You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Congress cuts funding for European missile project
2007-07-27
George Bush's plans to establish a European missile defence system suffered a big setback yesterday when a Congressional committee slashed the funding. The House appropriations committee cut $139m (£69.5m) from the $310m the Bush administration wants for preparatory work on the missile project in Europe. It approved funds for a radar system in the Czech Republic but cut the $139m Mr Bush requested to establish a missile interception system in Poland, the most controversial part of the defence system.

In addition, the committee cut a further $159m from US-based parts of the missile plan.
John Murtha, chairman of the committee, said the Bush administration has "got to convince us this is worthwhile".
Good luck convincing that old goat of anything. Maybe tell him we'll 'redeploy' the missiles to Germany.
In a report attached to the revised budget, the committee said: "It is premature to provide full funding for the European component, given the uncertainty surrounding the programme".

The budget cuts are part of $3.5bn that the committee has slashed from the overall defence budget, which now stands at $459bn. The committee's pared-down budget will go to the full House for a vote next week but is almost certain to be passed.

As well as reducing the budget, Congress is shifting priorities from futuristic programmes to more immediate concerns, such as improved healthcare for soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, pay rises for soldiers and marines, and much-needed weaponry for Iraq, such as the heavily-armoured Stryker vehicles.

The House and Senate have questioned whether establishing the system in eastern Europe is sensible given the extent of the opposition it has aroused in Russia. They also question its technical feasibility and the failure of other Nato countries to commit fully to it.

Republicans on the committee joined the Democrats in voting for the bill. Mr Murtha said Congress was trying to change the direction of the defence department across the board, not just on missile defence.
I think we know the changes he wants. Might as well ask Kucinich to start up the Peace Department.
Bill Young, the most senior Republican on the committee, said: "I don't think this bill is subject to a veto." He said it had been designed for quick passage.

Even if Mr Bush was to block it, the extent of congressional opposition will leave doubts over the European missile defence system, signalling that if the Democrats take the White House next year the plan would be scrapped. The congressional opposition will also embolden Russia to maintain its opposition.
Which is all the Dhimmis really want to do here.
Posted by:Steve White

#7  *$
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2007-07-27 10:47  

#6  ugh - typos galore in that comment. Time to go brew some caffeine.
Posted by: lotp   2007-07-27 08:49  

#5  While we no longer need or want large armies in Europe, we do need staging areas for materiel and we also need allies for a variety of reasons.]

Missile defense is a deterrent against Iran and others; basing it in eastern Europe and Britain makes it more likely to stop Iranian missiles soon after launch & shields allies who have been and continue to be useful to us.

That said, we are going to face some really tough financial decisions over the next 2 decades. Baby boomers retiring (altho I suspect that many, like me, will work until they're 70 or so) and needing health and other care. A workforce whose participants in many cases have had lousy preparation in science, math or critical thinking - not to mention fact-based history and civics. An infraqstructure like highways and bridges that should have been upgraded during the Clinton years and continues to be patched on an ad hoc basis.

Tough issues in good times, made much harder by the political and cultural vitrio splashing around since the Clinton impeachment days. (And earlier ... this Scott Thomas jerk and his like are bringing back rally bad memories of the late 60s and early 70s.
Posted by: lotp   2007-07-27 08:48  

#4  Can someone explain to me why we should be providing a missile defense umbrella for EUrope at our expense?

I say let them reap the harvest of their own stupidity, or start writing us BIG CHECKS. We, the U.S.A. need to stop being the worlds protector and policeman, unless, these folks want to contract our services for lots of money.

As a tax payer, I'm sick of being robbed, fleeced or otherwise liberated from a significant amount of money to pay for other countries defense, or whatever, when our own nations infrastructure is in such bad shape. And let's not even talk about the fact that we borrow a lot of the money to pay for it. From the Chinese no less.

Someone needs to pull the chain on Washington, yesterday!
Posted by: Natural Law   2007-07-27 08:20  

#3  Murtha is scrapping $139 million in a total budget pushing $500 BILLION for missile defense for Europe? I guess someone's got some pork plans ready for his district, eh?

While personally I'd like to see Europe step up and pay for this themselves, we still (somewhat) rely on NATO and the Euro militaries. And, while I almost even understand cutting the European portion of this, why cut the US homeland portion? Good grief, what's it gonna take for PA to vote him out of office?

*slaps forehead*
Posted by: BA   2007-07-27 08:16  

#2  You seem to have mistaken them for someone who gives a damn, Joe.
Posted by: lotp   2007-07-27 06:13  

#1  Looks like the Congresscritters missed reading THE GROWING THREAT article describing Pakis + Saudi nucdevprogs [Muslim = Radic Islamist? proliferation] this morning, didn't we!?
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-07-27 00:24  

00:00