home

Army to Rumsfeld: Budget is Billions Short

The L.A. Times reports:

The Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding.

The decision by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is believed to be unprecedented and signals a widespread belief within the Army that in the absence of significant troop withdrawals from Iraq, funding assumptions must be completely reworked, say current and former Pentagon officials.

The Army's budget this year is $98,2 billion. Next year Schoomaker projects it will need a 41% increase to $138.8 billion. That's way too much money and just another reason we should start bringing troops home and let the Iraqis deal with their civil war. Without our unwanted intervention, they'll figure it out. Let's use the $98.2 billion budget money for reparations resulting from damage we've caused to Iraq and its citizens and for the medical, mental health and vocational benefits our returning vets surely will need instead of continuing to wage an unnecessary, futile war and cause more damage.

When do we admit Bush's vision of democracy in Iraq was a bad acid trip?

< Lieberman on Iraq Today | Immigration Horror Stories >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Army to Rumsfeld: Budget is Billions Short (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 02:06:07 PM EST
    When do we admit Bush's vision of democracy in Iraq was a bad acid trip?
    Even Joe Lieberman says he has a constructive plan to change course. Today is always a good day for a change of direction. Though I don't think this is what Joe has in mind ;-), here's a suggestion:
    This time the neoclowns want to attack Iran, because attacking Iraq went so well. Anyone who backs this war drive will look back and regret it forever. Anyone who still wants to get in the car these neoclowns are driving is going to be eternally embarrassed. You're going to think - what was I thinking? Consider this a preemptive intervention. Get out of the clown car and slowly back away. There is still time for you to pretend you were on to them the whole time.*
    *emphasis mine ---edger

    Re: Army to Rumsfeld: Budget is Billions Short (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 02:21:26 PM EST
    When do we admit Bush's vision of democracy in Iraq was a bad acid trip?
    Even Joe Lieberman says he has a constructive plan to change course. Today is always a good day for a change of direction. Though I don't think this is what Joe has in mind ;-), here's a suggestion:
    This time the neoclowns want to attack Iran, because attacking Iraq went so well. Anyone who backs this war drive will look back and regret it forever. Anyone who still wants to get in the car these neoclowns are driving is going to be eternally embarrassed. You're going to think - what was I thinking? Consider this a preemptive intervention. Get out of the clown car and slowly back away. There is still time for you to pretend you were on to them the whole time.*
    *emphasis mine

    Re: Army to Rumsfeld: Budget is Billions Short (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 02:21:26 PM EST
    98.2 billion for the illusion of safety and protection. That's just the published budget, I'd imagine in reality it's 3 or 4 times that figure. Does anyone else wonder if we'd be any less safe if we spent say 40 billion, or 20, or 2? What exactly are we getting as a return on the 98 billion? Me thinks we are just getting looted and are too blinded by fear to realize it.

    Re: Army to Rumsfeld: Budget is Billions Short (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 09:09:39 PM EST
    What exactly are we getting as a return on the 98 billion?
    We get the infinite consolation of knowing that "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here". Now isn't that worth every penny of that 98 f-ing billion?

    Re: Army to Rumsfeld: Budget is Billions Short (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 10:29:35 PM EST
    Of course if another hurricane hits New Orleans the whole place gets 20 feet of water over it again. Good to know we have our priorities straight.

    Re: Army to Rumsfeld: Budget is Billions Short (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 04:15:10 AM EST
    Malor, you probably weren't, but just in case you were wondering, you'd probably get some response to your posts if they weren't such obvious trolling attempts full of clumsy unsupported claims, self serving advice for the democrats, and blatant lies. Don't you guys go to, like, troll school or something? Here you go, this was for one of your cohorts, but it should help you, even though like most medicine, it will hurt. Have a nice life, huh? ---edger

    Re: Army to Rumsfeld: Budget is Billions Short (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 05:05:46 AM EST
    Ernesto writes:
    Good to know we have our priorities straight.
    How about New Orleans getting their priorites straight? It isn't Aunt Tillie in Omaha place to pay for something so people can live in a place that is below sea level. edger - I think your problem is that Malor has laid out a nice argument that you can't answer.

    Re: Army to Rumsfeld: Budget is Billions Short (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 05:15:55 AM EST
    I think your problem is that Malor has laid out a nice argument that you can't answer Well... you're certainly welcome to try, if you really want to shill for the democrats and drive rethug support even lower, again, by all means give it your best shot.Good luck! ;-) ---edger

    Re: Army to Rumsfeld: Budget is Billions Short (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 08:37:22 AM EST
    Gabriel, Soldiers are paid, they are employed, they CHOOSE to go into the military. In education, children have none of that. Also, the military is fairly uniformly budgeted. That is, the burden tends to be shared across the board more. In education, the burden is ENTIRELY on those schools and kids simply unfortunate enough to be in poor and neglected neighborhoods. Schools in more affluent areas are in need of nothing. We fund education with local property taxes -- a more discriminatory and unequal method you'd be hard pressed to find. The military gets its money straight from our deepest pockets (the Federal government), and has, history has shown us, flushed it away more quickly and rapidly than schools could ever flush. You think billions could just disappear from school budgets and no one would be held accountable? You think schools can pay 900 bucks for toilet seats and get away with it? The question here is cost to potential results. Right now, the potential results do not justify the costs in money or lives. Had the Bush administration had an actual strategy, then maybe Iraq (which I did not support invading) would've managed to avoid the complete chaos we've thrown it into. But now that the president and his team and completely blown their chance and failed (due to ignorance and egomania), we cannot simply pour billions upon billions into a war with no positive outcome possible -- unless, and it is probably too late, an actual strategy and some humility enter the brains of our leaders. Education for our children is indispensible, we cannot in any way live without it. Nothing approaching this can be claimed about Iraq.

    Re: Army to Rumsfeld: Budget is Billions Short (none / 0) (#12)
    by soccerdad on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 10:30:30 AM EST
    This brings to mind a strange characteristic of Democratic argument on this point. They say the Army is being damaged and stretched thin and then say this is reason for preventing any expansion of its budget.
    Typical right wing tatctic of combining a truth with a lie. Its too much money because its being thrown down a sink hole with no hope of it doing any good meanwhile the country keeps giving tax breaks to the rich and running record deficits. If this diaster is such a good idea why dont the Rethugs increase taxes to pay for it?

    Re: Army to Rumsfeld: Budget is Billions Short (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 02:48:18 PM EST
    If this diaster is such a good idea why dont the Rethugs increase taxes to pay for it?
    No idea is that good...lol.

    Re: Army to Rumsfeld: Budget is Billions Short (none / 0) (#14)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 02:48:18 PM EST
    Edger, thanks for your concern. I am not a troll, for the simple reason that I do not fit the description:
    ...someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls. Often, trolls assume multiple aliases, or sock puppets.
    A simple dislike for me or my posts is not enough to qualify me as a troll. I'm just someone who disagrees with you more often than not. Now, on to the substantive replies: Dadler, I agree with you that the military and education are inherently different. I was just interested in the idea that if more money is the solution to one problem, why is it not the solution to another. From your comment, I gather that you do not believe more money can solve the Iraq problem. You don't write it explicitly, but I assume this means that you think that more money can solve the education problem. Which leads me to soccerdad, who apparently sees no irony in this:
    Its too much money because its being thrown down a sink hole with no hope of it doing any good meanwhile the country keeps giving tax breaks to the rich and running record deficits.
    soccerdad, I think you've just described many government expenditures, including education.

    Re: Army to Rumsfeld: Budget is Billions Short (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 02:48:18 PM EST
    It isn't Aunt Tillie in Omaha place to pay for something so people can live in a place that is below sea level.
    Sorry dude, but if Aunt Tillie has to pay for Trent Lott's porch to be rebuilt she can also shell out for the lower ninth ward. The again I bet their are plenty of lobbyists jumping at the chance to rebuild ole Trent's porch...