, we get into an inescapable escalation without end. The TROOPS are funded by regular appropriations. DOD budget. Emergency supplemental funding has nothing to do with "funding the troops". |
Progressive Democrats of America
Blogs
Upcoming events
Browse events
Active Bloggers
Healthcare For All
PETITIONS & ACTION ALERTS
ACLU Alerts
Environmental Health News
Watch These Videos
Free Hugs in KOREA, in Spain, in Russia, in Amsterdam, in Venezuela, in Tel Aviv, in Hollywood, in Brazil, in Japan
Katrina disaster
We all need a little HUMOR
|