re $87B - The money isn't even needed for troop support

[IkeWarnedUs]

MoveOn.org sent this out yesterday in an afternoon edition of their e-mail alerts, the Daily MisLead. I started a thread yesterday that sank like a stone. The only mention of this I've seen is what I've posted. Do any DU'ers even know about this? Did I miss something?

----------------------

A report released October 15, 2003 by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) says the defense department budget has sufficient money to fund the troops in Iraq through May 2004!

From the Daily Mislead:

<snip>

The (Congressional Research Service) CRS study released yesterday suggests that the recently-passed $368.2 billion 2004 Defense funding bill plus the emergency funding Congress passed at the start of the war provides the Army alone with $37 billion in funding for personnel and operations and maintenance, enough to fund operations through early May.2

President Bush requested the money in September, saying, "We have conducted a thorough assessment of our military and reconstruction needs in Iraq."3 But even prior to the CRS survey's conclusions, Republican aides said that the administration inflated its budget request in part to avoid having to ask for additional funds the following year -- during the election season.4

more: http://www.misleader.com/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df10162003.html

Here is a link a pdf of the CRS report. Note it is provided by Jan Schakowsky's House site:

http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/04-Supp-availability_of_Army_funds-memo-15Oct03.pdf

[brainshrub]

1. What's the big deal?

What's the big Deal?
Why shouldn't congress approve the money before spring? That's only about 6 months away. I would think that even after congress approves the money, it would take awhile for the resources to reach Iraq.
For the record, I was against the 87 billion. But I don't think it's particularly unusual for congress to approve money months before it's actually needed.
As for the fact that Bush asked for it in Sept so he wouldn't have to ask again during the election? Duh! Yeah!
I can't wait for the bill after the 2004 election is over...now that is going to be one messy tab!

[IkeWarnedUs]

2. Are you really so jaded?

Evidence of another Bush lie? Who cares.

$20 Billion, $68 Billion, $87 Billion, $400 Billion - what the hell's the difference. They've all become unreal numbers.

Call for more debate in Congress? What for - the only ones listening are C-Span freaks.

Rather than go on, I'll use Jan Schakowsky's words about why this is a big deal. From her October 15, 2003 press release:

<snip>

“President Bush and the Republican leadership can no longer blackmail members of Congress into voting for an $87 billion blank check for the Bush Administration in the name of our brave soldiers. The non-partisan CRS report is proof that the Bush Administration has enough money to support our troops without yet another emergency funding bill from Congress,” Schakowsky declared.

In April, Congress voted for a $79 billion wartime emergency supplemental and just recently, for a nearly $400 billion Pentagon budget

“There is plenty of time to answer in detail all of the questions raised by Republican and Democrats alike about how the money for Iraq was spent and will be spent without compromising our obligations to the troops or the Iraqi people,” Schakowsky concluded.

<snip>

Link to the press release: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il09_schakowsky/pr10_15_2003iraq.html

[Don_G]

3. I Think Part Of It Is Going To Be A Cheny Slush Fund

For more of his "no-bid" contracts and probably to repair and provide security for the oil pipelines before ShrubCo can buy them for a song. He dosen't want to buy damaged merchandise.

[IkeWarnedUs]

4. of course it is

Congress may as well make the checks out to Halliburton, Bechtel, Brown and Root, etc. to save time.

[Jazzgirl]

5. What I've been wondering is

what is all the money for? I saw a (kind of) listing of what the money was for but the numbers weren't adding up. Okay, so $10 billion for Afghanistan, $300 mil for vests for the troops, and numerous other items that added up to about $30 billion. What is the other 50-55 billion for? I keep hearing "to support our troops" but support them how? I still keep seeing articles lack of adequate food, water, housing, etc. so what do they mean "support?"

Jazzgirl

[IkeWarnedUs]

6. That is Jan Schakowsky's point

From her 10/9/03 press release:

<snip>

“I, for one, will not be an enabler to an Administration that clearly cannot be trusted with our treasure, our lives, and those of the Iraqi people. I say NO to $87 billion more until:


The team responsible for this ill-advised war and its chaotic aftermath are fired – starting, but not ending, with Sec. of State Donald Rumsfeld and his assistant Paul Wolfowitz.

There is a clearly defined plan that fully engaged the international community and the United Nations in a decision-making role in the peacemaking and rebuilding of Iraq, and includes an exit strategy for the U.S. and a realistic proposal for Iraqi assumption of power.

Possible war profiteering by private contractors like Halliburton (from whom Vice President Cheney receives $13,000 each and every month) is fully investigated and ended, and until Iraqis who have proven they can perform the work at a small fraction of the cost and given many of the jobs. No to $6,000 telephones, no to $33,000 pickup trucks, no to $50,000 prison beds.

There is a complete accounting for the $63 billion that was just appropriated in April, plus an explanation of why the nearly $400 Billion one year defense budget is still insufficient, and no until we are told how much more must be borrowed and when.

U.S. taxpayers’ needs for improved sewers, school buildings and electric systems stop being sacrificed so that those taxpayers can bear the full cost for newly built systems in Iraq and continue to award the wealthiest Americans with huge tax breaks.

Our troops are taken care of and force protection takes precedence over private contractors as our first priority.

“The most galling part of this debate is that the Bush Administration and Republican leadership are blackmailing members of Congress to vote for this blank check with the threat of being accused of not supporting the troops. Yet it is they who are guilty of sometimes tragically disregarding troop safety and comfort and betraying our veterans.

more: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il09_schakowsky/pr10_09_2003iraq.html

[IkeWarnedUs]

7. Am I missing something?

I have been posting about this on various threads for two days, but even though there are many threads about the $87B, no one else has been talking about this.

Have my posts slipped through the GD crunch? Have DU'ers read about this? Is anyone else signed up for MoveOn.org's Daily MisLeader e-mails?

More to the point, am I missing something about this story? Jan Schakowsky obviously thinks its a big deal. It isn't the biggest story to break this week by a long shot, but it distroys the bs that the $87B had to be approved quickly in order to "support the troops."

The lack of interest in this is driving me nuts (yeah, that's what's doing it). Could I please get some feed back. Thanks.

[rhite5]

8. I am surprised too at how little interest there is here in this vote.

I will say there is a much more active thread in the Breaking News forum.

I am shocked at the vote. I know these senators are afraid of the "support our troops" handle, but a lot of people know better. And by next year that number will grow enormously as more learn the truth.

I expected this vote to be close. So I find the final vote just no where near the reality I expected. The phone calls and faxes were ignored. Lots of Democratic senators appear not to care whether MoveOn will support them or not in the future.

Watching the purse strings and demanding accountability for funds already spent -- these are responsibilities they refuse to worry about.

I won't make excuses for them. There is no way they cannot know that the quagmire in Iraq is getting worse, our soldiers are demoralized (look at the suicides!), the money is and has been going to the Military-Industrial complex for obscenely inflated No-Bid contracts, while Iraqi businesses are shoved aside and the Iraqi people are unemployed. The UN would help if we got out of the way (or at least fired Rumfeld and Wolfowitz).

The way to support the troops is to BRING THEM HOME.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ima_sinnic]

11. you believe that, ignoramus?

now be a good troll and go stick your head in an oven--with the gas on.

[Spazito]

10. What about the section that gives the Bush cabal the authority to...

re-allocate any of the monies to wherever they want without Congressional oversight! It astounds me that there was so little said by the senators other than Senator Bird. Scary stuff, imo!