The White House Office of Management and Budget rejected Army chief Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker’s extraordinary plea by for the additional funds to pay for repairing and replacing thousands of worn out and blown up tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles and Humvees.
Instead of the $25 billion that Schoomaker says the Army needs just to keep doing what it’s been doing with spit, adhesive tape and baling wire for the last five years, the Pentagon says the Army can have $7 billion.
Will - 11:10am on 10/30/2006
Sorry Will, link added.
But let me get this straight: The Democrats are threatening to defund the war to the point where we’re forced to flee like we did in Vietnam...and you’re kvetching about the Bush administration only giving an additional $7 billion for maintenance?
You can’t have it both ways on this. Either you’re with the Dems for defunding the war until we pull out, or you’re with the Bush administration in trying to win in Iraq.
Rob - 11:10am on 10/30/2006
Rodney I suppose the Senate could take funding out of the House bill.
The Whistler - 11:10am on 10/30/2006
You can’t have it both ways on this. Either you’re with the Dems for defunding the war until we pull out, or you’re with the Bush administration in trying to win in Iraq.
I’m for having some responsible oversight of the war effort, and from what we’ve all seen in the past three and a half years of ineptitude and corruption, we’re not getting it with the Republicans controlling all branches of government.
You don’t seem to mind that Bush is only willing to give the army less than a third of the funds it needs for equipment replacement and maintenance.
What’s more important is that the Iraqis want us to leave and they feel that the US occupation is having a negative influence on their country.
Will - 11:10am on 10/30/2006
You don’t seem to mind that Bush is only willing to give the army less than a third of the funds it needs for equipment replacement and maintenance.
According to a magazine opinion piece.
You don’t seem to mind that the Democrats are looking to choke off funding for the war in Iraq so that we’re forced to flee like we were in Vietnam.
I’m for having some responsible oversight of the war effort, and from what we’ve all seen in the past three and a half years of ineptitude and corruption, we’re not getting it with the Republicans controlling all branches of government.
Right. News flash, bucko, the Republicans set all time records in terms of military campaigns in both Afghanistan and Iraq. They are still ahead of schedule for setting a new record (less than 7 years) for defeating an insurgency.
As regards corruption, I have heard no reports of the Lincoln Bedroom being rented out in this administration, nor of Presidential Pardons for sale to the highest bidder.
You don’t seem to mind that Bush is only willing to give the army less than a third of the funds it needs for equipment replacement and maintenance.
StrategyPage reports that request as for re-starting a depot level maintenance program that was abolished during the Clinton Administration. The reduced level of funding is that which the facility will require for its first year of operation (rather a test, if you will). I for one find that a resposible approach to spending.
What’s more important is that the Iraqis want us to leave and they feel that the US occupation is having a negative influence on their country.
I see Rob has already demonstrated this to be a lie.
That’s zero for three for those keeping score.
Out Here
Rodney Graves
Rodney Graves - 12:10pm on 10/30/2006
the Republicans set all time records in terms of military campaigns in both Afghanistan and Iraq
Oh yes. “Mission accomplished”. Heck of a job, Bushie! You seem to be glossing over the fact that the botched occupation is what allowed the insurgency to flourish.
They are still ahead of schedule for setting a new record (less than 7 years) for defeating an insurgency.
Ahead of schedule? A new record? You’re putting a ton of lipstick on this pig. I don’t remember Bush laying out a schedule for a 7 year insurgency. So how many more years will they be finding dozens of bodies daily of Iraqis who have been bound, tortured, killed, and dumped in the streets of Baghdad? Your “schedule” says three more years? I’ve got news for you. The insurgency is being supplanted by civil war. Your 7 year schedule is meaningless.
I see Rob has already demonstrated this to be a lie.
He has done no such thing. He merely pointed to an article claiming that the al-Maliki government wants us to stay (for at least a year). I was pointing to a [url=http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=hmpg1[/url] showing that the Iraqi people want us to leave (within a year). The Iraqis polled also believe that the US Military presence is provoking more conflict than it is preventing, which is also what the NIE said.
Will - 05:10am on 10/31/2006
will continues to demonstrate his ignorance of history and recent events thus:
I originally wrote:
the Republicans set all time records in terms of military campaigns in both Afghanistan and Iraq
To which will replies:
Oh yes. “Mission accomplished”. Heck of a job, Bushie! You seem to be glossing over the fact that the botched occupation is what allowed the insurgency to flourish.
Both the Taliban of Afghanistan and the Iraqi government were militarily defeated in record time, with record minimal forces. Get your head around that pair of historical facts.
The fact that insurgencies arose in both does not alter the fact that the actual overthrow of both were record setting.
And if you really think that the insurgency is flourishing in both Iraq and Afhanistan, then you must get all of what little information you seem to have from CNN.
My quote again:
They are still ahead of schedule for setting a new record (less than 7 years) for defeating an insurgency.
In response to which will spewed:
Ahead of schedule? A new record? You’re putting a ton of lipstick on this pig. I don’t remember Bush laying out a schedule for a 7 year insurgency. So how many more years will they be finding dozens of bodies daily of Iraqis who have been bound, tortured, killed, and dumped in the streets of Baghdad? Your “schedule” says three more years? I’ve got news for you. The insurgency is being supplanted by civil war. Your 7 year schedule is meaningless.
Yes, ahead of schedule. Yes, a new record. Those familiar with the history of insurgency and counter insurgency know the typical time scale for such (~10 years) and the outliers (low record of 7, one still ongoing after more than a century). Your demonstrated ignorance on these matters is not a failure on the part of anyone but yourself.
Bush did not set a callendar, because he is familiar with the un-predictable nature of warfare in general, and insurgencies in particular. The use of such fixed date callendars in such matters is reserved for fools and poltroons.
While it is possible that the insurgency could indeed become a civil war, it has not yet done so. Should such a civil war truly break out, it will be short and brutal, as the Sunni minority no longer controlls the Armed Forces and para-military police.
My personal belief is that the insurgency will wind down over the next three to five years, and that U. S. Forces will still be in Iraq for about as long as U. S. Forces have remained in Japan and Germany (you are aware that we still have troops in both, sixty years after the end of WWII?).
We deserve to know where the cadidates stand on this issue now, before the election.
This issue came up in a Cardin/Steele debate Sunday. I thought Steele kicked some tail here.
Whistler,
Spending bills must originate in the House…
Out Here
Rodney Graves
It’s possible that some democrats are threatening to “de-fund” the Iraq war (although it would be nice if you would cite your source).
On the other hand, Bush is actually de-funding the army:
Sorry Will, link added.
But let me get this straight: The Democrats are threatening to defund the war to the point where we’re forced to flee like we did in Vietnam...and you’re kvetching about the Bush administration only giving an additional $7 billion for maintenance?
You can’t have it both ways on this. Either you’re with the Dems for defunding the war until we pull out, or you’re with the Bush administration in trying to win in Iraq.
Rodney I suppose the Senate could take funding out of the House bill.
I’m for having some responsible oversight of the war effort, and from what we’ve all seen in the past three and a half years of ineptitude and corruption, we’re not getting it with the Republicans controlling all branches of government.
You don’t seem to mind that Bush is only willing to give the army less than a third of the funds it needs for equipment replacement and maintenance.
What’s more important is that the Iraqis want us to leave and they feel that the US occupation is having a negative influence on their country.
According to a magazine opinion piece.
You don’t seem to mind that the Democrats are looking to choke off funding for the war in Iraq so that we’re forced to flee like we were in Vietnam.
And as for the Iraqis wanting us to leave...read it and weep dummy.
will opines:
Right. News flash, bucko, the Republicans set all time records in terms of military campaigns in both Afghanistan and Iraq. They are still ahead of schedule for setting a new record (less than 7 years) for defeating an insurgency.
As regards corruption, I have heard no reports of the Lincoln Bedroom being rented out in this administration, nor of Presidential Pardons for sale to the highest bidder.
StrategyPage reports that request as for re-starting a depot level maintenance program that was abolished during the Clinton Administration. The reduced level of funding is that which the facility will require for its first year of operation (rather a test, if you will). I for one find that a resposible approach to spending.
I see Rob has already demonstrated this to be a lie.
That’s zero for three for those keeping score.
Out Here
Rodney Graves
Oh yes. “Mission accomplished”. Heck of a job, Bushie! You seem to be glossing over the fact that the botched occupation is what allowed the insurgency to flourish.
Ahead of schedule? A new record? You’re putting a ton of lipstick on this pig. I don’t remember Bush laying out a schedule for a 7 year insurgency. So how many more years will they be finding dozens of bodies daily of Iraqis who have been bound, tortured, killed, and dumped in the streets of Baghdad? Your “schedule” says three more years? I’ve got news for you. The insurgency is being supplanted by civil war. Your 7 year schedule is meaningless.
He has done no such thing. He merely pointed to an article claiming that the al-Maliki government wants us to stay (for at least a year). I was pointing to a [url=http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=hmpg1[/url] showing that the Iraqi people want us to leave (within a year). The Iraqis polled also believe that the US Military presence is provoking more conflict than it is preventing, which is also what the NIE said.
will continues to demonstrate his ignorance of history and recent events thus:
Both the Taliban of Afghanistan and the Iraqi government were militarily defeated in record time, with record minimal forces. Get your head around that pair of historical facts.
The fact that insurgencies arose in both does not alter the fact that the actual overthrow of both were record setting.
And if you really think that the insurgency is flourishing in both Iraq and Afhanistan, then you must get all of what little information you seem to have from CNN.
Yes, ahead of schedule. Yes, a new record. Those familiar with the history of insurgency and counter insurgency know the typical time scale for such (~10 years) and the outliers (low record of 7, one still ongoing after more than a century). Your demonstrated ignorance on these matters is not a failure on the part of anyone but yourself.
Bush did not set a callendar, because he is familiar with the un-predictable nature of warfare in general, and insurgencies in particular. The use of such fixed date callendars in such matters is reserved for fools and poltroons.
While it is possible that the insurgency could indeed become a civil war, it has not yet done so. Should such a civil war truly break out, it will be short and brutal, as the Sunni minority no longer controlls the Armed Forces and para-military police.
My personal belief is that the insurgency will wind down over the next three to five years, and that U. S. Forces will still be in Iraq for about as long as U. S. Forces have remained in Japan and Germany (you are aware that we still have troops in both, sixty years after the end of WWII?).
Disputant, educate thyself.
Out Here
Rodney Graves