New Direction in Troop Funding

[ShadeHonestus]

It appears that having paid their political dues to the anti-war votes the Democrats are on the verge of presenting passable legistlation (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18805047/). Some residual melodrama for finance aside it looks as if this legistlative episode is finally drawing towards its completion.

[Zaknafien]

cowards.. *sigh*.. Ron Paul 2008! hopefully he'll fix this mess.

[Marshal Murat]

At least they aren't so stubborn that they endanger the American lives they are 'protecting.'

[Zaknafien]

they wouldnt be endangering anyone, President Bush would be , if he chose to keep troops in harms way without funding. Its Congress' job to use their power to reflect the will of the people. Besides, only Congress has the power to make war, not the psychopath trumped up executive.

[Odin]

Sadly this means the democrats failed to find away to get us out of Iraq, for that they should pay at the polls. The time to remove combat forces from Iraq is now, allowing more money might secure portions of the country but the overall direction that Iraq is heading is quite clear.

Its like a cut that needs stiches and your putting a band aid on it to stop the bleeding. Funding a war is different the funding an occupation and reconstruction, and the war on terror argument has some validity but thats hardly an equitable trade off to the treasure spent compared to the effectiveness.

Oh wait, I forget Mr Cheney said they were in the last throws anyway :no:

[Zaknafien]

oh i still think we'll be out of iraq by the end of the year or at least starting the draw-down. the iraqi government is already drawing up contingency plans with american support for a 'sudden withdrawal' of US troops, and rumor now has it that shrub is going to the UN to seek international peacekeepers to play a larger role in iraq once we try to get out.

or, shrub will likely just hand the whole mess over to the next president and then blame his succsessor for failing in iraq.

[Don Corleone]

Frankly, I was surprised to hear this. It has me questioning the motives of the Democratic leadership in the first place. If they were really convinced that the war is unwinnable and that prolonging our stay is wrong, how can they justify this?

First, nobody is going to let the grunts on the ground sit around without rounds in their rifles. The Pentagon will simply run up a credit balance with its vendors. And second, who's to say that the funding stand-off will be laid at the feet of one party or the other. You could just as easily make the argument that Bush vetoed the money for the troops as you could that Congress withheld it.

From their rather abrubt 180 shift, it would appear that the Democrats were really only interested in scoring political points all along. No shock, but mild surprise. I really was convinced they were acting on ideological grounds.

As for getting the UN to take up our role, I think that it would be a disaster if it happened, which it won't, because I can't believe the UN would be dumb enough to sign on for that. We have to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for keeping the peace and protecting each other. The Sh'ite majority has to understand that they cannot unilaterally dictate terms to the Sunnis and the Kurds. And we need to start looking for the door, on the first valid pretext we can find.

[Marshal Murat]

Bush has the moral high ground on the funding bills. He could veto them, but there was a withdraw attachment, so he is doing what he thinks is right. The Congress, while providing for the 'peoples will', they have to support the soldiers, or we condemn them to death since their vehicles will break down, run out of ammunition, and equipment will fall into disrepair.

Congress, while not supporting the war, has to, or they would lose more men to bureaucracy than to bullets. Bush could pull the soldiers out, but that would go against his War on Terror, and that would not endear him to any of his remaining supporters.

Congress has the ultimate authority with troop funding, and to withhold payment would be criminal.

[Lemur]

FIt has me questioning the motives of the Democratic leadership in the first place. If they were really convinced that the war is unwinnable and that prolonging our stay is wrong, how can they justify this?
They never had the votes to override a Presidential veto, which means they never should have started down this road in the first place.

It's unwise to start a fight you aren't sure of winning. A bad call for the Dems, as now the Repubs can crow about "retreat."

[Don Corleone]

Well, they had four options:

-A) Override the veto, force the president to do their bidding.

-B) Continue funding without trying to steer policy (continue the blank checks to the White House).

-C) Pass the bill, knowing a veto would be following. Then stand their ground.

-D) Pass the bill, knowing a veto would be following. When it comes, turn around and proceed to option B.

A clearly wasn't an option as you point out, this was logistically impossible.

B is what you advocate they should have done. I argue that B was better than D from a political standpoint for the Democrats (they're not forced to lose a very public grudge match with the president), but it does have the negative aspect that essentially, the Democrats are seen as toeing the line on the Iraq, their rhetoric aside.

I'm advocating that if they really are opposed to the war, they should have gone with option C. By virtue of the fact that they went with option D, I am forced to conclude that at the end of the day, the Democratic leadership isn't really opposed to the war in Iraq, they just want to make political hay on something they also believe to be necessary (though granted, unpopular). If that's the case, then what they're doing borders on treason.

[Marshal Murat]

Option C is what they should have done, show some backbone, but I would not have supported it because the funding for Iraq would have been cut, and that would slow down any U.S. military options. The U.S. gets money cutbacks, military commanders have to cut back, less equipment to work with.

Bad idea starting the whole thing.

[Odin]

I'm advocating that if they really are opposed to the war, they should have gone with option C. By virtue of the fact that they went with option D, I am forced to conclude that at the end of the day, the Democratic leadership isn't really opposed to the war in Iraq, they just want to make political hay on something they also believe to be necessary (though granted, unpopular). If that's the case, then what they're doing borders on treason.

Here, here.

[Lemur]

B is what you advocate they should have done. I argue that B was better than D from a political standpoint for the Democrats (they're not forced to lose a very public grudge match with the president), but it does have the negative aspect that essentially, the Democrats are seen as toeing the line on the Iraq, their rhetoric aside.
Well, frankly, I figure that Iraq just isn't bad enough yet. Presidents rightfully have a great deal of constitutional leeway when it comes to waging war, and as unpopular as this conflict is, the nation isn't ready to cut El Presidente off at the knees.

In my opinion the Dems were premature to start a tussle over war funding. Treasonous? I don't really know about that. If they "stood their ground" and cut off the money, the Rove machine would be all over them for betraying our troops. I can only imagine the fun the right-wing noise machine would have with that. Not tenable. Likewise, they don't have the votes to override a veto.

Until more Republicans are ready to consider realistic plans for withdrawal, the best thing the Dems can do is run home and lick their wounds. They aren't in a position to change the policy. Yet.

[ShadeHonestus]

Until more Republicans are ready to consider realistic plans for withdrawal, the best thing the Dems can do is run home and lick their wounds. They aren't in a position to change the policy. Yet.

If the Democrats win the presidency in 08 and keep Congress, do you think they'll own a withdrawl if it hasn't been brought about prior? I'm geniunely interested in this as I see it a difficult situation. So far those I've asked who consider themselves independent or democrat are about split. Most stating that doing so would equal political suicide while the others generally state that politically they can't do anything but onw the withdrawl or they'd be committing suicide politically. I guess the telling fact may end up being what part of their voting base turns out and the position of this issue amongst them. The money trail would generally indicate withdrawl.

[BigTex]

Only 6 months in and the dem's have already reniged on what got them elected.

The troops wont be out for a very very long time. No politician in Washington wants to deal with the results of pulling out.

Good news indeed. Iraq might just have hope.

[Zaknafien]

Good news indeed. Iraq might just have hope.


Wow, just. Wow. DO you honestly believe that garbage? How is our killing of Iraqis and ruining their infastructure and civil society 'hope' for their country? Is it the biblical rise in child or infant mortality? the huge increase in those living in poverty--and actually starving? the foementing of hatred amongst rival gangs? that is a very naive opinion. nothing we do is good for Iraq or Iraqis.

[Redleg]

they wouldnt be endangering anyone, President Bush would be , if he chose to keep troops in harms way without funding. Its Congress' job to use their power to reflect the will of the people. Besides, only Congress has the power to make war, not the psychopath trumped up executive.

LOL - have you ever read the War Powers Act of 1973.

Careful now its going to contradict your statement completely. Ie the congress can not just not fund an operation - they also must comply with the War Powers Act of 1973.

Also you do know that Congress authorized the Use of Force by legislative action by a overwhelming majority.

[doc_bean]

The Democrats show once again how utterly incapable the lot of them are. Seriously, where have all the decent 'left' wing politicians gone ?

[Zaknafien]

yeah, after being convinced that Iraq posed a threat to us in some way which now we know is utterly false. Cheney and his goons cooked the books on that one, everyone can agree now.

[Redleg]

Congress has only one option to force the President to remove troops from Iraq. The Troop funding measure is just political candy that is being dropped in front of the voters, to see how they will react.

Until Congress does that particlur action - talk of removing funding is just that. Talk - the Politians know that they must fund the operation until they take action under the War Powers Act of 1973.

[KafirChobee]

Red, I tend to agree with you on this one. After reading the act mentioned, it does seem Congress has powers they haven't exercised - and that the Prez hasnot held up his end either.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
note: This is disputable, and does have a forum for debate.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

Regardless, the entire funding issue is a created one - by the Whitehouse. The funding of the Iraq War, and now occupation has been kept out of the yearly budgets so they could claim the increasing national debt wasn't as bad as their adversaries claimed. (last year the administration claimed the debt "only" rose by $256Billion$ - it was actually $600-700billion, they left out the funding in Iraq and interest payments on the debt itself)

Still, if the occupation ended tomorrow - I've read estimates of 5-7 years for us to refurbish and man our armed forces to pre-FUBAR days.

Were the actions taken by the Dems proper? Maybe not, it just seemed a probable course. Thing is, they have a real means of ending it. They just ain't taken it.

[Odin]

Thing is, they have a real means of ending it. They just ain't taken it.

Word on NPR at lunch was the new funding was good through sept, and it was hinted that was the drop dead date for progress from the surge by republicans. (what progress is in thier view is a scary barometer)

Once that rolls around and assuming things are status quo the Dems should be able to get the veto override they needed on this one. I think politically they have enough "capital" to weather this escapade but come the fall thats when the poop hits the fan for everyone.

Now the Dems can say they gave Mr Bush's plan a chance, politically it might bare fruit for them at a later date.

[Adrian II]

The Congress, while providing for the 'peoples will', they have to support the soldiers, or we condemn them to death since their vehicles will break down, run out of ammunition, and equipment will fall into disrepair.This is where the American system of government fails, isn't it?

Congress is legally and morally bound only by its own decisions, not by those of the Executive. Soldiers however are legally bound to follow the Executive's orders and fight a war in Iraq, even though no such war has been declared.
This is what happens when you have a 'strong' Executive that is not directly accountable to the Legislative.

Instead of a proper policy debate, all we see is this tug-of-war over the budget. The result could indeed be that soldiers are left without proper equipment because the powers in Washington are fighting their own wars over who owns defense and foreign policy.

[Lemur]

The result could indeed be that soldiers are left without proper equipment because the powers in Washington are fighting their own wars over who owns defense and foreign policy.
Unrealistic. No politician will want to own the disaster of troops without ammo or food. That would truly be a political instagib.

Whatever the (manifest) failings of our system, abandoning our fighting forces is unlikely in the extreme.

[Odin]

This is where the American system of government fails, isn't it?

Congress is legally and morally bound only by its own decisions, not by those of the Executive. Soldiers however are legally bound to follow the Executive's orders and fight a war in Iraq, even though no such war has been declared.
This is what happens when you have a 'strong' Executive that is not directly accountable to the Legislative.

Instead of a proper policy debate, all we see is this tug-of-war over the budget. The result could indeed be that soldiers are left without proper equipment because the powers in Washington are fighting their own wars over who owns defense and foreign policy.

Well said Adrian :2thumbsup:

[BigTex]

Wow, just. Wow. DO you honestly believe that garbage? How is our killing of Iraqis and ruining their infastructure and civil society 'hope' for their country? Is it the biblical rise in child or infant mortality? the huge increase in those living in poverty--and actually starving? the foementing of hatred amongst rival gangs? that is a very naive opinion. nothing we do is good for Iraq or Iraqis.

How is asking to abandon their country to civil war "hope" for their country. This bill at least gives hope that US troops will be there to prevent total anarchy from consuming it. Your concerned about the starving and dieing children in Iraq yet you see fit to just abandon them to the civil strife going on in there. You can't play both sides here.

Irrelavent of how we got there, we are there. We need to stay and at least prevent total anarchy. Starving children will be the least of Iraq's problems if we pull out.

[Kralizec]

If there actually would be no spending bill that didn't get vetoed for over a year, what would happen?

[Redleg]

Well I thought I would share with the group a recent email I got as a response from my congresswoman - newly elected democrat, but at least she responded versus the two senators - both republicans from the state of Kansas.

I sent a message about the recent funding vote, and why doesn't congress address the issue as it applies to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. FOr your reading enjoyment.


Of course I removed the saluation.



Thank you for contacting me regarding your views about the ongoing Iraq war. I respect the time you took to share your ideas and concerns, and I appreciate the opportunity to explain my thoughts on the most recent war supplemental appropriations bill I voted for on May 24, 2007.


I voted for this bill because it became clear that President Bush would not compromise and that he would actually leave our troops unfunded. This was something I was not willing to risk.


Like every American, I hope and pray for a favorable outcome in Iraq and that over the next few months there will be a meaningful change on the ground in Iraq . By the next vote on war spending in September 2007, the President will have given Congress two reports on the situation in Iraq . If, there is no meaningful improvement by then, I believe that together, Republicans and Democrats must demonstrate to the President that things have to change.

The supplemental spending bill for the war was H.R. 2206. The bill's provisions include:


Like all of the previous supplemental bills, this bill provides 100% of the President's requested funding for the war.


$3.1 billion in BRAC funds that I have been working with my colleagues to include since the day I arrived in Congress. This is money that the previous Congress should have appropriated but failed to do.


$1.8 billion for veterans' health care and $2.1 billon for active duty military health care. This money will make it possible for us to live up to our commitments to those who serve our country so valiantly.


$3 billion in agriculture disaster relief. These funds were promised by the 109th Congress and delivered by the 110th Congress. These funds are critical to help offset crop losses for those Kansas farmers affected by the spring freeze and flooding.


$40 million in tornado relief for Greensburg , Kansas . The Kansas delegation has been pushing for these funds to be included in the next appropriations bill since the F5 tornado devastated 95% of Greensburg , Kansas .


Thank you again for sharing your concerns with me. As your representative, I both need and value your perspective on important policy matters. I hope you will not hesitate to be in contact with me - it is always good to hear from Kansans like yourself.



Notice how she tried to appeal to supporting the state that she is elected to, versus the overall issue that I initially brought forth. Now folks you should see one of the primary problems with the United States Congress, regardless of what Party they belong to.



Sincerely,

Nancy Boyda
Member of Congress

[Xiahou]

Looks like you got a canned response, Red. Of course, that's still better than no response at all. Usually they don't even read what we have to say and just send out their pre-packaged talking points in response.


This is where the American system of government fails, isn't it?

Congress is legally and morally bound only by its own decisions, not by those of the Executive. Soldiers however are legally bound to follow the Executive's orders and fight a war in Iraq, even though no such war has been declared.
This is what happens when you have a 'strong' Executive that is not directly accountable to the Legislative.

Instead of a proper policy debate, all we see is this tug-of-war over the budget. The result could indeed be that soldiers are left without proper equipment because the powers in Washington are fighting their own wars over who owns defense and foreign policy.Congress did authorize military action in Iraq. Where do people get the idea that they didn't? First, in 1998 Congress declared that it is the policy of the US to overthrow Saddam Hussein. More importantly, in 2002, Congress explicitly authorized the president to use military force in Iraq "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate".