Submit your comments on this article | |
Home Front: Politix | |
Congressional Iraqi Festivities Continue | |
2007-10-02 | |
![]() Thwarted in efforts to bring troops home from Iraq, Senate Democrats helped pass a defense policy bill authorizing another $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Monday's 92-3 vote comes as the House planned to approve separate legislation Tuesday that requires President Bush to give Congress a plan for eventual troop withdrawals. The developments underscored the difficulty facing Democrats in the Iraq debate: They lack the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home and are divided on whether to cut money for combat, despite a mandate by supporters to end the war. Hoping the political landscape changes in coming months, Democratic leaders say they will renew their fight when Congress considers the money Bush wants in war funding. While the Senate policy bill authorizes the money to be spent, it does not guarantee it; Bush will have to wait until Congress passes a separate appropriations bill before war funds are transferred to military coffers. "I think that's where you're going to see the next dogfight," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., of the upcoming war spending bill. You can't run with the big dogs, Harry, if you pee like a puppy. Democrats say their options include directing that the money be spent on bringing troops home instead of combat; setting a date when money for the war is cut off, and identifying a goal to end the war to try to pressure Bush to bring troops home. Similar attempts have been made but fell short of the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate. ![]()
But after Democrats were unable to peel off Republican support, the Iraq debate stalled and some four dozen rank-and-file Democrats demanded a vote on the Abercrombie-Tanner bill. "This will be the first time since the war in Iraq began that we are working together as a Congress instead of one party or another to be a constructive voice in the civilian management of operations in Iraq," Tanner said in a statement e-mailed to the Associated Press. In February, Bush requested more than $140 billion for the war, and is expected to ask for another $42 billion to cover costs in the 2008 budget year, which began Monday. The Senate's defense policy bill authorizes Bush's initial request, plus an additional $23 billion for the purchase of bomb-resistent vehicles. In addition to war money, the Senate's defense policy bill authorizes more than a half trillion dollars in annual military programs, including such big-ticket items as $10.1 billion for missile defense. ![]() The House passed its version of the defense authorization bill in May by a 397-27 vote. That $646 billion measure would trim hundreds of millions of dollars from some weapons modernization programs and use the money instead to aid troops in combat. The House bill has drawn a veto threat from the White House because of provisions insisting the military rely heavily on American-made products and proposed changes to the Pentagon's personnel policies. | |
Posted by:Bobby |
#3 despite a mandate by supporters to end the war Mandate? What mandate? I don't see a majority pushing for this. In any case, if the Dems aren't able to push their lunacy through the house and senate, maybe they don't have enough support after all. Duh. |
Posted by: gorb 2007-10-02 16:35 |
#2 H/T, In From the Cold Teddy's Warped Defense Priorities In today's edition of The Hill, Byron York analyzes Ted Kennedy's top priority for the nation's military--ensuring that federal hate crimes legislation applies to them. The Massachusetts driving instructor has added language to the defense authorization bill that includes "gender identity" in the definition of protected classes under hate crimes laws. Mr. York was scratching his head over that one (and we were, too), wondering what gender identity and hate crimes have to do with defense spending. Not surprisingly, Teddy had an answer for that one. As York explains: “This amendment will strengthen the Defense Authorization Act by protecting those who volunteer to serve in the military,” Kennedy said on the Senate floor Wednesday.How, exactly? Because our military men and women commit hate crimes, Kennedy explained, and this would protect others from them.“The vast majority of our soldiers serve with honor and distinction,” Kennedy said. But “sadly, our military bases are not immune from the violence that comes from hatred.” Kennedy listed a few examples — he had to go back to the early 1990s to find some of them — of alleged hate crimes in which members of the military were involved.There was the recent case in North Carolina in which, Kennedy said, two members of the 82nd Airborne Division allegedly sold military equipment to FBI agents posing as white supremacists. There was a case last year in which a Coast Guard officer posted on a white supremacist site.There was a double murder at Fort Bragg in 1995, and another murder in 1992.“These examples clearly demonstrate the relevance of this amendment to the military,” Kennedy said. “We can’t tolerate hate-motivated violence and must do all we can to protect our men and women in uniform.”And it could get worse. Kennedy charged that military recruiters, struggling to meet quotas, are enlisting extremists these days, “putting our soldiers at higher risk of hate-motivated violence.” Even if you believe all that, the odd thing is, if you read Kennedy’s amendment, you won’t see anything about the military. How his bill would affect the military, which has its own code of justice, is unclear. Obviously, Senator Kennedy isn't concerned about such trivial details. With his measure--co-sponsored by Oregon Republican Gordon Smith--Teddy manages a sop to his gay constituents, while painting the U.S. military as seething mass of racists and hate-mongers. A two-fer, you might say. Not that we'd expect anything more from Mr. Kennedy. The senator's view of defense matters is shaped by two goals--doing whatever he can to undermine the Bush Administration (and the war on terror), while preserving military pork for the folks back home. For example, Senator Kennedy has directed more than $1.6 billion for a jet engine the Air Force doesn't want, but because it's built by GE (which has a plant in Massachusetts), Teddy's all for it. Additionally, Kennedy has led Senate efforts to prevent the Air Force from retiring some of the oldest (and worst-performing C-5s) in its inventory. Turns out that some of those jets are based at Westover AFB in Kennedy's home state. In fact, the Pentagon recently established a depot-level maintenance facility for C-5s at that installation, with a clear nod toward the Bay State's senior senator. http://formerspook.blogspot.com/ |
Posted by: tu3031 2007-10-02 12:12 |
#1 I think they're done. They can squeal and piss and moan and scheme and whine but the bottom line is they haven't accomplishing anything they've tried to do. Nice work, Harry, you useless bag of shit. |
Posted by: tu3031 2007-10-02 11:17 |