Mission Accomplished, Part 2

[Theophylact]

Quote:

In Bill’s Fine Print, Millions to Celebrate Victory

By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 — Even as the Bush administration urges Americans to stay the course in Iraq, Republicans in Congress have put down a quiet marker in the apparent hope that V-I Day might be only months away.
Tucked away in fine print in the military spending bill for this past year was a lump sum of $20 million to pay for a celebration in the nation’s capital “for commemoration of success” in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not surprisingly, the money was not spent.

Now Congressional Republicans are saying, in effect, maybe next year. A paragraph written into spending legislation and approved by the Senate and House allows the $20 million to be rolled over into 2007.

The original legislation empowered the president to designate “a day of celebration” to commemorate the success of the armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to “issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.”

The celebration would honor the soldiers, sailors, air crews and marines who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it would be held in Washington, with the $20 million to cover the costs of military participation.

Democrats called attention to the measure, an act that Republicans are likely to portray as an effort to embarrass them five weeks before the midterm election. The Democrats said both the original language and the extension were pushed by Senate Republicans. A spokesman for the Republican-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee said it was protocol not to identify sponsors of such specific legislation.

The overall legislation was approved in the Senate by unanimous consent and overwhelmingly in the House after a short debate.

Democrats nevertheless said they were not pleased.

“If the Bush administration had spent more time planning for the postwar occupation of Iraq, and less time planning ‘mission accomplished’ victory celebrations, America would be closer to finishing the job in Iraq,” said Rebecca M. Kirszner, communications director for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader.

Lt. Col. Brian Maka, a Pentagon spokesman, said late Tuesday that the event was envisioned as an opportunity for “honoring returning U.S. forces at the conclusion” of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. “As the funds were not used in F.Y. 2006,” the official said, using the initials for fiscal year, “the authorization was rolled over into F.Y. 2007.”

[nickslick74]

If the Dem's wern't happy with it, why did a majority of them vote for it?

[Theophylact]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickslick74

If the Dem's wern't happy with it, why did a majority of them vote for it?

Because it's political poison to vote against a defense appropriation. Duhhh...

[nickslick74]

I was just curious, thats all...

[cyphen]

Soooo... what then, they were selling out their anti-war values??? They govern by poll? What's the upside for the lefites here, Theo?? Makes 'em look about as tough as spaghetti if you ask me...

[Theophylact]

C'mon, cyphen, don't pretend to be naive. That rider was slipped into an appropriation bill that practically nobody had read in its entirety. Even if the Democrats had wanted to amend the bill to remove this crap, the Republican leadership wouldn't have allowed a vote on the merits. It was $20 million out of about $300 billion, and withholding approval of the overall bill would have had the Republicans screaming "Support the troops!" So, yes, they voted for it, and no, they weren't happy about it.

Be realistic: polls or no polls, there's an election coming up. The Republicans are doing their level best to commit suicide. Why should the Democrats say, "Excuse me, but may we borrow your rope for a minute?"

[cunokyle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theophylact

C'mon, cyphen, don't pretend to be naive. That rider was slipped into an appropriation bill that practically nobody had read in its entirety. Even if the Democrats had wanted to amend the bill to remove this crap, the Republican leadership wouldn't have allowed a vote on the merits.

So you are saying it is ok then because they may not have read it? WHat a load of crap.

Saying the Democrats voted for it because it was a part of another bill is a bunch of crap, the Republicans voted on the same bill. Both are equally accountable for their votes.

[surreal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theophylact

C'mon, cyphen, don't pretend to be naive. That rider was slipped into an appropriation bill that practically nobody had read in its entirety. Even if the Democrats had wanted to amend the bill to remove this crap, the Republican leadership wouldn't have allowed a vote on the merits. It was $20 million out of about $300 billion, and withholding approval of the overall bill would have had the Republicans screaming "Support the troops!" So, yes, they voted for it, and no, they weren't happy about it.

Be realistic: polls or no polls, there's an election coming up. The Republicans are doing their level best to commit suicide. Why should the Democrats say, "Excuse me, but may we borrow your rope for a minute?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyphen

Soooo... what then, they were selling out their anti-war values??? They govern by poll? What's the upside for the lefites here, Theo?? Makes 'em look about as tough as spaghetti if you ask me...

[surreal]

This is the reason the US government is going down the tubes.

No one can stand up for right or wrong anymore. They are all gravy sucking party members.

[Theophylact]

surreal, I'm in complete agreement with you that the Democrats are gutless. The've failed to take stands on far more important issues than this (most recently, the abolition of habeas corpus). That being so, though, why should they want to swallow the Republicans' poison pill on a relatively trivial matter?