"This is not a game. They run out of money next week," ~ John Murtha

[mzmolly]

It's a tough time to 'advocate' for what happened today, but I do respect Jack Murtha and wanted to share his perspective.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070525/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

[TwilightGardener]

1. If Murtha says it, I believe him. He's been at the forefront of the war opposition.

He wouldn't sell out the troops if he thought it was coming to that.

[justinrr1]

2. So does this show a more favorable light

on those voting YES, if true of course.

[TwilightGardener]

4. It does to me--some might have done it to avoid the APPEARANCE

(and political fallout) of denying troop funding, but some really may have thought it best to just hand the money over to the Mugger-In-Chief before anyone gets hurt.

[mzmolly]

5. I think it shines a light on their thought process?

Welcome.

[mzmolly]

3. I'm very torn on this but I too trust Murtha on this.

:(

[SoonerPride]

6. Murtha caved in, sorry,

The you vote for another bill with a timeline to end the war. If Bush vetoes it, it's his fault.

Better to force a crisis than blithely accept more of the same.

You continue to send up the same bill and make Bush bend to the WILL of the PEOPLE.

[justinrr1]

9. Only problem

is that the Dems already have that anti troop label to the ignorant people and the media would conspire with them and say "Why arent the Dems funding the troops?" while Bush is vetoing the bills. Bush knows this and thats why he would have never caved.

[SoonerPride]

10. Gamesmanship

This is about lives not political gamesmanship.

Who cares what labels get tossed about? The point is to end the war and get our troops home.

Period.

[mzmolly]

11. The point about lives can be taken both ways.

Welcome.

[justinrr1]

13. I agree

however you said the will of the people, I dont think the people are for defunding the war even though they are against. Many people dont understand what that means and have negative attitudes towards it because they think it hurts the troops. Therefore I believe if it went on long enough eventually the pressure from the majority of the people would be on the Dems to fund the troops. Bush and the media would convince them of that.

[mzmolly]

16. An excellent point.

"I dont think the people are for defunding the war even though they are against."

[SoonerPride]

19. War funding.

The polls would indicate otherwise.

[mzmolly]

23. Actually I'd be interested in the polls you speak of.

Polls show America wants the troops home, but they also show "the people" do not support cutting funds to do that.

[jgraz]

35. I'd like to see those polls

Because I'll bet the question was something like "do you want to cut off funds for our brave fighting men and women overseas and let them starve and have to fight TERRA naked with their bare hands?"

Well, maybe not that bad, but I bet it was pretty close.

Now let's run a poll like this: "Would you rather your tax dollars were used to A) Continue the occupation of Iraq or B) Bring the troops home"

I bet THAT poll would get about 70% choosing B.

[mzmolly]

48. Here's one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/washington/25view.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

While troops are still in Iraq, Americans overwhelmingly support continuing to finance the war, though most want to do so with conditions. Thirteen percent want Congress to block all money for the war.

13% is a minority and we are among the minority currently.

[jgraz]

78. Like I said: biased question, dishonest reporting

While troops are still in Iraq, Americans overwhelmingly support continuing to finance the war, though most want to do so with conditions. Thirteen percent want Congress to block all money for the war.

Is the real point here that Americans want to keep financing the war, or that most of them want conditions on that financing? And what conditions do they want? An end date? An exit strategy? Congressional oversight?

How about if you asked them to choose between the current course and cutting off funds? Do you still think it would be at 13%?

70% of Americans oppose this war and want the Democratic Congress to change course. The only power Congress has to do this is the power of the purse. A power which they have now thoroughly pissed away.

[mzmolly]

79. Uhm, we gave conditions.

Timelines were vetoed. Also the conditions are the benchmarks we inserted. Regardless, Americans don't support cutting funds. It matters not how you equivocate.

[jgraz]

82. No it matters how our spineless representatives equivocate

Could it be that part of the reason those dishonest polls get the responses they do is that our beloved Dems are so busy waiting for the poll results that they've completely given up on actual leadership?

Anyone with half a brain knows that defunding is an effective and relatively common way to end a war. The Dems just never had the guts to make the case.

Now I expect to hear about Fox News and the right-wing noise machine and how we're powerless against it.

[mzmolly]

83. You have no proof this NYT poll is dishonest. That's simply what you wish to believe.

Sorry, but we are among the minority, and all your foot stomping doesn't change that.

[jgraz]

86. Aside from basic reading comprehension and critical thinking skills...

no, no proof at all.

[mzmolly]

90. I question your characterization of "reading and comprehension skills."

eom

[jgraz]

100. OK, I'll just point out that in questioning my characterization you got the quote wrong

And we'll see how good your irony skills are. :rofl:

[mzmolly]

103. I left out the word basic.

Terribly sorry. But, thanks for kicking the thread. :hi:

[Cobalt-60]

99. I'm in a smaller minority

I not only want the funds stopped, but I want to forcibly recover at least some of the funds already wasted.

[jgraz]

101. Dude, we're all with you on that one

Of course, we have to forcibly insert spines into the Dems first.

[azurnoir]

17. I don't think it is anti-troop label

a year or two ago yes but things have changed for the public, the fact is Bush and co. are not running for office again and really do not give a flying f**k what the public thinks or does, they will if necessary take the GOP down but this is their war and their war profit.
there is another thread here somewhere about how Iraq is funded and yes tired as it is the welfare of the troops does depend on this bill, the general military budget is for troop everywhere except Iraq and Afghanistan, those funds are separate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x966011

edited to add link

[John Q. Citizen]

41. Not to mention the welfare of Custer Battles and the rest of the mercenaries. What

would they do if the gravey train were derailed?

Every US soldeir who dies from here on out is being paid for by the Dems.

Support the troops, keep them in Iraq? No thanks.

[bdamomma]

46. yea, let him hold his breath.

I heard on Stephanie Miller today a Rep. Moran (I think that's his name) and he was saying the repigs were getting ready to smear the hell out of the Dems if they didn't send a bill to Bush, because during this Memorial Day Weekend Rove's message would be to all, those nasty dems are not funding our troops and stuff like that. So what can you gather from this?? the Dems worry about being called names than doing the will of the people to stop this war. What do you guys think??

[AndyA]

7. This just shines a spotlight on how poor a President George Bush is,

and what awful representation the GOP provides.

The "support the troops" bunch allowed our troops to come dangerously close to running out of funding. Notices have already gone out that fresh fruit and vegetables may not be available to them.

Is this how they support the troops?

Yet another reason for our Democratic representatives TO GET OFF THEIR ASSES AND PUT IMPEACHMENT ON THE TABLE.

This is insulting to our troops to come this close to running out of money.

Worst terrorist attack ever.

Worst natural disaster recovery ever.

First President to invade a sovereign nation that wasn't a threat to us.

Worst. President. Ever.

Does this not warrant impeachment?

[bdamomma]

45. Yes, and alot more.

they are going to wait until September to see how things go, it seems it's just a game to these Senators both Dems and Repigs, they have a election coming up and they are using the troops for their own purposes. Who will be the winner? Repigs or Dems? that is the big question, it could determine the 2008 election.

[mzmolly]

50. A NYT poll shows that only 13% of Americans want to cut funding.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/washington/25view.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

While troops are still in Iraq, Americans overwhelmingly support continuing to finance the war, though most want to do so with conditions. Thirteen percent want Congress to block all money for the war.

[NoPasaran]

97. "First President to invade a sovereign nation that wasn't a threat to us"

Grenada?

[mrcheerful]

8. I wasn't very happy with the way things went down either but after seeing how during the Reagan

years when the dems stood up to Reagan they got pounded in the media and on the streets for daring to stand up to the Great One. Remember most of shrubs loss of faithful is because of gas going up. Do you realize that if the dems had stood to their guns and either shrub or Darth Vader called up their oil buddies to get them to drop the price gouging, restore gas prices to the $2.50 mark, how fast things would have went against the dems? You don't think shrub or Darth have that one sitting in the wings if dems get uppity?

[ProudDad]

14. A little reality check viz Dems vs. ray-gun...

The Dems set it up so that the Iran/Contra hearings would spend all of their time on peripheral issues in order to AVIOD CONFRONTING THAT PRICK RAY-GUN!!!!

It was all a setup so that those cowards didn't have to confront ray-gun's crimes in public.

They're still chicken-shit when it comes to really opposing the right-wing pukes.

It doesn't surprise me though since most Dems and nearly all pukes have the same employers -- corporate capitalism.

[mrcheerful]

27. Then you were not paying attention to what was going on before Iran/contra

hearing came about. Dems that stood up to Reagan in 81 found themselves replaced with pukes in 82. It went on and on like that and it was Reagan and the republican minority that got enough Dems to jump ship for the Iran/contra hearings. The sad thing was the Dem's thought they could wheel and deal with Reagan, like they could with Nixon and Ford. Reagan was a different kind of animal, his followers thought he could walk on water and Reagan couldn't do any wrong. The only thing Reagan had go against him was star wars.

[mrcheerful]

29. Btw, the Iran/Contra deal wasn't brought to light until 1986 and the hearings started in 87

which was into Reagans second term in office.

[ProudDad]

63. More germaine would be the fact

that the repukes began STEALING elections in earnest in '80 with caging lists, etc. All the dirty tricks that k-k-k-karl has fine-tuned over the last 16 years.

[ProudDad]

65. You're right there

ray-gun was a new kind of FASCIST PIG that they'd never encountered before.

[ProudDad]

12. What a fuckin' idiot

He knows damn well there's plenty of money in the pentagon's coffers...

Stopping the funding would just mean the bushies would have to use some of the $550,000,000,000 other dollars they've shoveled at them for this year's war and mindless destruction budget.

Lier!

[mzmolly]

15. I think he may disagree with this POV?

I've heard the talking point, but if the war would have continued regardless of funding how would sending another vetoed bill have changed anything?

[ProudDad]

67. The war couldn't have continued

but "supporting the troops" by getting their little tuchesses out of harms way would be easily covered by pentagon petty cash.

[mzmolly]

85. Of course it would have continued, with bare bones supplies even more bare.

Don't kid yourself. Not only would it have continued but Democrats would be blamed for every death due to a lack of "funds."

[1932]

18. I think I heard Kevin Phillips say the same thing recently. The Pentago has TONS of money.

[ProSense]

20. Just more excuses.

Now we know who’s right. A new report from the Congressional Research Service makes clear that Bush’s deadline is completely fabricated:

In a memo to the Senate Budget Committee dated Wednesday, the congressional analysts said the Army has enough money in its existing budget to fund operations and maintenance through the end of May — about $52.6 billion. If additional transfer authority is tapped, subject to Congress approving a reprogramming request, the Army would have enough funds to make it through nearly two additional months, or toward the end of July. Using all of its transfer authority, the Army could have as much as $60.1 billion available.

See the full CRS report HERE.

link

There are other ways to fund the war that doesn't sign off on Bush's failed policy.

[mzmolly]

24. Sorry Prosense, I don't see how "making" it to the end of July

changes the point Murtha made? It sounds like we could "scrape by."

[ProSense]

28. No, they actually have options

The Pentagon can also shift around un-obligated balances for operations and maintenance in the $70 billion bridge fund, which is part of the 2007 defense appropriations bill and is supposed to tide the military over while it awaits supplemental funding. That shift would not need any kind of formal reprogramming or congressional approval, according to sources.
Should the situation get dire, the secretary of defense could invoke the Civil War-era “Feed and Forage Act” to continue war operations. The act allows the military to obligate money for clothing, food, fuel, housing, transportation and medical supplies in excess of available appropriations for the year, without first getting congressional approval.

The authority under the Feed and Forage Act has some limitations, but it allows the military to continue its essential contracts and operations. It requires congressional notification, and Congress has to appropriate the necessary funds after that. Obligated funds can only be disbursed after a congressional appropriation.

In 2005, when the supplemental was delayed until May, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned that he would have to invoke the Feed and Forage Act to keep the deployed troops operating because funds were running out at the beginning of May. The supplemental was signed May 5, 2005.

Rumsfeld also invoked the act in 2001 after the terrorist attacks, but Congress came up with money quickly, before the Pentagon incurred any expenses.

The Pentagon and the administration can also use the act as a tool to tell Congress that it can spend money without the lawmakers’ power of the purse.

“If there is no relief, they would invoke the Feed and Forage provision,” an Office of Management and Budget spokesman told The Hill. Disruptions in the Pentagon’s war operations will start around April 15, he said, and if supplemental funds are still lacking by May 15, the Department of Defense may warn that it will invoke the act.

But Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a defense appropriator, said he expects the conference committee to come up with a middle ground between the House and the Senate that includes a timeline for withdrawal and looks a little more like the House version.

He said there is no way Congress will pass a “clean” supplemental that pays for the war with no strings attached. “There’s no way the administration is going to get its way on this,” Moran said. “But when you’re at 30 percent in the polls, what can you do?”

Elana Schor and Ian Swanson contributed to this report.

link

Moran, who is a defense appropriator, voted against the bill. This exercise was to hold Bush accountable, not make it easy for him to continue his failed policy. What everyone seems to be forgetting a bill with a deadline would have included all the money Bush wants. In September, what happens if things are worse and Congress forces the issue? The same standoff, then does Congress back down again by making excuses?

[mzmolly]

51. And you trust Bush to use those "options?"

I don't. I think he'd blame Democrats for every US death blaming "a lack of funds." And, given only 13% of Americans approve of cutting funds, doing so would be going against "the will of the people."

[ProSense]

84. Rumsfeld did, but if Bush doesn't

how long would the war last?

[mzmolly]

92. I don't know, do you?

n/t

[shireen]

21. run out of money or lose more lives?

What a choice!

This president must be stopped. How many more people do we have to lose?

[krkaufman]

22. Money runs out next week? Murtha's either mistaken or ...

... several Left-ish organizations are misinformed. I look forward to hearing more in the coming days.

[mzmolly]

25. Me as well. I'm betting on the "misinformed" thing.

But, time will tell.

[krkaufman]

26. Yeah, I only wish that I could recall exactly which organizations said ...

... that the troops had funding through June/July.

As a separate issue, what the hell are the Dems doing passing legislation that is so time-critical that a delay in passage would potentially (making a big assumption) de-fund the troops? Who, exactly, is responsible for allowing this funding request to have slipped so far as to require rapid Congressional response to avert a funding catastrophe for the Iraq occupation?

[Virginia Dare]

38. This is the disconnect that I don't get...

on the one hand they are telling us that cutting off funding will end the war, on the other hand they are telling us that cutting off funds will not effect the troops because the war is already funded? :wtf:

[mzmolly]

52. Wow, that's an excellent point.

:crazy: Thanks for "thinking" for us. ;)

[hijinx87]

88. self delete

I replied in the wrong place. I clearly need to
step away from the computer for a minute.

[frogcycle]

30. If they had had the decency to make a joint statement BEFORE the vote...

if that is what they thought, if they really felt backed into a corner and were afraid he'd start shooting the hostages, then they should have issued a pull-no-punches statement as to exactly what they were doing and why. Claiming a 'compromise' and some sort of 'victory' was lame and blew whatever credibility they might have had.


If they truly believe there is a madman in power (and I suspect they do) and that they have to compromise for the greater good (not their own pocketbooks) then they damned well should tell the people who put them there.

I don't like 'spin' from them any more than I do from the other liars.

[stillrockin]

31. This is a L - I - E !

Murtha sold out. The war is now HIS.

[Virginia Dare]

39. Give me some proof that he's lying...

give me a link or something, because I'm not getting it.

[Nimrod2005]

32. He speaks for me.......nt

[Nimrod2005]

33. He speaks for me.......nt

[Adelante]

34. I agree with you, mzmolly

It's been a difficult few days with this, but when people like Murtha, Durbin and Levin vote the way they did, it's reason to step back and take stock.

[hijinx87]

36. this is crap.

first of all, the department of defense has a huge discretionary budget. they
could have funded the war without a specific funding bill, they would have
just been required to make choices between it and other things.

and defunding the war is probably the only means congress has to extricate us
from this morass in the first place.

[bdamomma]

47. I thought I heard today, that the Department of Defense has not

given any money towards this illegal invasion. Bush is asking for this additional money from the Senate.

[hijinx87]

59. even if that is true, it's all the more reason not to approve it. n/t

[ProudDad]

93. Actually it's our children

and grandchildren who will be paying for bush's fucking dirty little war.

They're BORROWING THE MONEY from the Japanese, Chinese, British, et. al. -- borrowing from the rich.

And it will cost our kids/grandkids/greatgrandkids 3 times as much to pay it back with interest!!!

Damn them...they haven't even the guts to pay for their damn war with current revenue...I'm talking Dems and pukes.

[mzmolly]

53. Then as Virginia Dare pointed out how does cutting funds stop the war?

All we do is piss off Americans. Only 13% want to see funds cut.

[hijinx87]

56. the DoD couldn't carry on the war forever without

sacrificing readiness, equipment repairs, personnel levels, etc.

cutting off funding would compel the administration to pull
out, or leave the nation nearly "defenseless", which a rethug
administration is loathe to do.

basically, cutting funding would force them to choose between
two things they want, and probably the only thing they want more
than to continue this obscene war --- a nice juicy defense budget.

$120 billion is not small change. sooner or later, it really will
be missed.

[mzmolly]

58. I don't trust this administration to do the right thing.

And, I think they'd make our troops suffer like hell to prove a point.

[hijinx87]

60. then the suffering is on their hands. not ours.

and aside from our rhetoric being in stark contrast to our actions, that
is the worst part of the capitulation on funding. now, we are morally complicit
in what was exclusively *'s war.

this is just a very bad week, and this was a very bad decision that we are going
to regret for a long time.

[mzmolly]

66. Perhaps but it won't appear that way, to the troops or to Americans.

:(

[hijinx87]

75. we can argue endlessly about what "the public" will think

if we cut funding. I think we will be hailed as heroes.

but we won't know unless we do it; and that is the job we
were sent to washington to do.

[mzmolly]

77. Oh I disagree fully.

It's the job of Democrats to carry out the will of the people, and "the people" don't support cutting off funds. We'll be hailed as anti-military/anti-troops.

[hijinx87]

80. you cite the polls. I will cite the actual election results.

one is real. the other is a creation of the MSM.

[mzmolly]

81. Huh? We won congress and the Senate in the last election.

Are you suggesting Americans will now choose Republicans again? If Dems had a strong enough majority we'd have a timeline for getting out now. You "cite" what you wish.

[hijinx87]

89. no, no, no. of course not.

but to your point, I don't think that not delivering on
promises is an effective means of extending our majorities.

[mzmolly]

91. We didn't promise to cut funds, we promised to seek a "new direction."

:shrug:

[jgraz]

37. Sorry, it's a flat-out lie.

No matter what, the Pentagon has a HUGE budget with more than enough money to fund a careful withdrawal. This vote was a vote for more war, plain and simple.

[Virginia Dare]

40. Then how does cutting off the funding end the war?

give me the rationale for that, if there is plenty of money in place for the troops, what forces the chimp to pull out?

[jgraz]

43. D'oh double post! Bush is a moron n/t

[jgraz]

44. The lie was about running out of money next week

If Chimpy wanted to, he could keep the shooting going for a bit with current funding, but eventually he'd be forced to pull out.

[mzmolly]

54. I agree with Virgina Dare, this makes no sense.

And only 13% of Americans support cutting funds.

[jgraz]

64. Aside from the amorality of waiting for polling data before you act against an illegal war...

That 13% is completely fictional. If I put out a poll question like "Do you favor cutting off funds for the brave men and women fighting for our freedoms and forcing them to combat TERRA naked with only a wet dishtowel as a weapon?", I bet I'd get some pretty low numbers.

On the other hand, if I put out a poll asking if Congress should use its power to get the President to change course on the war, I bet I'd get a lot more "yes" replies. Like, maybe, 70% or so.

[mzmolly]

69. The poll question was not what you asserted.

Your strawman does not pertain, sorry. We are supposed to represent Americans and polls are a way to gauge how to do that.

[jgraz]

74. Who's "we" kimosabe?

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were in Congress.

At any rate, can you provide a link the poll question, since you happen to know it so well? I'm betting it's got some pretty biased language in there.

[mzmolly]

76. "We" would be the Democratic Party obviously.

Also the 13% was reported in a NYT/CBS News poll: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/washington/25view.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[ProudDad]

94. There's no indication of the text of the poll question

I'm certain it was a "push" type question like "Do you favor cutting off the funding for the troops." or some such bullshit.

I bet they didn't ask anything like: "If it were the only way to end the war would you support Congress if they quit borrowing money from the future to continue the Iraq occupation?" I'll bet that one would get over 60%.

Anyhoo, we're not saying cut funds we're saying STOP giving more funds and use the hundreds of billions the masters of war are sitting on to pull out the troops and the mercenaries.

"Poll Shows View of Iraq War Is Most Negative Since Start"

"Sixty-one percent of Americans say the United States should have stayed out of Iraq and 76 percent say things are going badly there, including 47 percent who say things are going very badly, the poll found."

"A majority, 76 percent, including 51 percent of Republicans, say additional troops sent to Iraq this year by Mr. Bush either have had no impact or are making things worse. Twenty percent of all respondents say the increase is improving the situation." (hmm, 20% have stock in blackwater or halliburton or lockheed, etc., etc.)

"The poll found Americans are more likely to trust the Democratic Party than the Republican Party to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq. Slightly more than half of those polled, 51 percent, said the Democratic Party was more likely than the Republican Party to make the right decisions about the war.

More broadly, 53 percent of those polled say they have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party, while 38 percent have a favorable view of the Republican Party. The Republican Party has not had a majority positive rating in Times/CBS News polls since December 2003."

I guess the DAMN DEMS can't stand success again. They could have continued with plan A, keep sending bills that shrub would veto until he caved...

No Guts Dems.

[mzmolly]

104. I've heard many different polls with the question worded in various manners.

eom

[wryter2000]

42. I've been against this from the first

I faxed my Senators yesterday and told them to vote no. (I knew Barbara Lee would do the right thing, and she did.) I'll be giving Feinstein a piece of my mind.

Having said that...I've seriously worried that if we didn't give those murderous bastards the money, they'd keep our kids in Iraq anyway. I mean, would you really put it past Bush? He's totally out of touch with reality, and he's proved over and over again that he doesn't give a sh*t about anyone.

[TwilightGardener]

62. We're dealing with a madman. Just give him the money, and no one gets hurt--my take on it.

[wryter2000]

87. I'm not in favor of giving him the money

I hope I made that clear. I only think we have to do our best to anticipate what this frog-exploder might do. I don't have a good solution, frankly, because I don't think anything will stop him. But, giving him the money was surely the wrong thing to do.

[mhatrw]

49. It might not be a game, but Murtha still folded.

That is, unless he's been bluffing about his opposition to this war all along.

[mzmolly]

55. I don't think he folded.

Keep in mind only 13% of Americans support cutting funds.

[TwilightGardener]

61. That 13% is all on DU, apparently.

[mzmolly]

68. I'm thinkin' we are the 13%-ers

yep. ;)

[TwilightGardener]

71. LOL! I count myself among the other 87-percenters.

[mzmolly]

72. Well, it's good to know we have one of you here.

Representing the majority and all. ;)

[ProudDad]

70. Please check out post #64

before repeating that little piece of misleading "information".

Thanks... :hi:

[mzmolly]

73. I responded to it, and it's not misinformation.

But thanks. :hi: bachatcha.

[ProudDad]

95. I'd still like to see the actual wording of the push poll question...

Edited to add: :hi:

[ShortnFiery]

57. He sure did, the lion's share of those billions equates to a big wet kiss for war profiteers. n/t

[enough already]

96. Who cares if they run out of money????

That's the whole fucking idea. No money, no war. Why is this so freakin' hard for these people to understand?

[jcrew2001]

98. exactly, sometimes its just time to say enough is enough and let the iraqi

people govern themselves.

[mzmolly]

105. The troops?

You don't think Bush would bring them home do you? He'd just remove the few protections they already have and pull $ from other areas.

[rucky]

102. Next Week?!? Where the hell's it been going?

If anyone finds it, be sure to send it to the troops.