Military (and likely Bush) want to spend MORE money on instruments of war for Iraq! Feed the Beast!

[Roland99]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061213/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

President Bush has decided the general direction he wants to take U.S. policy on
Iraq and has asked his staff to work out the details as he wraps up a highly public review of the war and its aims.

Military commanders who met Tuesday with Bush sought more advisers to train the Iraqis, not more U.S. combat troops in Iraq.They also urged the administration to pour significantly more funding into equipment for Iraqi security forces, according to a defense specialist familiar with the meetings.

Gen. John Abizaid, top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Gen. George Casey, the top general in Iraq, want more armored vehicles, body armor and other critical equipment for the Iraqis, said the defense specialist, who requested anonymity because the discussions were private.

So, the US taxpayer will continue to foot the bill to feed the gluttonous Military-Industrial complex and to help rebuild another country's military by building MORE instruments of war. In the meantime, an American city languishes from lack of Federal assistance in helping to rebuild it; 50 million Americans suffer hardship from medical bills and lack of health insurance; high school dropout rates are exhorbitantly high, likely because the kids need to work part-time jobs in order to help sustain their family.

And yet "impeachment is off the table"???

:wtf:



:(

[bryant69]

1. What a non-sequiter

The fact that President Bush doesn't happen to be governing in a way you (or I) like isn't an impeachable offense.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Roland99]

6. Uh, this new decision isn't what he should be impeached for. Geez...wake up!!

It's the crimes of the past that he and co. need to be impeached for!!

But, and here's the point you missed, doing that will PREVENT the further debt-inducing spending directed to the coffers of Bushco and others in the military-industrial complex.

[bryant69]

7. It's not illegal to purchase weapons and equipment

Nor is it, regrettebly, illegal to run up a large debt.

There are valid reasons to impeach President Bush (actual laws that he's broken) - but yoru reasons boil down to "I don't like him being President, so let's get rid of him." That's not how Democracy works. IN a Democracy sometimes the other guys win.

Bryant

[Darkhawk32]

8. Roland99 didn't say that and you know it.

You know exactly what he means, but just like to argue with someone for no reason.

Congrats on a nice trolling.

[Roland99]

9. Damn, bryant, you missed the point AGAIN! Re-read my reply above to you.

The impeachable offenses are their PAST crimes.

Impeaching them on their PAST crimes will have the added benefit of preventing them from looting the Treasury for more instruments of war.


I can't make it any clearer than that. I NEVER said impeach them for continuing to put us in debt and I have no idea where you even got that from.

[bryant69]

11. Here are the crimes you have cited

"So, the US taxpayer will continue to foot the bill to feed the gluttonous Military-Industrial complex and to help rebuild another country's military by building MORE instruments of war." - Your set up.

"In the meantime, an American city languishes from lack of Federal assistance in helping to rebuild it;" - Regrettable but not impeachable.

"50 million Americans suffer hardship from medical bills and lack of health insurance;" - Regrettable but not impeachable (also of course you could have impeached Clinton for this one).

"high school dropout rates are exhorbitantly high, likely because the kids need to work part-time jobs in order to help sustain their family." Regrettable but not impeachable (are you sensing a pattern here?)

"And yet "impeachment is off the table"???" None of theses are actual crimes - rather they are you complaining that Bush is a bad leader and someone you don't want in power. Fair enough. I agree with you. But impeachment isn't about getting rid of bad presidents you don't like, it's abot punishing criminal presidents.

Obviously President Bush has broken the law in many cases - if you had cited those I'd be on board - things like the Warrentless Wiretaps, ignoring the Geneva convention, remaindering prisoners to nations who Torture, cooking the books to get us into Iraq and so on.

Bryant

[Darkhawk32]

12. Bryant, you must be the only one that doesn't comprehend....

I think you're just trying to pick a fight for no reason. Quit trolling.

[bryant69]

14. I'm not trolling and I resent the implication

Is anybody who disagrees with you a troll? Did I stumble onto an Agreement board rather than a discussion board?

Bryant

[Darkhawk32]

21. When you contradict the expressed intent and content of the OP's post, then you are trolling. Sorry

[bryant69]

25. So when I disagree with the OP I'm trolling

That's bullshit. And while I appreciate your suggestion that I kill myself, I think I will refrain.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Darkhawk32]

31. Poor baby. n/t

[Roland99]

13. I'm sorry, where did I call what you italicized as crimes? You don't get it.

I've explained it twice to you now.

I won't try again. It's pointless.

[bryant69]

15. Yes I suppose it is

I'm tired of childishness.

Bryant

[Darkhawk32]

16. Then you must be considering suicide then. n/t

[kenny blankenship]

23. He's impeachable for PLENTY. The question of doing it hinges

on whether, all things considered, it's worth the political price to do so--or whether it might not become absolutely necessary. It's impossible to calculate the price with certainty and consider all things, so there's great reluctance to impeach Bush--you can believe he's counting that.
Bush is not going to let the new Congress just drift along with the status quo with regard to Iraq; he's going to demand a new deal. They are coming into office sharing an understanding with the voters that the war will be less painful and costly in the future, because they'll end it, he's going to ask them to expand it. His inital bargaining position is going to be "total obedience!", and strangely I don't think he can afford to come down on his price. Any diminishment means that we've accepted an end to the war and a loss. Diminishment is just as unacceptable to Bush as the final loss it prefigures. Just as Bush works as a campaigner by polarizing the country, he's going to painfully sharpen the choice of what to do for the new Congress. They won't be allowed to float spending for the war about where it's been of late. That would allow them to get comfy in office and give them time figure out how to shut down the Iraq war and time to gather a national consensus behind the actual measures for that. Bush will force them to a fork in the road from the start. The appropriations he'll ask for will be noticeably bigger--the simple size of the spending bill will be a sign talked about in the media and around the country of the direction Congress is moving in: either accepting the Preznit's goal of "victory" or beginning to pull out. They can cough up the dough, with the nation knowing that Bush plans to use it to expand US deployment and operations in Iraq, or they can fight him tooth and nail. Now, ultimately Bush is the Commander in Chief of the military and he can order the troops to Iraq whether the funding is in place or not. So Congressional "power of the purse" is, in fact, limited by the President's willingness to ignore their wishes. They're against the war. He can MAKE them prove it. They want to wind this war down, to deescalate it? He can MAKE them do otherwise. Bush doesn't stand for reelection anymore so the unpopularity and outcry is something his party has to deal with, but he does not. He can make the Democratic Congress pay the tab for war expansions that he's already undertaken. Now if they want to match that move, stick to opposing the war, resist its expansion retroactively, try and force an end to the war, they will then be forced to take the country-the country's military- into a financial crisis. There are huge political costs there--and of course Bush is counting on that. It will be what US-Soviet observers used to call a game of brinksmanship: who can hold their nerve and make the right move at the edge of doom.

Understanding how the contest over Iraq War policy may unfold in an escalating war of wills that could take this country to the edge of an abyss --and maybe over--makes the idea of impeachment take on new luster. It's not like the guy doesn't deserve it. He makes Nixon look like a choirboy. Ultimately, the Congress may be forced into a choice of impeaching Bush (giving him a good scare at least) or choosing to resign themselves to being his doormat--the way Democrats did from 2000-2006.

[kenny blankenship]

2. Someone predicted Bush would make the new Democratic Congress prove their love

for the Iraq War through galling appropriations bills early and often. The prediction said that this was a form of trap to tie the Democrats to his war, to force them to buy in and invest their own political capital in the war right from the start of their new session, or else choose to oppose him and the war openly and categorically while they were still wet behind the ears as a Congressional class. It will be a tough choice-as tough as he can make it for them. Either they help him to expand the war or they stop it utterly. The first option mires them in the GOP/Bush's decision and predilection for war, they'll share in all the blame for the war's dismal outcome and enjoy no political advantage in the future. The second option will invite the GOP to impugn their patriotism, hateradio bloviators to accuse them of treason, and may force a Constitutional showdown.

[Roland99]

10. I believe it was Rove that urged that linkage. Nice parting gift.

[Double T]

3. The military industrial complex is going to ride the obscene wave.........

of creating weapons of mass and other destruction UNTIL SOMEBODY with half a brain puts a STOP to IT. The corporate money grab appears to be unending.

[gratuitous]

4. Didn't we just hold an election?

And wasn't it widely seen as a referendum on the Bush Doctrine? And didn't the electorate vote overwhelmingly against Bush and his mad policies? Doing the same thing harder, faster or more isn't a change.

Besides, haven't the military leaders assured us for years that they have all the men and materiel they could possibly want? And hasn't the Bush administration sent out mouthpiece after mouthpiece to say that the military was doing just fine and didn't really need anything else to continue prosecuting elective wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and hell, they might even be able to head into Iran and Syria? Did they suddenly in the last five weeks discover a whole bunch of shortages?

There appears to be a massive disconnect between our nation's alleged leaders and the electorate.

[Darkhawk32]

22. Frankly, most Democratic leaders could give two shits about their constituents' desires.

We matter once every two years.... come back in 18 months and then they'll start giving a fuck.

[gratuitous]

32. This article seems to focus on the GOP and military leaders

I'll be interested to see what will happen in January, when the Democrats wield a little real power for the first time in years. But everything that's led up to this moment is pretty much on the Republicans, as near as I can tell; and their stubborn declarations to continue down the same ruinous path don't augur well for their understanding of what just happened to them (politically speaking) in November.

[babylonsister]

5. Kucinich has it right; STOP feeding the beast, cut the losses, out of

Iraq NOW!

[Darkhawk32]

17. I concur wholeheartedly. n/t

[twilight_sailing]

18. We will not let the Irais have heavy weaponry

"They also urged the administration to pour significantly more funding into equipment for Iraqi security forces, according to a defense specialist familiar with the meetings."

Why? There is a good chance they would turn the big guns on US if they had them. If the Iraqi security forces are lucky, we might let them have some armored personnel carriers.

Come to think of it, isn't Iraq supposed to be a sovereign nation? They have oil money, why can't they buy any weapons they want?

Oh, they might use them on us. I forgot.


Bombers, attack helicopters, flying gunships, artillery, tanks?

Forget it, Iraq.

You are puppets. All you are allowed to have are rifles. You can kill your own (at our bidding) with them. That is all you need.

[MadHound]

19. The only way to stop this madness is to defund the war, now

We have a newly elected majority in both the House and Senate, time for them to earn their keep. There is a clear message from the people to end this war, and frankly at this point, the best way to do so is to defund it, and force the troops to be brought home.

[Darkhawk32]

20. Sup MadHound, we still on for the 17th? n/t

[MadHound]

24. Yes, yes we are.

The commish should be sending out an email, unless she forgets:shrug:

How are you doing man, I'm done with finals, and having free time like I haven't had in decades:woohoo: I should be out doing productive things on the farm, but here I am typing on DU. I'll be gone as soon as I finish my licorice allotment for the day;)

[Darkhawk32]

27. LOL.. mmm licorice. n/t

[MadHound]

28. Mmm Mmm good, and all gone now.

And so am I, I have got to catch up on some things that I let slide during the semester. See you Sunday!

[Darkhawk32]

29. Laters. n/t