PDA

View Full Version : House DEMOCRATS ask for more money???


xfl2001fan
05-05-2009, 01:05 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5435OP20090504

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives will seek passage in coming weeks of $94.2 billion in emergency money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other programs, including $2 billion more to prepare for an influenza pandemic.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, outlining the legislation for reporters, also said the legislation would include $2.2 billion to fund some C-17 airplanes for the Pentagon. But it will not address future purchases of a refueling tanker airplane sought by the Air Force.

Obey said $80 million to close the U.S. prison in Guantanamo, Cuba, would not be included in the bill because no details were provided by the administration on how that move would be carried out.

Last month, President Barack Obama asked Congress to give him $83.4 billion more to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is hoping to use the money to begin phasing out combat operations in Iraq while building up U.S. forces in Afghanistan where al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are gaining strength.

The Pentagon wants the U.S. Congress to approve the money promptly, before a congressional recess that is scheduled to start at the end of May.

What about all the money that Bush wasted on "His Daddy's War"? Now the Democrats are asking for more money to....<GASP>...Support it?

Alright Tony, this is your Cue to deflect and Spin...in 5...4....3...2...

xfl2001fan
05-05-2009, 01:06 PM
Why should it cost more to stop supporting the war? Wouldn't it be cheaper to stop sending troops in and filtering the rest out? Or was this never properly budgeted for?

revefsreleets
05-05-2009, 01:08 PM
Wait for it....

"Bu......




bu...........



bu............................................




.................................................. .but Bush!"

This is clever. If they keep funding it, after they turned against it, after they were originally for it, they can just skip the middle part, claim they were ALWAYS for the war, claim both victory AND withdrawal and try to hoodwink the American public into thinking it was all their idea to begin with (the successful parts anyway)...

The most ironic part of all this is Obama is one of like 3 people who really were always against the War, and this nitwit is actually gouing to end up being credited with winning the war!

trauben
05-05-2009, 01:10 PM
Time to start those printing presses again.....
http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/watchdog/blog/monopoly_20money.jpg

HometownGal
05-05-2009, 01:11 PM
Why should it cost more to stop supporting the war? Wouldn't it be cheaper to stop sending troops in and filtering the rest out? Or was this never properly budgeted for?

That would be too easy, far too cost effective and makes way too much sense. :horror:

tony hipchest
05-05-2009, 01:35 PM
its good to see you guys are finally starting to realize how badly bush screwed this country up and how his administration was driving us sorely into debt.

it had gotten SO bad, that to not continue his failed policies would lead us to economic suicide, and the image of a cut and run military that cannot get the job done.

i think the administration sugar coated how goog things really were over in iraq. its like putting skin grafts on a 90% burn victim and then calling her a beauty queen....

sure she may be better and live, but....

xfl2001fan
05-05-2009, 01:39 PM
its good to see you guys are finally starting to realize how badly bush screwed this country up and how his administration was driving us sorely into debt.

it had gotten SO bad, that to not continue his failed policies would lead us to economic suicide, and the image of a cut and run military that cannot get the job done.

i think the administration sugar coated how goog things really were over in iraq. its like putting skin grafts on a 90% burn victim and then calling her a beauty queen....

sure she may be better and live, but....

I see, as opposed to the utter devastation that the liberals gave us? HA Have you been to Iraq in the last 6 years? (Don't worry, I know what the answer is.) Who are you to tell me what it's like over there? You are clueless.

Nice spin on this. It doesn't cost more money to stop sending troops. As for the cost of getting them home, that's a known number...because we've been rotating them fro 6 years.

Unless you want for me to believe that a draw down of troops overseas is somehow worth an extra $94.2B?

What economics class did these people take that can show that need for those excess funds?

tony hipchest
05-05-2009, 02:00 PM
Unless you want for me to believe that a draw down of troops overseas is somehow worth an extra $94.2B?

What economics class did these people take that can show that need for those excess funds? i believe the military advisors who are requesting this emegency funding know better than you, and since you dont know what a drawdown will cost, we will just leave it at that.

in the meantime i dont want any new troops being rotated in to have to rely on hand me down, shot up kevlar.

xfl2001fan
05-05-2009, 02:07 PM
i believe the military advisors who are requesting this emegency funding know better than you, and since you dont know what a drawdown will cost, we will just leave it at that.I think it's ludicrous...but that's OK. While I'm not in charge of the drawdown, I am a logistics manager at a brigade level and in charge of the logistics of missions to support over 5000 troops. I'll trust my experience over your HOPE.

in the meantime i dont want any new troops being rotated in to have to rely on hand me down, shot up kevlar.
It's funny that you mention that...because the last dozen units I've sent overseas were all issued brand new equipment before leaving. Brand new helmets, flak vests, camelbaks even. It's all very nice stuff.

I'll just have to trust my experience over your word.

revefsreleets
05-05-2009, 04:07 PM
The Iraqi's want us out by June 30 now?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that it just ain't happenin'...

xfl2001fan
05-05-2009, 04:24 PM
The Iraqi's want us out by June 30 now?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that it just ain't happenin'...

They want us out of their cities (as a base of operation.) They aren't saying get out of the country...or that we can't patrol the cities...we just can't be camped there.

tony hipchest
05-05-2009, 05:35 PM
because the last dozen units I've sent overseas were all issued brand new equipment before leaving. Brand new helmets, flak vests, camelbaks even. It's all very nice stuff.its about freaking time....

xfl2001fan
05-05-2009, 05:40 PM
For that matter, Tony, the last 3 units I've sent all were issued brand new (straight out of the box) M4s to replace the M-16.

tony hipchest
05-05-2009, 05:43 PM
For that matter, Tony, the last 3 units I've sent all were issued brand new (straight out of the box) M4s to replace the M-16.about freaking time.

serious question.... time frame? were the last 3 units you sent over the course of the past 3 months, or past 3 years?

revefsreleets
05-05-2009, 05:58 PM
Let me guess...Obama is the guy responsible for properly equipping the troops?

xfl2001fan
05-05-2009, 06:00 PM
about freaking time.

serious question.... time frame? were the last 3 units you sent over the course of the past 3 months, or past 3 years?

I sent 2 units out in the last month, one two months ago and I've sent a total of 12 in the last 2 years.

tony hipchest
05-05-2009, 06:01 PM
Let me guess...Obama is the guy responsible for properly equipping the troops?

this much we know...

bush is the one responsible for leaving them improperly equipped. it practically took public outrage on the part of the generals to finally get bush's attention on the matter.

I sent 2 units out in the last month, one two months ago and I've sent a total of 12 in the last 2 years.

interresting. m-16's are dinosaurs. th m-4's are freaking awesome. ive shot one with all the bells and whistles used for training purposes (not real bullets- but real kick).

Dino 6 Rings
05-05-2009, 06:01 PM
Code Pink Protest When?

xfl2001fan
05-05-2009, 06:07 PM
this much we know...

bush is the one responsible for leaving them improperly equipped. it practically took public outrage on the part of the generals to finally get bush's attention on the matter.

The mission was larger than anticipated. The contractors made promises they couldn't keep in regards to production...and the Services themselves did not have a good distribution plan for said equipment. I have personally traveled to some of the warehouses (two and a half years ago) that were not properly manned/funded to handle the mass of equipment they had on stock and coming into stock.

With the approval of my command, I was able to have a lot of the equipment distributed to a warehouse under our control...so that we could distribute it to our troops in time of need.

Now, we've got control of a massive stock that we use to ensure the Soldier's going overseas are properly equipped. Not only that, we have a nice size stock of training equipment as well.

The warehouse in Columbus has one the largest sets of combative mats on hand ready for use...and we are beginning to host Combatives training at our location so that we can mass qualify our Soldiers in basic hand to hand combat skills.

Because he was the CIC, he'll have to shoulder some of the blame...but the services themselves did not do him any favors.

revefsreleets
05-05-2009, 06:09 PM
Bush saw "Blackhawk Down". He vowed never to send American boys into harms way ill-equipped again.

Iraq got out of hand on his watch, true, but the guy didn't PURPOSELY send US kids over to get killed for lack of equipment. The situation changed and we had to play catch-up.

To suggest so crosses a line...

And it's equally absurd to credit Obama, a fervent ANTI Iraq war guy, with properly equipping the troops. The wheels of this government don't move that fast. If XFL is sending kids out with better equipment 12 weeks ago, that credit goes to the previous administration.

tony hipchest
05-05-2009, 06:25 PM
WHAT? the pentagon was resisting the surge due to not being properly equipped and being stretched too thinly. not only was ancient equipment putting our troops in danger, but it was also affecting our national guard and our allies as well. this isnt new, and the examples are numerous. of course bush wasnt intentionally trying to kill the troops (i know thats the direction your spin will be going) but the rootin, tootin cowboy ignored good advice. he sure had no problem issuing money for haliburton to make ketchup packs. :hunch:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/gns_guardreadiness_070524/

WASHINGTON — The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken their toll on the National Guard’s readiness, leaving some units with insufficient equipment to respond to a domestic catastrophe such as Hurricane Katrina, top Guard officers told lawmakers Thursday.

“While most adjutant generals believe they have sufficient equipment to deal with single disasters common to their states, they fear ... having to send equipment to support a regional disaster such as Katrina,” said Air Force Maj. Gen. Roger Lempke, president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States.

Lempke was among four Guard officers who testified before the House Homeland Security Committee about the readiness of the National Guard.

State Guard units have suffered equipment shortages because of overseas deployment. Units often lose hardware in combat or are required to leave equipment behind when they return home. That has resulted in a loss of “dual-use” equipment that can be used both in combat and to respond to domestic emergencies.

A Government Accountability Office report released earlier this year said the Mississippi Army National Guard has only about 50 percent of the “dual-use” equipment it needs.

“No matter what your political beliefs about the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, certain facts are undeniable. The conflicts abroad have left our citizen-soldiers at home without enough equipment and stretched too thin,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the head of the House Homeland Security Committee.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/17/iraq-war-british-army

(british troops face same problem)-

Iraq: the legacy - Ill equipped, poorly trained, and mired in a 'bloody mess'In the fourth part of our series, Richard Norton-Taylor explains how the six-year conflict in Iraq tested the capacity and bravery of British troops to the limit - and how they were betrayed by the politicians


http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/UK-SAS-Commander-Quits-Citing-Inadequate-Equipment-05141/

UK SAS Commander Quits, Citing Inadequate Equipment
22-Dec-2008 18:32 EST

Related Stories: Britain/U.K., Events, Field Reports, Issues - Political, Official Reports, Policy - Procurement, Scandals & Investigations, Trucks & Transport

Advertisement
Land Rover Snatch
(click to view full)In the USA, a controversy erupted in early 2008 when USMC whistleblower Franz Gayl’s “The Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Case Study” [PDF] blamed a slow military procurement system for delays in fielding mine-resistant vehicles. The USMC had actually been an early purchaser, but the vehicles had remained an tiny portion of the total US vehicle fleet in theater until the MRAP competition began in 2006 at the USMC’s urging – over 3 1/2 years into a war that had featured IED land mines as the primary threat since 2003.


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0831-06.htm


In the 16 months since President George W. Bush landed on the U.S. aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and declared major combat activities in Iraq complete, the nearly 400,000 U.S. service men and women deployed in active duty around the globe have faced unprecedented difficulties.

By now, the litany of strategic miscalculations in Iraq by civilian leaders at the Pentagon is well known. What the public and news media often neglect, however, are the less publicized policies that have quietly but insidiously undermined American troops, making it increasingly challenging to fight under the U.S. flag.

Four major Pentagon policies in the past year have undermined the morale of U.S. troops and their families - and are likely to leave a negative long-term impact on the ability of the armed services to recruit and retain service members in the long term.

First, in the dog days of August 2003, while Congress recessed, the Pentagon quietly cut payments for imminent danger and family separation. Earlier that summer, Congress had given the nearly 150,000 U.S. troops serving in Iraq and the 9,000 serving in Afghanistan a $75 a month imminent danger pay increase and a $150 monthly allowance to fund rent and child care for their families at home. The administration cited budgetary concerns for this pay cut. Yet the two payments totaled approximately $450 million - a meager amount next to the $400 billion 2003 defense budget or the $166 billion spent in 2003 on supplemental spending bills for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The White House reluctantly agreed to reinstate the bonuses after outrage in the press and Congress, but had already sent a damaging, demoralizing message to troops in the field: compensating service members would be among the last priorities in war time.



and it just goes on and on and on....

xfl2001fan
05-05-2009, 06:30 PM
While I can't speak for the Guard, I can say that the Reserves are getting better. That being said, you are quoting an Army Times article from 2007. Significant amounts of equipment has been pushed out since then.

Classic examples are the MRAP. It's a beast of a replacement for a Humvee...and while it isn't very eco friendly...it saves lives. The "Up-armor" phase was a temporary solution until the contracts could be created for the next wave of vehicles.

Now, units don't even take rolling stock with them overseas anymore. For that matter, there's a huge stock of equipment overseas that stays there full time. The last 3 units that I've sent overseas have all gone with their Weapons, the RFI Gear (helmet, tactical vest, etc...) Gas Mask and that's about it. They leave behind all generators, vehicles, trailers, and communication equipment...as the stuff we have stateside has been outdated in the last 2 years.

tony hipchest
05-07-2009, 04:20 PM
so, speaking of that brand spanking new body armor you were shipping out...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-04-02-army-body-armor_N.htm?csp=34

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Army can't be sure some of its body armor met safety standards, partly because it didn't do proper paperwork on initial testing of the protective vests, a Defense Department audit said.
Democratic Rep. Louise M. Slaughter of New York, who requested the department inspector general's report, on Wednesday demanded the firing of officials responsible. But the Army said the gear is safe and the issue is a disagreement over when and what type of testing is required — principally so-called "first article testing" typically done on a product before a contract is awarded.

The inspector general reviewed $5.2 billion worth of Army and Marine Corps contracts for body armor from 2004 through 2006.

"Specific information concerning testing and approval of first articles was not included in 13 of 28 Army contracts and orders reviewed, and contracting files were not maintained in 11 of 28 Army contracts to show why procurement decisions were made," the report concluded.

"As a result, DoD has no assurance that first articles produced under 13 of the 28 contracts and orders reviewed met the required standards," or that 11 of the 28 contracts were awarded based on informed decisions, it said.

"This report indicates that nearly half of the Army's contractors did not perform the most basic test on the body armor before it was sent to our troops fighting overseas," Slaughter said. "During a time of war, it's shameful that the Army would not scrupulously ensure that every piece of equipment is properly tested, especially a fundamentally life-and-death product such as body armor."

The Army said the vests are of excellent quality, consistently tested and meet contract requirements.

"Since its initial fielding in 1999, the ... body armor has demonstrated superior combat performance in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq," said Lt. Col. Martin Downie, an Army spokesman. "Many soldiers are alive today because of it."

Downie said the fact that the inspector general was not completely able to verify testing or aspects of contracting documentation doesn't mean the armor failed specifications.


which one of bush's buddies pockets were lined by skimming off of the testing costs?

i dont care if downey says just cause they werent tested doesnt mean they didnt meet specifications or werent good product.

the fact is, the price of testing each and every piece of equipment was built into the price of the contract, and if that money wasnt spent on testing, where did it go.

atleast this corruption is being exposed and weeded out (to the tune of $295 billion from defense/contractor procurement spending alone).

xfl2001fan
05-07-2009, 04:35 PM
so, speaking of that brand spanking new body armor you were shipping out...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-04-02-army-body-armor_N.htm?csp=34

Well, the body armor that we sent them out with was the stuff fresh off of the shelves. You're referring to an article from last year that was done on a study created for the contracts from 2004-2006. Yes, somebody's pockets were lined quite sweetly. I wish I knew how it happened. However, this was discussed by Army Officials at one of the Logistics conference that I attend every year. The procurement for the latest wave of body armor produced did check out.

Tony, in the last two years, we have upgraded nearly every facet of protection for the troops. Now, we have a lot of stuff (crap) on the shelf that we (wasted a lot of money on) to be used as a training aid...but when it's time to go overseas, they get the good stuff.

For instance, when we went to the Range last month, we took the outmoded body armor with us. We weren't expecting to be fired at...and didn't feel like we needed the extra protection to fire an M-16...

However, studies were done with troops overseas...and the ones who practiced firing with flak vests back home did much better in their qualifications (and the fights they got into) when they were overseas and wearing the real thing. It's an adjustment.

revefsreleets
05-07-2009, 05:01 PM
No, get it right. Bush hates soldiers and blacks and poor people and wishes they were all dead. HE himself went through and purposefully sabotaged this equipment, and him and his satanic cronies are now off in the Bohemian Grove or something snickering over all the death they caused while they drink the blood of sacrificed 12 year old virgin girls...