Assault on the military

[Foxfyre]

Well it has begun. Not only is the Administration dragging its feet on accommodating recommendations of military leadership in Afghanistan, but the rape of the Defense Dept. funding has begun. So far there is nary a word of protest from our fearless leader.

And yes, I think we will be seeing additional expressions of anger on those Tea Party and Tax Protester signs in the near future.

How much longer will Americans be silent about priorities that are more and more skewed and distorted in this country?

U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects
By Shaun Waterman
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, "in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year," said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, called the transfer of funds from Pentagon operations and maintenance "a disgrace."

"The Senate is putting favorable headlines back home above our men and women fighting on the front lines," he said in a statement.

MORE HERE:
U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects - Washington Times

 

[Elutherian]

Better the money spent here than overseas bombing brown people.

 

[Foxfyre]

Better the money spent here than overseas bombing brown people.

If 'certain brown people' are intent on killing or maiming the red, yellow, black, white, and every hue in between people, values, and institutions of the USA, then such brown people should be stopped just as people of any other hue, shade, or stripe with such intent should be stopped by any means necessary.

The last time I read the USA Constitution, providing for the national defense was a Constitutional responsibility of the U.S. government, and all leaders of government, including Congress and members of Congress are sworn to uphold that same U.S. Constitution.

I can find zero authority in the Constitution for federal funding for museums or to launch an educational institute to honor Ted Kennedy or anybody else, and to weaken the ability of our military personnel to do their jobs in order to fund museums or launch new education institutes would have been judged illegal by former generations of Americans.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Better the money spent here than overseas bombing brown people.

I had to laugh because I thought the exact same thing.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Better the money spent here than overseas bombing brown people.

I had to laugh because I thought the exact same thing.

Well...that just goes to show you how fucked up your way of thinking is. Better work on that flaw.

 

[California Girl]

Taxpayers money funding memorials to the politicians who fleeced them while they lived and again when they died.

It wold be funny if it wasn't so outrageous.

Could have used that spare cash in the Defense funding to do something more worthwhile..... like helping our Vets - ya know, people who have actually done something for the country.

Gawd, politicians suck!

 

[editec]

Money in the military budget wasted on goofy project?

Imagine that.

That's SOP for that bloated budget isn't it?

 

[California Girl]

Money in the military budget wasted on goofy project?

Imagine that.

That's SOP for that bloated budget isn't it?

No need to duck - the point will go so far over your head that you are in no danger of getting hit by it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Certainly there is waste and unnecessary spending in the Defense budget as much as anywhere else, and I have no problem with streamlining processes, eliminating ineffective stuff, getting rid of graft, favoritism, etc., and not spending money on things we don't need or that don't make it easier for our military to do their jobs and provide for the national defense. I have no doubt the government could save many billions in the process.

But they miss the point when they simply divert the money to other stuff we don't need and shouldn't be spending money for at any time, evenmoreso in tough economic times.

 

[Elutherian]

Better the money spent here than overseas bombing brown people.

If 'certain brown people' are intent on killing or maiming the red, yellow, black, white, and every hue in between people, values, and institutions of the USA, then such brown people should be stopped just as people of any other hue, shade, or stripe with such intent should be stopped by any means necessary.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, if that were actually happening I would agree with you. But in this situation, we are the invaders... they are trying to defend their country from a foreign occupier.

[/QUOTE]The last time I read the USA Constitution, providing for the national defense was a Constitutional responsibility of the U.S. government, and all leaders of government, including Congress and members of Congress are sworn to uphold that same U.S. Constitution.[/QUOTE]

Congress didn't declare this war, so it is illegal and unconstitutional. It is also not in our national defense to be over there... it's only provoking more attacks on Americans.

[/QUOTE]I can find zero authority in the Constitution for federal funding for museums or to launch an educational institute to honor Ted Kennedy or anybody else, and to weaken the ability of our military personnel to do their jobs in order to fund museums or launch new education institutes would have been judged illegal by former generations of Americans.[/QUOTE]

I don't agree with the money being spent at all... I'm just remarking that it would be preferable to have it spent here than over there. I'd prefer if it was spent by individuals, who didn't have their money confiscated by the Federal Government, on useful things for the people of this country.

 

[uptownlivin90]

If 'certain brown people' are intent on killing or maiming the red, yellow, black, white, and every hue in between people, values, and institutions of the USA, then such brown people should be stopped just as people of any other hue, shade, or stripe with such intent should be stopped by any means necessary.

Yeah... the CIA should have went in there found them arrested them and executed their asses. Instead we invaded two nations that neither attacked us nor were any real threat to us...and during the administration that led this attack North Korea the actual threat to anyone's security, the crazy guy that thinks he's god and what not acquired what? 8 nuclear weapons? Do you feel safe?

The last time I read the USA Constitution, providing for the national defense was a Constitutional responsibility of the U.S. government, and all leaders of government, including Congress and members of Congress are sworn to uphold that same U.S. Constitution.

The need to scrap the Department of Homeland Security period. Of course, that would put my stepfather out of work, but what the Hell ever. Point is, national defense has nothing to do with invading foreign nations.

I can find zero authority in the Constitution for federal funding for museums or to launch an educational institute to honor Ted Kennedy or anybody else, and to weaken the ability of our military personnel to do their jobs in order to fund museums or launch new education institutes would have been judged illegal by former generations of Americans.

I actually agree here. The money should have been diverted back either into the actual defense budget or into supporting the military, I agree.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Certainly there is waste and unnecessary spending in the Defense budget as much as anywhere else, and I have no problem with streamlining processes, eliminating ineffective stuff, getting rid of graft, favoritism, etc., and not spending money on things we don't need or that don't make it easier for our military to do their jobs and provide for the national defense. I have no doubt the government could save many billions in the process.

But they miss the point when they simply divert the money to other stuff we don't need and shouldn't be spending money for at any time, evenmoreso in tough economic times.

I can agree with this statement.

 

[Foxfyre]

Better the money spent here than overseas bombing brown people.

If 'certain brown people' are intent on killing or maiming the red, yellow, black, white, and every hue in between people, values, and institutions of the USA, then such brown people should be stopped just as people of any other hue, shade, or stripe with such intent should be stopped by any means necessary.

Yeah, if that were actually happening I would agree with you. But in this situation, we are the invaders... they are trying to defend their country from a foreign occupier.

[/QUOTE]
There are certainly pros and cons of whether we should be in Afghanistan and/or Iraq, and good arguments to be made on all sides of that debate. I have to respectfully disagree that anybody is defending 'their' country from a foreign occupier. I am quite sure that the majority of Iraqis do not view us as occupiers and those who do are sympathisers with the old guard dictatorship that the majority of Iraqis do not want back. Ditto for most of the Afghanistan people who do not want to go back to the horrendous oppression under the Taliban. Since the earliest acquisitions of land presumed to belong to nobody, the USA has never invaded any place with the intention of ruling over it or taking possession of it. As Colin Powell once remarked, all we have ever asked in return for fighting to liberate other people is a small plot of land where we can bury our dead.

I am not arguing for or against us being other there. I am saying that there are people who are determined to destroy us and/or deny freedom to others, and it is those people who are our enemy and who we target. The color of their skin is immaterial.

The last time I read the USA Constitution, providing for the national defense was a Constitutional responsibility of the U.S. government, and all leaders of government, including Congress and members of Congress are sworn to uphold that same U.S. Constitution.[/QUOTE]

Congress didn't declare this war, so it is illegal and unconstitutional. It is also not in our national defense to be over there... it's only provoking more attacks on Americans.[/QUOTE]

Using that criteria, every war since WWII has been an illegal war. Congress most certainly did authorize the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq however, and unless you consider any military aggression short of declaring war to be illegal, both were legal. I don't agree that terrorists intent on destroying us are provoked by our actions--I think if they couldn't use existing conditions, they would simply manufacture an excuse to hate and destroy us.

I can find zero authority in the Constitution for federal funding for museums or to launch an educational institute to honor Ted Kennedy or anybody else, and to weaken the ability of our military personnel to do their jobs in order to fund museums or launch new education institutes would have been judged illegal by former generations of Americans

I don't agree with the money being spent at all... I'm just remarking that it would be preferable to have it spent here than over there. I'd prefer if it was spent by individuals, who didn't have their money confiscated by the Federal Government, on useful things for the people of this country.

Here we can find agreement. I would prefer that the Federal government do only that which is implicitly mandated and authorized by the Constitution. Certainly the Federal government should be doing nothing that can be done more effectively, efficiently, and/or economically by the local governments or private enterprise. Such policy would restore our economy and our basic freedoms as nothing else will ever do.

 

[rdean]

Well it has begun. Not only is the Administration dragging its feet on accommodating recommendations of military leadership in Afghanistan, but the rape of the Defense Dept. funding has begun. So far there is nary a word of protest from our fearless leader.

And yes, I think we will be seeing additional expressions of anger on those Tea Party and Tax Protester signs in the near future.

How much longer will Americans be silent about priorities that are more and more skewed and distorted in this country?

U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects
By Shaun Waterman
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, "in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year," said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, called the transfer of funds from Pentagon operations and maintenance "a disgrace."

"The Senate is putting favorable headlines back home above our men and women fighting on the front lines," he said in a statement.

MORE HERE:
U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects - Washington Times

See, this is how you do it. If Obama had been president on 9/11, we wouldn't be in this hole we are in now. Republicans, bullies, morons, and much too Religious. Check out the operative word, "strategically". Much too big a word for Republicans to understand. Comes from lack of reading anything other than beer bottle labels.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/world/africa/15raid.html?_r=2&hp

NAIROBI, Kenya — American commandos killed one of the most wanted Islamic militants in Africa in a daylight raid in southern Somalia on Monday, according to American and Somali officials, an indication of the Obama administration’s willingness to use combat troops strategically against Al Qaeda’s growing influence in the region.

 

[Foxfyre]

If 'certain brown people' are intent on killing or maiming the red, yellow, black, white, and every hue in between people, values, and institutions of the USA, then such brown people should be stopped just as people of any other hue, shade, or stripe with such intent should be stopped by any means necessary.

Yeah... the CIA should have went in there found them arrested them and executed their asses. Instead we invaded two nations that neither attacked us nor were any real threat to us...and during the administration that led this attack North Korea the actual threat to anyone's security, the crazy guy that thinks he's god and what not acquired what? 8 nuclear weapons? Do you feel safe?

It would be nice if it was so simple as simple as the CIA arresting the bad guys and removing them from the equation. Actually the last administration did a pretty good job of that and got little thanks and mostly grief for their efforts. It was the Clinton administration who, based on nothing more than North Korea's pledge to do so, gave North Korea five years, with no sanctions and no inspections, to dismantle their nuclear program. What should he have done to stop it? What should George Bush have done to stop it? What should Barack Obama do to stop it? There are no easy answers to these questions. The issue with an Iraq or an Iran or a North Korea having nuclear weapons is not the probability that they will nuke us with them. The danger is them exporting the weapons or technology to those who will import them into the USA and detonate them here. And no, I do not feel safe.

The last time I read the USA Constitution, providing for the national defense was a Constitutional responsibility of the U.S. government, and all leaders of government, including Congress and members of Congress are sworn to uphold that same U.S. Constitution.

The need to scrap the Department of Homeland Security period. Of course, that would put my stepfather out of work, but what the Hell ever. Point is, national defense has nothing to do with invading foreign nations.

I wonder what sort of world we would have if the USA had not invaded Germany and helped bring them to unconditional surrender. If we had not invaded Japan and brought them to unconditional surrender? Both nations, terrorists and oppressors of their neighbors and a threat to us are now peaceful allies to their neighbors and to us. Don't tell me that national defense has nothing to do with invading foreign nations.

I can find zero authority in the Constitution for federal funding for museums or to launch an educational institute to honor Ted Kennedy or anybody else, and to weaken the ability of our military personnel to do their jobs in order to fund museums or launch new education institutes would have been judged illegal by former generations of Americans.

I actually agree here. The money should have been diverted back either into the actual defense budget or into supporting the military, I agree.

Probably if we set aside partisan rhetoric, sat down over a cup of coffee and piece of pie and actually discussed what we each believe to be the most important issues before us, we would probably arrive at far more agreement than disagreement.

 

[Annie]

Certainly there is waste and unnecessary spending in the Defense budget as much as anywhere else, and I have no problem with streamlining processes, eliminating ineffective stuff, getting rid of graft, favoritism, etc., and not spending money on things we don't need or that don't make it easier for our military to do their jobs and provide for the national defense. I have no doubt the government could save many billions in the process.

But they miss the point when they simply divert the money to other stuff we don't need and shouldn't be spending money for at any time, evenmoreso in tough economic times.

Stuff that even if we 'need' are not things that should be earmarked from these appropriations.

 

[Intense]

Better the money spent here than overseas bombing brown people.

How is that genocide of non muslim Blacks going in Africa?

 

[Intense]

Better the money spent here than overseas bombing brown people.

If 'certain brown people' are intent on killing or maiming the red, yellow, black, white, and every hue in between people, values, and institutions of the USA, then such brown people should be stopped just as people of any other hue, shade, or stripe with such intent should be stopped by any means necessary.

Yeah, if that were actually happening I would agree with you. But in this situation, we are the invaders... they are trying to defend their country from a foreign occupier.

[/QUOTE]The last time I read the USA Constitution, providing for the national defense was a Constitutional responsibility of the U.S. government, and all leaders of government, including Congress and members of Congress are sworn to uphold that same U.S. Constitution.[/QUOTE]

Congress didn't declare this war, so it is illegal and unconstitutional. It is also not in our national defense to be over there... it's only provoking more attacks on Americans.

[/QUOTE]I can find zero authority in the Constitution for federal funding for museums or to launch an educational institute to honor Ted Kennedy or anybody else, and to weaken the ability of our military personnel to do their jobs in order to fund museums or launch new education institutes would have been judged illegal by former generations of Americans.[/QUOTE]

I don't agree with the money being spent at all... I'm just remarking that it would be preferable to have it spent here than over there. I'd prefer if it was spent by individuals, who didn't have their money confiscated by the Federal Government, on useful things for the people of this country.[/QUOTE]

What is your response to the Jihad? It's not going away.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

Better the money spent here than overseas bombing brown people.

Yes. We must allow those brown people the freedom to kill innocents.

What WERE we thinking?

 

[AdlerianThinker]

Yeah... the CIA should have went in there found them arrested them and executed their asses. Instead we invaded two nations that neither attacked us nor were any real threat to us...and during the administration that led this attack North Korea the actual threat to anyone's security, the crazy guy that thinks he's god and what not acquired what? 8 nuclear weapons? Do you feel safe?

The CIA does not arrest people.

The Taliban were the ruling government of Afghanistan, and were the reason that al Qaeda was able to attack us.

Iraq was in violation of the 1991 Cease Fire Agreement, thus the original state of hostilities existed.

Far from being innocent.

The need to scrap the Department of Homeland Security period. Of course, that would put my stepfather out of work, but what the Hell ever. Point is, national defense has nothing to do with invading foreign nations.

All this tells me as that your knowledge of military strategy is nil.