« | »

Democrats Refuse To Fund Troops This Year

From the DNC’s Associated Press:


Senate blocks Iraq war money

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – The Senate on Friday blocked a Democratic proposal to pay for the Iraq war but require that troops start coming home.

The 53-45 vote was seven votes short of the 60 needed to advance. It came minutes after the Senate rejected a Republican proposal to pay for the Iraq war without strings attached.

The Republican measure failed 45-53, 15 short of the number of votes needed to go forward.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the only way to get troops the money was to approve the restrictions outlined by Democrats.

“Our troops continue to fight and die valiantly. And our Treasury continues to be depleted rapidly, for a peace that we seem far more interested in achieving than Iraq’s own political leaders,” said Reid, D-Nev.

Republicans said Democrats were being irresponsible.

“We need to get our troops everything they need,” said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “We need to get it to them right now.”

Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said this week that if Congress cannot pass legislation that ties war money to troop withdrawals, they would not send President Bush a bill this year.

Instead, they would revisit the issue upon returning in January, pushing the Pentagon to the brink of an accounting nightmare and deepening Democrats’ conflict with the White House on the war.

In the meantime, Democrats say, the Pentagon can eat into its $471 billion annual budget without being forced to take drastic steps.

“The days of a free lunch are over,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

At the White House Friday, deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said: “DOD would have to eat into their annual budget and I believe that still presents difficulties in getting the troops in the field the resources they need to carry out their mission.”

“We’d rather see the Department of Defense, the military planners and our troops focusing on military maneuvers, rather than accounting maneuvers as they carry out their mission in the field,” Fratto said. “I think Congress should send this money, allow these troops to get the equipment they need. There is no reason why they should not get the money. This isn’t like this is a last-minute effort and call for funding.”

He said the president sent his budget to Congress back in February last year. Along with that was the supplemental request for more than $145 billion for the global war on terror. The request last month was an augmentation to that request, but they’ve known that funding is needed, Fratto said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that unless Congress passes funding for the war within days, he will direct the Army and Marine Corps to begin developing plans to lay off employees and terminate contracts early next year.

Gates, who met with lawmakers on Wednesday, said he does not have the money or the flexibility to move funds around to adequately cover the costs of the continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“There is a misperception that this department can continue funding our troops in the field for an indefinite period of time through accounting maneuvers, that we can shuffle money around the department. This is a serious misconception,” Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.

As a result, he said he is faced with the undesirable task of preparing to cease operations at Army bases by mid-February, and lay off about 100,000 defense department employees and an equal number of civilian contractors. A month later, he said, similar moves would have to be made by the Marines.

Some members of Congress believe the Pentagon can switch enough money to cover the war accounts, Gates said. But he added that he only has the flexibility to transfer about $3.7 billion, which is just one week’s worth of war expenses. Lawmakers, he said, may not understand how complicated and restrictive the situation is.

Once again Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats who are trying to force this issue are showing themselves to be traitors to this country, plain and simple.

They are so desperate to try to make us lose a war that we clearly winning that they will do anything, even stab our soldiers in the back by denying them funding while they are on the battlefield.

These are Senators and Congressmen?

These are Americans?

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, November 16th, 2007. Comments are currently closed.

2 Responses to “Democrats Refuse To Fund Troops This Year”

  1. JimdishCT says:

    I guess you didn’t count who voted for the funding and who voted against it. The republicans, for the very first time in something like 40 years, voted against funding the troops because of their resistance to people not wanting to lie about who they are in order to die for our country.
    Then they used every OTHER excuse in the book about why they couldn’t vote for it, mostly procedural and philosophical objections that were totally OK when they put totally unrelated items into past defense bills. Total hypocrites, but that’s the way you like it.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      JimDipp, How much military service do you have?

      I doubt that you have any.

      But, even if you do, you have to understand the incredibly enormous challenge that homosexuality places on military people. The Romans were acutely aware of it and did their best to try to work around it but to no avail. Given that the military must be highly regimented, problems arise where social experimentation is tried. The place for such experiments is not where lives are truly at stake. Sure, it might be a great resource for some romance novels and movies, but such melodrama is unacceptable when real lives are in the balance.

      Your point of view is parochial and narrow-minded. For truly, if gays want to serve, they can do so and have done so while keeping their sexuality a secret. Thus, like anyone who has their priorities straight, focuses on the real matter at hand. Though it appears that I contradict myself, such is not the case. For, by making sexual preference a bone of contention, it overrides the priority of having a strong, standing military by kowtowing to social conscript.

      Your position is invalid, sir. If for any reason by making “being gay and proud of it” a priority vs. allowing for people of any stripe to serve humbly, quietly and proudly and keeping sexuality out of it. By spraypainting with day-glo orange the flamers and “women in comfortable shoes” with a bright stripe, you undermine the very purpose of a standing military.

      Then, there are the obvious sociopolitical problems of internal retaliation. Take for example the dyke commander who happens to think that the men under her command are against other dykes. “She” then undertakes a witch-hunt and destroys each and every man who has served honorably; Even those who couldn’t care less about the sexual preference of anyone else. Think it couldn’t happen? It already has. http://www.militarycorruption.com/lesbos.htm

      So, before you think it’s time that the military be a social test tube…think about what you’re trying to accomplish. You may get gum on your shoe, pal.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »