Republicans Vote Against Funding Troops in Iraq

[Annie]

scumbag republicans only "support" the troops when it helps them with elections..

and 'scumbag' democrats when? Maybe that should be the minority democrats that 'respect' the military support them when? (Haven't seem any evidence of democrats that respect or support).

 

[pegwinn]

scumbag republicans only "support" the troops when it helps them with elections..

So, how do you, personally, support the troops?

 

[Gunny]

"The profit is there to be made"???????

The money the government (us) are paying in profits to these companies could be going to pay raises for our soldiers, marines, airmen, sailors and coast guard. That profit takes directly from the pockets of our servicemen and women in harms way.

I think their profits should be minimal at best when we are at war. Simple enough.

Okay.

Don't you think the government setting artificial ceilings in the free market kind of goes against what we're all about?

Personally, I disagree with the government subbing out to free market enterprises to begin with, but that's what you get trying to fight a war with a downsized military.

If the government doesn't pay their price, they don't get the services. Since they can't perform the services themselves, they're kind of stuck.

IMO, the Iraqi's should be footing the bill. But we both know THAT ain't going to happen.

 

[Gunny]

And, the more I think about it, the more stupid I think this question is.

Uh, yeah, duh... money shades everything. Both good and bad.

And, the amount of money involved shades to different degrees. What are you? Some kind of absolutist moralist who thinks that all money gained is good or all money gained is bad?

Ever hear of the phrase "An honest day's work for an honest day's pay"? You never hear the phrase, "An honest day's work for really crappy pay" or "A lousy day's work for outrageous pay" do you? (Although I'll admit I'd really like an honest week's pay for an honest day's work! )

Exploitation is not a prerequisite of capitalism. If those companies bilked the government for far more than their services were worth and their stock reaped huge profits from those transactions... yeah, I'd say that that is wrong. But, the little cut and paste there says absolutely nothing about how much profit came from those medical supplies. If I sell you $17.8 million worth of medical supplies that cost me $4 million to make... then that's obscene. But his article says nothing of that.

I don't really disagree with your argument, but unless I just missed it, I haven't seen any hard numbers.

Wht is the profit margin for the largest civilian contractors operating in Iraq, and how does that profit margin compare to contractors who sub to the government on a non-wartime scale?

 

[pegwinn]

The questions that should be asked are:

Q: Why is the US Military outsourcing so many functions?
A: Downsizing which was initiated during the Clinton years required reductions in end strength. If you job is to pull the trigger, then when you reduce your numbers it will be in the supporting roles, thereby conserving as many shooters as possible.

Q: What law is being broken?
A: Y'all tell me, I couldn't find one.

Q: Which Congress Critters besides Feinstein are benefiting from this profiteering?
A: Pelosi, Hint, check out her husbands dealings. Oh, and there may be others.

Q: What is the current precedent for this?
A: Katrina.

The problem is that the current round of ABB is blinding everyone.

 

[jasendorf]

It all went in the Senators pocket. They are married. The ol what's mine is yours and what's yours is yours state of insanity, I mean California.

If you are so naive as to believe that a Senator using her influence in committee to pave the way for her husband to expand into China didn't benefit, then you are lost without a compass.

Now, where I grew up that would be called a conflict of interest and an abuse of authority. At least she didn't hide the money in her refrigerator.

That's just stupid... are you saying that a shareholder gets every dime of profit a company makes? Now you're just not making sense.

 

[jasendorf]

Okay.

Don't you think the government setting artificial ceilings in the free market kind of goes against what we're all about?

No, do you think the United States was "commie" or something equivalent during WWII when they set prices for everything from sugar to aluminum? No, they knew they were fighting a war and that we all had a burden to bear. That included not only the fighters but the funders as well.

Personally, I disagree with the government subbing out to free market enterprises to begin with, but that's what you get trying to fight a war with a downsized military.

If the government doesn't pay their price, they don't get the services. Since they can't perform the services themselves, they're kind of stuck.

IMO, the Iraqi's should be footing the bill. But we both know THAT ain't going to happen.

Agreed that we'll never see the Iraqis foot the bill. And, agreed that it sucks we're using contractors for so much of the war effort. But, that's what happens when the Army's personnel structure makes it impossible to keep up with the pay structure of the jobs available.

The military's pay scales and force structure are ill-equipped for the modern world and the funding the military gets. Computers have really made a mess of the whole thing because you need enlisted servicemen to run these systems (with some officer to manage them)... yet they can make three to four times what the military will pay enlisted personnel in the real world. They get me at a bargain because I'm IT in the civilian world doing a job for my unit at a bargain rate. They'd have to pay me O-7 pay to compensate me equally to what I make in the real world. But, then they'd have to put me in a job which isn't the job they need filled. Catch-22.

But don't act as if the Republican Congress which held the purse strings since 1994 couldn't have grown the military. Downsizing the military was the brainchild of Don Rumsfeld during the first Bush Administration (not to mention that it was deemed wholly and completely necessary in 1990 when the Republicans were pushing for it).

 

[jasendorf]

The questions that should be asked are:

Q: Why is the US Military outsourcing so many functions?
A: Downsizing which was initiated during the Clinton years required reductions in end strength. If you job is to pull the trigger, then when you reduce your numbers it will be in the supporting roles, thereby conserving as many shooters as possible.

Wrong.

One, the downsizing started during the first Bush Administration in the 1990's. It's well documented. In addition, the President does not define the funding for the military. The Congress does. Last time I checked, starting in 1994 the House was run by the Republicans.

Two, like I said above, the military's structure and pay scales are completely inadequate and incapable of competing with the real world. All one has to do is call the IT office for their local Reserve Support Command... more civilians than military.

 

[Louie]

I support the troops first hand like the yellowbellied pro war crew here: I post on a message board!

 

[pegwinn]

That's just stupid... are you saying that a shareholder gets every dime of profit a company makes? Now you're just not making sense.

I honestly don't know how much money was pocketed. Bear in mind that her husband isn't just a shareholder. I hold shares in several business's as part of my privately funded retirement plan. Blum is at the "financier" level. Mere mortals need not look any farther.

Additionally, investigate the format for congressional financial disclosure. The format allows them to provide a range "between 5-35 million". The idea is a compromise between your right as a citizen to know the standing of your elected official, and said officials right to privacy.

 

[Annie]

That's just stupid... are you saying that a shareholder gets every dime of profit a company makes? Now you're just not making sense.

Really, what cut Ms. Diamonds gets is really irrelevant, it's about influence, conflict of interest. What part of that don't you get? Me thinks you would be singing a very different tune if it were Kay Bailey Hutchinson:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={7365849B-6181-4DFA-89AE-C78C4D05FA61}

Billions in Military Contracts to Husband's Firms Were Approved by Sen. Feinstein's Committee, Metro Newspapers Investigation Reports


Last Update: 6:36 PM ET Jan 25, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO, Jan 25, 2007 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein's husband was a major beneficiary of military appropriations blessed by a subcommittee that she headed, Metro Newspapers reports this week.
Feinstein (D-Calif.) acted in apparent conflict of interest while approving billions of dollars in military construction expenditures, according to an investigative story by award-winning journalist Peter Byrne. The story was published jointly in the North Bay Bohemian and Metro Silicon Valley weekly newspapers this week.

Following Feinstein's participation at the legislative level, large contracts were awarded to two firms -- URS Corporation and Perini Corporation -- that were controlled by an investment group headed by the senator's spouse, financier Richard C. Blum.

Byrne's investigation reveals the following details about Feinstein's service as a member of the United States Senate's Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON):

-- From 1997 through the end of 2005, with Feinstein's knowledge, her husband's group held a majority interest in two defense contractors active in Iraq and U.S. military bases.

-- While setting MILCON agendas, Feinstein supervised her own staff of military construction experts and lobbied Pentagon officials in public hearings.

-- From 2001 to 2005, URS earned $792 million from military construction and environmental cleanup projects approved by MILCON; Perini secured $759 million from MILCON projects.

-- Attorney Michael R. Klein, a Feinstein legal adviser and long-time Blum business partner, also served as vice-chairman of Perini's board of directors. In an interview with Byrne in September, Klein stated that, beginning in 1997, he routinely informed Feinstein about specific federal projects coming before her in which Perini had a stake. The insider information, Klein said, was intended to help the senator avoid conflicts of interest. Although Klein's admission was intended to defuse the issue of Feinstein's conflict of interest, it instead exacerbated it, and Sen. Feinstein did in fact vote on legislation that affected Perini and URS.

 

[jasendorf]

Yeah... in fact, here's an article from 2003 about her husband's firm getting a contract:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/22/MN310531.DTL

But, I guess there wasn't anything for the Republicans to distract from at that time... so they saved it for now.

 

[red states rule]

Yeah... in fact, here's an article from 2003 about her husband's firm getting a contract:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/22/MN310531.DTL

But, I guess there wasn't anything for the Republicans to distract from at that time... so they saved it for now.

Libs love to rant about VP Cheney and Haliburton - here we have A Dem APPROVING contracts for her husbands companies - libs ignore it

Selective outrage from the left at its best

 

[pegwinn]

Yeah... in fact, here's an article from 2003 about her husband's firm getting a contract:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/22/MN310531.DTL

But, I guess there wasn't anything for the Republicans to distract from at that time... so they saved it for now.

Scroll up. There is a Y2K+7 story as well. Now, here's an integrity check for you. Just because it may've occurred in '03 does that make it right?


Your comments in this and other threads make me think you are pretty partisan. I've heard rumors that you are on active duty. I would have thought that would cure partisanship. Oh well, I'm the cynical one who thinks all politicians are crooks and liars. I'd just as soon toss Foley, Delay, Gingrich, Pelosi, Feinstein, and Jefferson in a tent out where Sherrif Joe hangs his hat.

 

[Annie]

Scroll up. There is a Y2K+7 story as well. Now, here's an integrity check for you. Just because it may've occurred in '03 does that make it right?


Your comments in this and other threads make me think you are pretty partisan. I've heard rumors that you are on active duty. I would have thought that would cure partisanship. Oh well, I'm the cynical one who thinks all politicians are crooks and liars. I'd just as soon toss Foley, Delay, Gingrich, Pelosi, Feinstein, and Jefferson in a tent out where Sherrif Joe hangs his hat.

Perfect.

 

[red states rule]

Perfect.

Pity A Poor Democrat
By Christopher Chantrill

Don't think it's easy being a Democratic officeholder. Here she is, after solemnly assuring the voters that she'll support our troops as patriotically as any Republican, now recklessly using the lives of our fighting men and women as poker chips in a high-stakes political game with President Bush.

Where will it all end? Why, with all those billions we could really solve the health-care problem.

But after opposing President Bush on behalf of the reality-based community for so many years, how can she do anything other than continue opposing and obstructing his every act, especially now that Democrats have gained control of Congress.

For Democratic voters really do believe that wars ought to be a thing of the past. In the modern age, what with social programs and all, there really is no rational basis for conflict. That's why the present war is so obviously a result of President Bush's incompetence or his debt to the oil companies.

It's not just Democratic voters that think this way, you know. We conservatives and Republicans believe something similar. In the modern age, what with markets and free exchange of goods and services and all, there really is no rational basis for conflict. That's why the present war is so obviously a result of 30 years of Democratic appeasement, starting with President Carter's weaselly response to the Embassy hostage-taking in 1979, not to mention President Clinton's radical aversion to any risk other than sexual.

Anyway, we should certainly not judge the Democrats as cowardly caving to their extremist base. As Charles Moore advised his readers, a politician is not a Martin Luther bellowing his integrity to the world from a rock.

"A better model for politics is being at sea in a frail boat. You cannot control the weather. You cannot rebuke the waves. All you can do is learn to sail with skill."
And that means catching the wind, he writes.

For Democratic officeholders the problem is not so much catching the wind. That is seldom a problem sailing along in the Roaring Lefties.

As any sailor knows, the roaring winds in the southern Peaceful Ocean create huge following seas and an extremely challenging task for an anxious helmsman.

Over the next two years as Democrats run down their easting towards the distant Cape, they can think of nothing except getting there first. Only then can they enjoy all the benefits of being first in port with a cargo of progressive notions for the political market of Washington DC.

Our Democratic friends want desperately to get back to what they do best, meeting human needs with other peoples' money. So here they are, cracking on sail, driving towards the Cape, dreaming of the Fortunate Isles that lie beyond it.

Maybe their hopes will be realized.

But the world is very different the good old days. How simple it all seemed when FDR told us that we had nothing to fear but fear itself, or when Michael Harrington wrote convincingly of The Other America and launched a War on Poverty. How easy it seemed to the Clintons in 1993 when all we needed was one more Big Push to bring universal health care to every American.

In Europe, reports Janet Daley, the trans-national elite is discovering the virtues of patriotism and socialist presidential candidate Ségolène Royal is playing the Marseillaise rather than the Internationale at her campaign rallies.

Something of the same kind is likely to confront the Democrats as they come roaring through Drake Passage south of the Cape. They'll find that after a generation of Reaganomics, ten years of welfare reform, and five years of Bush's war they can't ever go back home to "Happy Days Are Here Again."

Progressive people have taken comfort for many years in the old notion that generals are always fighting the last war. This is supposed to demonstrate the immense superiority of the progressive approach to life and politics.

But it reflects a larger truth. A war, such as the one we are now embarked upon, is a struggle that forces us to abandon the certainties and the lessons of an older, simpler time. And a war, such as the one we are now embarked upon, also exposes all our little weaknesses and frailties, for wars are initiated by ruthless, ambitious men with an instinct for the weaknesses of the people in their way.

Democrats have yet to decide whether we face a real threat, the kind of threat met so heroically by the 300 Spartans at the pass of Thermopylae, or whether we are dealing with nothing more than bunch of young rich kids from the Middle East intoxicated with jihad.

By the way, a warning to progressive mariners. Don't veer to far to the right in Drake Passage or you may run ashore on Elephant Island.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/..._democrat.html

 

[jasendorf]

Scroll up. There is a Y2K+7 story as well. Now, here's an integrity check for you. Just because it may've occurred in '03 does that make it right?

Doesn't have enough information to decide. The DoD under Don Rumsfeld decided to change its buying to "preferred vendors" which in turn has killed the competitive bidding process and raised costs for the military. If there was competition and this company's bid was the lowest and done with sealed bids which the Senator couldn't have tipped off her husband with... who knows... If I had been her, I'd abstain from voting on any contracts involving a family matter. Was she the deciding vote? She really couldn't have since the Republicans were running Congress and she'd have been a minority voter on any committee work. That means that at least two Republicans would have had to vote with her.

The point is simple though. Why the ***OUTRAGE*** now? This issue is years old. Seems to me the Republicans needed some petty item to distract Americans with to hide their wrongdoing.

Your comments in this and other threads make me think you are pretty partisan. I've heard rumors that you are on active duty. I would have thought that would cure partisanship. Oh well, I'm the cynical one who thinks all politicians are crooks and liars. I'd just as soon toss Foley, Delay, Gingrich, Pelosi, Feinstein, and Jefferson in a tent out where Sherrif Joe hangs his hat.

I'm a Reservist, not on AD. And, yes, I'm a partisan I guess. I didn't used to be. Even as the son of a Teamster truck driver and a teacher, I voted twice for Perot for pete's sake. But, the vitriol of the Republicans and their talking heads turned me into a full-fledged, partisan Democrat. I like to think of it as fighting hard for the lesser of two evils.

 

[jasendorf]

Perfect.

More deep conversation from Kathianne. And we wonder how she got her post count so high.

 

[pegwinn]

Doesn't have enough information to decide. The DoD under Don Rumsfeld decided to change its buying to "preferred vendors" which in turn has killed the competitive bidding process and raised costs for the military. I have experience in contracting to the military. Step one is a statement of need. This statement described the service or item required in exhausting detail. It described the required capabilities of the company as well. While I didn't sit in on the above meetings, I'd bet your drill pay that the preferred vendors were the only companies that could perform as written. If there is only one or two, the process is different for choosing as well. One of the things that the Statement of Need can do is establish a maximum cost as well. As you said, no one on this board has enough information to definitively oppose or defend the process.

If there was competition and this company's bid was the lowest and done with sealed bids which the Senator couldn't have tipped off her husband with... who knows... Exactly how do we know that she didn't know who the low bidder was? The point of sealed bids is to prevent the bidders from knowing the amount, not the folks soliciting the bids. If it was only one or two contracts over the course of years I would not take issue with it. Instead it was multiple contracts and it lined her pockets.

If I had been her, I'd abstain from voting on any contracts involving a family matter. Y'think? Good for you, that means you pass the integrity check so far. Too bad she didn't.

Was she the deciding vote? She really couldn't have since the Republicans were running Congress and she'd have been a minority voter on any committee work. That means that at least two Republicans would have had to vote with her. With respect, it is not germaine to the discussion. The mere existence of her husbands business interests coinciding with her committee should have caused his or her exclusion. I'm not against politicians making a buck. That's what blind trusts are for. I am against even the appearance of unethical conduct. For more on the subject check this out.

The point is simple though. Why the ***OUTRAGE*** now? This issue is years old. Seems to me the Republicans needed some petty item to distract Americans with to hide their wrongdoing. I cannot speak for the RNC. To me, this is just yet another example of why I don't like any politician from dog catcher to PTA president, from local city council to POTUS. They are all crooks and liars and any election is merely the lesser of two evils. Too bad we cannot fire the lot of them. Really too bad that no real ethics reform will take place.

I'm a Reservist, not on AD. And, yes, I'm a partisan I guess. I didn't used to be. Even as the son of a Teamster truck driver and a teacher, I voted twice for Perot for pete's sake. But, the vitriol of the Republicans and their talking heads turned me into a full-fledged, partisan Democrat. I like to think of it as fighting hard for the lesser of two evils.

I did 22 years in the Marines on active duty and two tours as an Inspector-Instructor. Meaning, we trained the Reservists and also did lots of community events. It's billed as a skate tour, that is the biggest lie since they told me that my drill instructors were human.

What you need, in my opinion only, is to reregister as an independent and start applying neutral standards. You will quickly find out as I did that there is only the lesser of evils as we both said.

Please read the links. I promise that only the forces of the Jedi Knights have worked em. There is no dark side. It's been fun. C'ya round.

 

[Annie]

More deep conversation from Kathianne. And we wonder how she got her post count so high.

Let's see, so far today you've expressed jealousy at other's rep points and post counts, you certainly are a wee little man.

Listen up stumpy, your points are so low because of your attitude, even amongst those that agree with you, some would have trouble repping. Here's the deal, you neg rep me or slam my posting style again, I will neg you. If you post something reasonable in a reasonable manner, I may rep you.

As for '4 word posts,' you really should go back and look, you haven't a clue to what you are talking about.