home

Bush's Sneaky Supplemental War Budget

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 10:52:41 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Noah at Defense Tech writes:

You'd think that, two years into a war, a secondary, "supplemental" budget for the Pentagon would be for handling last-minute military contingencies. Responding to battlefield emergencies. Coping with unforeseen turns of events.

But you'd be wrong, unfortunately. Because major chunks of the
Pentagon's $82 billion supplemental defense bill are only distantly
related to the fights going on in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Noah also writes about the now admittedly-false claim by the Adminstration that there are plenty of Iraqi troops available to aid in the fight against the insurgents.

During the 2004 election, the President and his team talked endlessly about the countless battalions of Iraqi troops that were helping out the coalition in its counterinsurgency fight. But the Pentagon is now admitting that there are hardly any Iraqi forces that are able to put up a fight.

< New Magazine to Sell Using Homicide as a Theme? | California Grants Early Release to Brain Dead Prisoner >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bush's Sneaky Supplemental War Budget | 11 comments (11 topical)
    Re: Bush's Sneaky Supplemental War Budget (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 01:22:58 PM EST
    GW, liar, liar, pants on fire. spontaneous combustion!!! once you start lying you got to keep lying to cover the first lie, and on and on and on. the apologist will be here soon, ttyl.

    Re: Bush's Sneaky Supplemental War Budget (none / 0) (#2)
    by desertswine on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 02:19:01 PM EST
    Another 82B dollars. We could've bought Irag for what we threw away on it already.

    Re: Bush's Sneaky Supplemental War Budget (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 02:21:28 PM EST
    Yeah, man, that sneaky budget that was above the fold on my newspaper yesterday? I was soooo confused. -C

    Re: Bush's Sneaky Supplemental War Budget (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 02:23:01 PM EST
    "Lightly Armed and Lightly equipped" does not equate to not existing. Many Iraqi Guardsmen are in this fight, driving/riding around in cheap Nissan trucks and with no heavy weapons (mortars, Machine Guns, Grenade Launchers, etc.) "Lightly armed" means no heavy weapons. Lightly Equipped is a bit more broad, hence the focus on mobility (not a lot of apporopriate transport capability, heavy trucks, armored vehicles, could and does in this case include helicopters) and limited sustainment capabilities. Sustainment capabilities would also include trucks, as well as a large range of different equipment needed to sustain a unit in the field (mobile kitchens, MASH units, engineering units, etc.). The existing forces have a lack of capability and reach, not existence. They operate fairly effectively close to base and in supporting roles for our forces. The fact that there is only one fully equipped battalion is not new- they are the prototype that has been in action all across Iraq with great success so far- CNN, Fox, and MSNBC all have done profiles of this unit in the past few months. This is yet another example of the limited knowledge about military matters that permeate the press and public at large. The Iraqi forces are playing a greater role in the joint operations and have been conducting their own ops as well- not up to our standards yet but they are improving.

    Re: Bush's Sneaky Supplemental War Budget (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 03:35:11 PM EST
    Again, which liar do we believe? Bushco and the guy with Custer's battle song for a name say there's lots. Many others say there aren't. As with most things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Believing either side without question is a long shot.

    Re: Bush's Sneaky Supplemental War Budget (none / 0) (#6)
    by Darryl Pearce on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 05:14:29 PM EST
    First, it was $100 BILlion. Then, it was another $87 BILlion Now, it's another $80-plus BILion. ...he's worse than a slacking brother-in-law

    Re: Bush's Sneaky Supplemental War Budget (none / 0) (#7)
    by soccerdad on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 05:41:47 PM EST
    The training of Iraqis is going so poorly that they have stopped releasing data.

    Re: Bush's Sneaky Supplemental War Budget (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 10:08:20 PM EST
    We screwed the pooch early by firing the conscript army. They had a remedial sense of military training and would have provided a base to build on. In the same vein, we disbanded rather than incorporated the various militias, some of which would also have been a good manpool source. Then We tried to recoup by fast track training which dumped some pretty unprepared troops into the field (which was the same fast track plan Kerry touted in the campaign). Petraeus seems to be doing the right things as of this late date, but they should have been much farther along if it were not for a couple of bad decisions early in the occupation. State Blames the Military, the Military blames State- I think it was a mutual effort. My beef was reading to much into the language, which was how the linked site seemed to take it. If you all want to complain about the use/misuse of the monies, fine. But the troops are there- they are not all as well trained as they should be, or equipped. I would suggest that things are going a bit better in this regard, but still a year behind where they should be. In military speak, Lightly armed means Automatic Rifles, submachine guns, and pistols with grenades. By the way ytterby, you are correct and close- Gerry Owen is still the call sign and battle theme for the 1/7 Cav and the 1st Cav Div. It's they big yellow patch with the Horse's head and the stripe through it, also was the unit portrayed and written about in "We were young, and we were soldiers".

    Re: Bush's Sneaky Supplemental War Budget (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 11:30:14 AM EST
    Gerry Owen is still the call sign and battle theme for the 1/7 Cav and the 1st Cav Div
    knew that name sounded familiar, the spelling threw me, was thinking "Garry Owen", another nuisance thought resolved.

    Re: Bush's Sneaky Supplemental War Budget (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 09:46:24 AM EST
    Gerry the Cavalry guy tells us:
    The Iraqi forces are playing a greater role in the joint operations and have been conducting their own ops as well- not up to our standards yet but they are improving.
    I'm lovin' this little Rumsfeldism from the same Wolf Blitzer interview about the 200K Iraqi troops:
    There have been more Iraqi security forces killed in the last four, five, or six months than coalition forces. And it shows that they're taking over responsibility for their country.
    Gerry, with all due respect to the 1/7 Cavalry and to our fighting men and women, the clown who made the above statement is running the war and is a liar. Link to the "now admittedly fals claim" site, then click on the link to 200,000 troops for the Wolf Blizer interview. You may be in line to re-up but I wouldn'n put this guy in charge of my dog. The problem is that the same screwups keep lying to us (oh yeah, they say, how can you predict the future - I say, with a budget, stupid)and coming back for more money to screw-up more. Are they accountable after the fact of the invasion or is accountability suspended until "major military operations have ceased" (good news for wannabe facist leaders of America)?

    Re: Bush's Sneaky Supplemental War Budget (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:09:22 PM EST
    Now i understand bush and the shiites in iran wanted the iraq election so bush can be known as a great muslim! I mean after all its all about the bush plan, something like his plan with mexico! who won the elections the united iraqi alliance and most of the boys in that alliance all lived in iran and who is jalal talabani? a well known iran follower with his roots still in iran, good god can't people see what bush is doing with the Death of so many of our people? but after all bush just may become the head shiite in this insane empire.

    Bush's Sneaky Supplemental War Budget | 11 comments (11 topical)