Page 1 of 1

#1 Emergency funding right now? Just more lies.

Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:21 pm
by SirNitram
Link

[quote]WASHINGTON, March 30 — The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has estimated that the Army has enough budget flexibility to pay for its military operations through July in the event that a standoff between the White House and Congress over Iraq holds up the money the administration says it needs for the war effort.

The service’s report, made public Friday by Senate Democrats, said the Pentagon may have to shift money between accounts and curtail some nonessential activities, but said Congress has provided the military with new ability to do so, lessening the potential for disruptions until additional money is approved.

Democrats quickly seized on the findings by the service, which is the research arm of Congress, to defend their handling of the legislation to pay for military operation in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the administration stepped up its efforts to accuse them of delaying money and putting American forces at risk.

The back-and-forth suggested that both sides are digging in for a pitched public relations battle over who bears responsibility for holding up the money, should Mr. Bush veto it because of Congressionally imposed timelines for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

At the White House, Dana Perino, a spokeswoman for the president, took Congress to task for leaving on an Easter break without finishing a final bill to pay for operations through Sept. 30.

“The president was surprised to learn that Congress went on vacation today and that the House didn’t bother to appoint any conferees in which to help try to reconcile the differences between the Senate and the House bills,â€

#2

Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:37 pm
by frigidmagi
I believe I mentioned being somewhat confused by that didn't I?

[quote]“be forced to take increasingly draconian measures which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families.â€

#3

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:10 pm
by Lord Iames Osari
Care to support that assertion? I'm not saying you're wrong; I just want to know how you arrived there.

#4

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:08 pm
by frigidmagi
Excuse me?

#5

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:18 pm
by Lord Iames Osari
I want to know if you have any sources, or if it's just a prediction you're making based on personal/second-hand experience or what-have-you.

#6

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:57 am
by Comrade Tortoise
Simple logic. How are they going to juggle the money? They cant stop funding the war, so the options are a bit limited. To save money they will avoid repairing facilities (like base housing infastructure) and will avoid funding "non-essential" things, like hospitals, doing equipment repairs, paying out other benefits to the families of those killed and wounded

"Ah crap... budget cuts... um... you have a personality disorder, there is the door, make sure to grab some lube on your way out; thanks"

#7

Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:46 am
by Lord Iames Osari
OK. Sorry if I sounded a bit dim.

#8

Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:55 am
by SirNitram
They could fire Rumsfield from the 'Office Of Force Transformation', or stop paying Boeing for FCS until it meets, oh, a single one of the agreed requirements for the system. But this doesn't fit the plans of the nutbars who run the Pentagon presently, so fuck the vets and actives instead. No one cares about them, not this administration, anyways.