Obey berates woman over war funding, later apologizes

[goodhue]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obey-berates-woman-over-war-funding-later-apologizes-2007-03-09.html

Obey berates woman over war funding, later apologizes

By Jeremy Jacobs and Susan Crabtree

March 09, 2007

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) berated a woman who approached him in a Congressional corridor, claiming that “idiot liberals” don’t understand the war supplemental spending bill process.

The altercation was videotaped and posted on www.youtube.com .

“We’re trying to use the supplemental to end the war,” Obey said. “You can’t end the war if you’re going against the supplemental. It’s time these idiot liberals understood that.”

David Swanson, a liberal blogger with AfterDowningStreet.org, posted a YouTube video of the encounter on www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/19392 and sent the link to reporters Thursday night.

The unidentified woman told Obey she was the mother of a Marine who had been deployed to Iraq who was experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder and wasn’t receiving adequate treatment from military hospitals. She then asked why Obey was not cutting off funding for the war.

Obey responded that the Washington Post has been running numerous stories on the inadequacies of military hospitals and that Congress is holding hearings on the topic, adding that the supplemental spending bill includes extra money for military healthcare.

A few moments later he grew angry and began attacking liberal groups for failing to understand how the supplemental bill, of which he is a sponsor, would affect the war.

* * *

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obey-berates-woman-over-war-funding-later-apologizes-2007-03-09.html

The video can be viewed here . . .

http://blog.thehill.com/2007/03/09/video-captures-confrontation-with-rep-obey/

[truthisfreedom]

1. Whether or not he's right, this may reduce the name-calling within our own ranks.

And it's about time.

[Taoschick]

2. He shouldn't have lost his cool

But I can understand the frustration with people who want what they want now, votes be damned.

[LiberalFighter]

35. I sympathize with parents of soldiers and vets but they need to

educate themselves about the process.

One guy was saying that the Democrats should filibuster. Problem is that there isn't a filibuster procedure in the House as there is in the Senate.

[rodeodance]

3. I am a big Obey fan but he sure lost his cool at that moment.

[bluestateguy]

4. He was very rude, but he was right

The votes aren't there to cut the funding--too many Democrats like Jim Marshall and other DLC cocktail party types to make that happen.

[goodhue]

6. but there are also Democrats who will refuse to vote for any war funding

Dennis Kucinich for one has yet to vote for any funding for Iraq war, and I'd be mightily surprised if he would be willing to do so now, even in exchange for a time frame of end of 08 redeployment.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. And that's why I dislike Kucinich.

We desperately need every vote we can get on that bill so we can end the war, and yet his zealotry is preventing exactly what he is fighting for!

[goodhue]

13. but the bill does not in fact end the war

Far from it. Some idiots can see past the window dressing of a war supplemental with a 2008 “phased redeployment” from Iraq if Iraq fails to meet certain benchmarks, and understand that it is in fact a vote for a continued occupation and more war.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. Do you know what a redeployment is?

Obviously, you do not.

[goodhue]

20. I understand the concept of a redeployment

And that it will not be required if Iraq meets certain benchmarks

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. Then you clearly have not read the proposed law.

If the benchmarks ARE met, redeployment would begin in March 2008. If they are not met, it would begin as early as July of this year.

[goodhue]

27. Thanks for the clarification

You are right that I have not read the proposed law. I would love too if you have a link. I actually don't think it is readily available.

Anyway, the ever-helpful Hill explains: "The final deadline for troop withdrawal under the supplemental is Jan. 31, 2008. But if President Bush cannot certify that Iraq has met certain political benchmarks, the plan says withdrawal could start as early as July of this year."

I'd like to see the actual language, since I'm not sure what "could" means in the last clause of second sentence. Also, I thought the date January 31, 2008 is the deadline after which the redeployment would begin to be completed by the fall of 2008, but maybe I'm wrong.

In any event, the supplemental extends the war for another year, to my simplistic way of thinking.

[goodhue]

36. ABC news has a better summary of the required presidential certifications

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2934730&page=1

* * *

And this morning House Democratic leaders seemed unclear of all the deadline details of the bill they were introducing.

* * *

The Pelosi bill — titled the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act — requires the president to certify progress by the Iraqi government by July 1, 2007, in various reforms, including a militia disarmament program and an equitable oil revenue sharing program among Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis.

If the president fails to certify such progress, the legislation would require that U.S. troops begin immediate withdrawal, with complete withdrawal by December 2007.

The president would then have until Oct. 1, 2007, to certify that Iraqis have achieved (not just begun progress, as with March 1) key benchmarks. If he fails to make that second certification, U.S. troops must begin immediate withdrawal, to be completed by March 2008.

Either way, according to the bill, withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq must begin by March 1, 2008, to be completed by August 2008.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2934730&page=1

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. Can't find a spot where Obey is wrong.

Good point that's illuminated here - the woman says there should be enough money in the Defense budget to fund all of those things. Has she looked at the numbers? No. Does she know anything about the Defense budget? No. Has she ever stopped to look at how much these things cost? No.

Perhaps he shouldn't have been so blunt with her, but I fail to see where anything he said was wrong. We are a bunch of idiot liberals if we don't take enough time to figure out what in hell is actually going on.

[goodhue]

18. Why do you assume she knows nothing about the numbers?

The idiot liberals who have been so irksome to Obey actually know quite a bit about the proposed appropriation. One example is Jeff Leys is Co-Coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence (www.vcnv.org) and a national organizer with the Occupation Project campaign of sustained civil disobedience to end Iraq war funding. He has a pretty thorough analysis of the $93 billion . . .

http://vcnv.org/money-for-nothing-iraq-war-funding-2004-to-2007

Money for Nothing: Iraq War Funding, 2004 to 2007
Download as PDF

By Jeff Leys
February 14, 2007

On February 5, President Bush submitted his war budget for 2007 and 2008 to Congress. He is seeking an additional $93 billion in funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for the period that ends on September 30 of this year, as well as another $142 billion for the coming fiscal year which runs from October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008.

The February 8 hearing of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee suggested little hope that Congress will cut funding for the Iraq war. Representative John Murtha (Chair of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee) and Representative Dave Obey (Chair of the House Appropriations Committee) each emphasized that they will pass all funds necessary to “ensure the troops have all they need” (a paraphrase). Each stated he has worked to increase levels of funding for the war above and beyond what the White House asked for in prior spending bills, most notably in the so-called “bridge fund” passed last fall which provided $70 billion for the wars in this fiscal year. Murtha emphasized that he and Obey are committed to ensuring a vote on the bill by the full House of Representatives by March 14 or 15.

At the same hearing, General Peter Schoomaker stated that units which are deployed to Iraq are fully equipped. He stated that the problem which the military encounters is Unit A “borrows” the equipment of Unit B when Unit A deploys to Iraq and Unit B remains at home. The deficiency then becomes that Unit B is not able to adequately train. The issue is explicitly NOT that Unit A enters the war in Iraq without sufficient equipment, weapons, etc.

In this article, I aim to lay out an overview of the growth of war spending between 2004 and 2007, up to and including the current request for $93 billion more in supplemental war spending. I’ll focus upon the three main categories of funding: Personnel; Operations and Maintenance; and Procurement. Within the Operations and Maintenance section I’ll focus upon those funds appropriated or requested for use by U.S. military forces (including active duty as well as Guard and Reserve units), as opposed to those funds appropriated for such items as the Iraq Security Forces fund and the Afghanistan Security Forces fund. In doing so, I hope to maintain a control of sorts on the dollar amounts and categories discussed in the following analysis-comparing apples to apples rather than apples to oranges.

* * *

http://vcnv.org/money-for-nothing-iraq-war-funding-2004-to-2007

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. Well here are 3 dumb things he said

"It's time these idiot liberals understand . . ."

"if that is good enough for you you are smoking something illegal"

"If you guys would quit screwing it up . . . "

It is WRONG to be this rude to a citizen and a taxpayer who pays his salary. She is also a military mom who is desperately trying to keep her son alive. And Obey treated her like shit. If you can't see the wrong in his behavior, then I can't help you.

[Strawman]

7. He was rude, but at least he seemed to give a damn

What's worse? Telling that woman you "feel her pain" and then doing nothing or expressing genuine frustration of the "goddamnit I'm trying" variety? If he really is trying to end the war ASAP, and if what he's saying is true, he doing more for this woman than someone who would merely give her empty civility.

These fuckers in Congress should be frustrated. They should be upset and on edge about what is going on. She's right to hold him accountable too. Maybe he doesn't have a magic wand, but he and his colleagues better damn well try to find the next best thing to end the war as quickly as possible.

I think that was a productive exchange. I got a sense of what the actual rationale is for the legislative strategy from it, not just a bunch of talking points.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. If you read a newspaper, you wouldn't have needed to see this.

Not a single thing Obey said was a secret.

[Strawman]

14. Of course it's not a secret

It is just rarely expressed that frankly by politicians, even in their quotes in the newspapers.

That is what I meant.

[goodhue]

8. Well I for one agree with the idiot liberals, and not Obey

David Swanson puts it well . . .

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/13/2007/2470

Congressman Obey says "Idiot Liberals" need to support war money
by David Swanson
March 9, 2007

House Appropriations Chair David Obey (Dem., Wisc.) ran into woman in the hallway in Washington recently and ended up yelling at her and her friends, accusing them of "smoking something that's not legal" if they disagreed with him, and denouncing "idiot liberals."

The woman, Tina Richards, introduced herself to Obey as the mother of a Marine about to depart for his third tour of Iraq, and as someone who has tried to communicate with Obey but received no response. Then she…

Well, watch the video yourself. It may be depressing, but it's certainly entertaining (just like network television): http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/19392

Obey claims in this video that the only way to end the war is to fund it, because

1.-They don't have the votes to stop funding it. (Of course, they would if they voted like "idiot liberals".)

2.-Funding a withdrawal would somehow mysteriously harm "our troops." (Will Obey say that to Richards' son?)

3.-Requiring an end to the war (which Obey's bill does NOT do) is as good as defunding it. (But if that were true, why would you have the votes for it and not the other?

I think it's important to watch idiot Congress Members in off-the-cuff videos like this in order to understand something: they're neither idiots nor completely cynical. They actually believe some of their own sound bytes. This understanding has to shape our task of educating and pressuring them to change.

[Strawman]

19. But they don't have those votes today

It seems all they can do then is apply pressure. They don't have a veto proof, filibuster proof majority. For either bill.

So the question then becomes which bill do they want Bush to veto? One that he can claim cuts the funding for our troops or one that funds troops and sets a deadline for withdrawl? I know this is a dirty word but one veto triagulates him into merely uniquely supporting the continuation of the war, and with the other veto he can claim to be real troop supporter and possibly gain some traction to keep this thing going even longer.

[Javaman]

10. Right or wrong, it shows that the repukes aren't the only ones that

demonize "liberals".

Weren't liberals the ones that got him elected?

Nothing like pushing the ball forward on the rhetoric front for the repukes.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. Point out one thing he said that was wrong.

It's not demonizing if it's true.

Look around DU and you'll find that misinformation not only rampant, but arrogantly pushed as fact. How is that anything other than idiocy?

[goodhue]

15. Obey claims that voting against funding harms our troops

Although that belief is widely held, it is in fact not true.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Tell me how that's not true.

He listed several examples - please point to the one that is factually incorrect.

[goodhue]

21. lag time

Jeff Leys explains . . .

"Again, it is important to stress that just because the funds are appropriated now does not mean that the equipment and weapons systems will automatically appear in the field for use by soldiers tomorrow. A one to three year lag time exists between the time funds are appropriated and the time an item is available to soldiers in the field. The funds being appropriated now are not to provide for soldiers in the field today. The funds being appropriated now for procurement purposes are to provide material for soldiers fighting the war in Iraq one to three years in the future."

http://vcnv.org/money-for-nothing-iraq-war-funding-2004-to-2007

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. While there is a lag time involved, it is completely incorrect to say 1-3 years.

The money becomes available after a few months, at which time the Department of Defense can begin to draw down the money in the fund as it needs to. But if the money isn't there, then obviously it can't be drawn from, nor can it be counted upon, meaning the day-to-day funding is drastically and immediately altered.

This kind of backdoor, backwoods rhetoric is the same kind of argument Bush makes when he doesn't want to fund education programs. It's flat-out wrong.

[goodhue]

28. General Schoomaker said at least 18 months . . .

At the February 9, 2007 hearing of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, General Peter Schoomaker and Secretary of the Army Frances Harvey both stated that it takes at least 18 months for equipment to be secured once funds have been appropriated for the purchase of an item, giving the example of an 18 month lag time for obtaining a vehicle transmission.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. That's vastly simplifying the issue, however.

Even if some things don't get there for 18 months, there are still bills that need to be paid and supplies that will need replenishing whether we stay in the war or not. I could go a lot further, but I unfortunately don't have the time. Suffice it to say, I would trust someone like Obey, whom has been an appropriator for many years now, over Jeff Leys, whom for all we know has no background in federal legislation at all.

[Javaman]

22. dupe

[Javaman]

23. I'll wade in on this one...

In the last appropriation bill for funds for the "troops" actually went to all the corps over there. Not a cent went to the troops.

Beyond that, I don't know about past funds.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. You didn't answer my question.

Obey cited several specific examples. You still have not told me which of the ones he cited that were untrue.

[Javaman]

30. direct the question to him, not me. I just put in my two cents. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. Here are 3 things he said

"It's time these idiot liberals understand . . ."

"if that is good enough for you you are smoking something illegal"

"If you guys would quit screwing it up . . . "

[theaudacity]

31. Dave Obey is a straight talker, and thats why, as a Wisconsinite, I love him

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. You can have him

He was a complete ass to Tina.

[Wwagsthedog]

32. Wonder if Obey voted for the IWR?

DK sure didn't!

[goodhue]

33. Obey voted against the IWR

But I believe he has consistently voted for Iraq war supplementals.

[rcdean]

34. Absolutely not. Obey's a good man. And his position is true.

We want Bush to fry in his own fire, not give him the ability to say that liberals lost the war in Iraq. He lost the fucking war.

Obey knows it would be political disaster to withdraw funding from troops who are in the field.

Honestly, I don't know what the hell is wrong with the "idiot liberal" groups he refers to. It seems way too many of our brethren put their hearts above their heads.

Hey we all want to fly, right. So why don't we just jump off a tall building and fly?

[teryang]

40. Give me more money liberal idiots!

This bill as drafted with its so called benchmarks or milestones or whatever isn't even constitutional. The way you get a grip on a war is to limit funds by appropriating them to a date certain. Beyond that date you get none without further bargaining. By placing the alleged criteria for further funding in the bill a priori, they are attempting to fund the executive's war and at the same time circumscribe his powers as Commander in Chief. That isn't going to happen.

The fact is that our elected democratic representatives are giving the unitary executive what he wants by giving the funds and imposing toothless unconstitutional directives.

So Obey and his colleagues get to pretend they are doing something when they know as legislators it's a hoax on the electorate. As far as I'm concerned he's a scumbag for acting the way he did. He wouldn't have apologized unless his outrageous arrogance was caught on tape.