• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 48

Topic: Democrats - please explain this

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Democrats - please explain this

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    In Sep, 2003, John Kerry said it would be "irresponsible" to vote against the 87 billion funding package for our troops.

    One month later, he voted against it.

    Assuming his statements accurately reflect his positions, can someone please tell me what happened between Sep, 2003 and Oct, 2003 that changed his mind - what was so grievous in his view that it necessitated not supporting our troops through this bill - and where in the 4 weeks this happened?

    Eric
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    Eric Doggett
    MoonDog Media
    www.moondogmedia.net

  2. #2
    Moderator/Developer Brian2112's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Out of my Mind
    Posts
    1,858

    Re: Democrats - please explain this

    Because, as you know, both parties add garbage to every bill that has nothing to do with the intent. Attached to the bill was another tax cut for the upper income that the Republicans inserted. This is how to play politics. “If you vote against the bill then you don’t support our troops” and get your tax cut. Kerry wanted a bill that just supported the troops but was unwilling to go along with the B.S. tax scheme.

    ...2112
    "So what if some parts of life are a crap shoot? Get out there and shoot the crap." -- Neil Peart
    Hint:1.6180339887498948482 Φ

  3. #3

    Re: Democrats - please explain this

    Explain this (as Kerry finally pointed out): how do you reconcile Bush's campaign platform of compassionate conservatism (an oxymoron) with declaring war on half the world, raping the environment, Ashcrofting the country to pieces, proposing a gay marriage ban amendment, assaulting abortion rights, using Janet Jackson's titties to curb free speech on the airwaves, stocking scientific commissions with people who tell him what he wants to hear, peeing on the Kyoto accords, supporting "usable" nuclear weapons...and more?

    And that jackass Ralph Nader is still trying to get on the ballot.

  4. #4

    Re: Democrats - please explain this

    It's a good question that deserves and honest answer.

    Lets start with the reason "why" troops got sent to Iraq with old equipment.

    First, the active military sent to Iraq to fight the war, had everything they needed. (including armored humvees, and modern ballistic vests). It was the "reserve" and "guard" units who had old equipment. The reason is, they have ALWAYS had old equipment because of budget cuts in the military and because of priority. Anybody who's seen their hometown guard or reserve on manuvers (ie..on teh highway..etc) sees all the broken down vietnam era trucks..etc..etc.

    The active military units have always gotten priority over these reserve units for what ever funding there was..for obvious reasons. The problem has been budget related. You can look up Kerrys' record in the senate yourself for his votes on these issues over 20 years. The front line troops sent to Iraq, ie..the active duty first responders...marine expeditionary force, airborne, and the infrantry divisions that called up reserve into active duty units...had the modern equipment. They had the armored humvees, body armor, even the most advanced fighting chem/bio hazmat protecting suits..designed to allow them to fight under chem/bio attack. They had the most advanced tanks, trucks..everything.

    It was when the reserve and guard brigades began being called up in tact..to replace those units after major combat ops were over...that they brought with them..their delapidated equipment..that has LONG been the problem for those units. So, to be clear here..reserve members called into active duty..and placed into existing active duty front line brigades..had all the modern gear they needed. Reserve and guard "units"..who were activated in their entirety..to replace the infrantry, etc..divisions after major combat ops were over...were shipped "with" their own equipment..which they had trained on and were familiar with...much of which was old delapidated gear.

    Anybody who's seen the pitifiul site of their own hometown guard/reserve at a parade..knows what I'm talking about. Much of their gear is Vietnam era. ..including the trucks, etc. that constantly break down and it's been that way for YEARS. The call up was quick...because...major combat operations were over in 3 weeks...and was expected to go on for months...of fighting house to house in Baghdad. So, the initial reserve/guard units..that got sent to Iraq..and mobilized very quickly..were sent with their equipment they had and had trained on. They were welding plate steel on to the side of thier trucks..when they got to Iraq..and many of their trucks broke down, etc..and had to be towed by others..even to GET to where they were being deployed. The continuing insurgency..and their tactics also made this more of a problem.

    That's what the problem was to begin with. The question is..what do you do about it? First thing Bush did when he got to office was to increase funding back into the military appropriation based on their own leaders assessments. You can check the record to see who voted against that. That's been going forward since the day he got in office....but it's going to probably take a decade to "undo" the damage and neglect in these areas and to modernize them down to the last reserve and gaurd unit. You can check the senate record yourself to see who has been responsible for that over the years.

    As to Kerrys' vote against the appropriation of 87billion...It was a "tactical vote".

    From NewYorker Mag: July 2004.
    As one of his advisers put it to me, “Off the record, he did it because of Howard Dean. On the record, he has an elaborate explanation.” Kerry originally supported an amendment sponsored by Senator Joseph Biden that would have funded the war by temporarily reducing Bush’s tax cuts to the wealthiest one per cent of Americans. But Biden’s bill had no chance of passing in a Republican-dominated Senate, and Kerry’s absurdly abbreviated account of the matter—“I did vote for the eighty-seven billion before I voted against it”—has left him open to relentless Republican ridicule. Biden himself ultimately voted for the money, and he confirmed that Kerry’s decision not to was “tactical,” an attempt “to prove to Dean’s guys I’m not a warmonger.”

    Kerry himself as edwards..have offered several statements about this vote..none of which go into much detail. It was a "protest vote" says Kerry at one point...to protest the way in which Bush led us into this war. This is "EXACTLY" what Kerry argued at the senate hearings in 1970s..to the senators there. That they should..use their power to block Nixon's plan for a controlled pullout of Vietnam...and produce a rapid withdrawal...(what the N. Viets wanted to destablize the south), to pull funding for the war appropriations...(which is congress job) and force a rapid end to it.

    That was one of the reasons KErry gave for the statement about this. That he disagreed with how the president went to war..while being for holding Saddam responsible , backed by the use of force, but disagreed with how Bush used the force, and therefore, the only way he could protest that ..was by voting against the funding to continue it.

    Now, lets get to the 2nd part on this:
    J Biden..introduced an amemendment to that appropriations bill that would fund it...via ...rolling back the enacted tax cut..for the top 1%...instead of adding to the deficit. That got defeated, he says by republicans..but it was actually quite a few dems that defeated it as well. Biden's position had nothing to do with trying to protest the war nor funding ..but ..only to try and force the admin to roll back some of the tax cuts they had already enacted instead of adding the cost to the growing defict. The appropriations bill did not have in it..."new" tax cut proposals. It was Biden who introduced an amendment to make those tax cuts that had already been enacted..tied to this funding appropriations in some way.

    With that defeated...Biden voted for the appropriations bill...and Kerry Edwards..voted against it. That's what Kerry means when he says he voted for the appropriations..before he voted against it. He voted for the Biden bill..that included rolling back tax cuts, but against the appropriations themselves..without rolling back the tax cuts.

    It was purely political, tactical...no matter which motive you want to attach to it...ie..either on budget concerns or protest of the war concerns. It was refusing to vote for money appropriations for emergency funding for our troops and the efforts on going in both Afghanistan and Iraq, no matter "which" motive you want to ascribe to it (ie..protest vote against the war, and/or, concerns over deficit). It shows that his concerns were 1) how to protest the presidents decision..over Iraq 2) concerns over deficit and enacted taxcuts (ie..money). And I'll remind you, this appropriation was not just for Iraq..but for Afghanistan as well.

    You'll note from this..that none of the reasons nor actions taken by Kerry (or Edwards)...were " concern for the troops and ongoing efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq". It was about "protest" and/or "Money" and how it would be paid for. That was their priorities.

    None of this is "new". Kerry ran this exact campaign..to the letter, with Swift boat members at his side, same stories..same slogans...etc..and same statements almost to the letter several times..back in the 70s and 80s...when he was in tight elections. You can research these things yourself..all the way back to the 70s. You'll even find his current campaign slogans..and some of their one liners there. His senate record regarding funding to the miltary that would have helped support the modernation and equiopment of guard and reserve units over the years...is also available ....but not at JKerry.com.

  5. #5

    Re: Democrats - please explain this

    Wow - that is a very thorough explanation of the way events happened.

    So, one can assume, that JK voted this way as a way to protest the war. Naturally then, you can make the argument that he chose making a political point over funding troops that were already there.

    The troops were second fiddle to his protest.

    That explains a lot.

    Thank you,

    Eric
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    Eric Doggett
    MoonDog Media
    www.moondogmedia.net

  6. #6

    Re: Democrats - please explain this

    Just for the record, here is the Biden amendment

    SA 1796. Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. KERRY, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. CORZINE, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mr. LAUTENBERG) proposed an amendment to the bill S . 1689 , making emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and reconstruction for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes; as follows:



    ~~~ At the end of title III, add the following:

    ~~~ SEC. __. (a) PROVISION OF FUNDS FOR SECURITY AND STABILIZATION OF IRAQ THROUGH PARTIAL SUSPENSION OF REDUCTIONS IN HIGHEST INCOME TAX RATE FOR INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS.--Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to tax imposed) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

    ~~~ ``(j) PROVISION OF FUNDS FOR SECURITY AND STABILIZATION OF IRAQ THROUGH PARTIAL SUSPENSION OF REDUCTIONS IN HIGHEST INCOME TAX RATE.--

    ~~~ ``(1) IN GENERAL.--In the case of any taxable year beginning in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, the 35 percent rate of tax under subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) shall be adjusted to the percentage determined by the Secretary to result in an increase in revenues into the Treasury for all taxable years beginning in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 equal to $87,000,000,000.

    ~~~ ``(2) ADJUSTMENT OF TABLES.--The Secretary shall adjust the tables prescribed under subsection (f) to carry out this subsection.''.

    ~~~ (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning in 2005.


    The rest of the bill..was exactly the same. This is what Kerry voted "for". He then voted "against" the same appropriations bill...without the above amendment in it.

  7. #7

    Re: Democrats - please explain this

    Looks like a resonable reason to change ones mine, Eric. It looks to me like there's a republican here trying to make out that Kerry changed his mind for no reason whereas in reality, the bill was significantly amended between readings. Why don't you accept this explanation as valid?

  8. #8

    Re: Democrats - please explain this

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Palomar
    Looks like a resonable reason to change ones mine, Eric. It looks to me like there's a republican here trying to make out that Kerry changed his mind for no reason whereas in reality, the bill was significantly amended between readings. Why don't you accept this explanation as valid?
    This is exactly why he said he was for it before he was against it. Kerry did a terrible job of explaining himself, but it's obvious what he means.

    But rather than ask us about why Kerry did what he did, why not go to someone impartial who really knows instead of listening to the partisan version that dcornutt offered up with his "honest" answer.

    The fact is -- and you can go to factcheck.org, a nonpartisan site, for the explanation -- that Kerry offered a measure to the bill that would temporarily reverse Bush's tax cuts in order to pay for the bill, but the Republicans rejected that measure. dcornutt doesn't seem to think this is a significant change, but it's VERY significant. Why?

    Because only a very small percentage (1/3 of 1%) of the 87 billion would have gone to body armor, etc. to aid the troops. The rest was essentially a blank check for Bush to do with what he wanted.

    And keep in mind that Bush had already promised that his war would not cost much.

    dcornutt is right that some of the troops who went over there did NOT have proper equipment or armor. Some 40,000 troops. Now the real question is WHY WERE THEY SENT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE WITHOUT PROPER EQUIPMENT AND ARMOR? WHY DIDN'T BUSH PLAN THE OPERATION BETTER? Or even more important, WHY WERE RESERVISTS AND NATIONAL GUARD SENT OVER THERE AT ALL? Could it be that we were spread too thin? Could it be that we should have forgotten about invading Iraq and simply concentrated on REAL terrorism -- in Afghanistan?

    It's easy to attack Kerry with partisan distortions, but there's no distorting the fact that Bush rushed to war, and in doing so, endangered our troops.

  9. #9

    Re: Democrats - please explain this

    Making emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and reconstruction for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, namely:



    TITLE I--NATIONAL SECURITY



    CHAPTER 1



    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE



    MILITARY PERSONNEL



    Military Personnel, Army


    For an additional amount for `Military Personnel, Army', $12,858,870,000.



    Military Personnel, Navy


    For an additional amount for `Military Personnel, Navy', $816,100,000.



    Military Personnel, Marine Corps


    For an additional amount for `Military Personnel, Marine Corps', $753,190,000.



    Military Personnel, Air Force


    For an additional amount for `Military Personnel, Air Force', $3,384,700,000.



    OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE



    Operation and Maintenance, Army


    For an additional amount for `Operation and Maintenance, Army', $24,946,464,000: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of House Concurrent Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available only to the extent that an official budget request for a specific dollar amount, that includes designation of the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in House Concurrent Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.



    Operation and Maintenance, Navy



    (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)


    For an additional amount for `Operation and Maintenance, Navy', $1,976,258,000, of which up to $80,000,000 may be transferred to the Department of Homeland Security for Coast Guard Operations.



    Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps


    For an additional amount for `Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps', $1,198,981,000.



    Operation and Maintenance, Air Force


    For an additional amount for `Operation and Maintenance, Air Force', $5,516,368,000.



    Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide


    For an additional amount for `Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide', $4,218,452,000, of which--


    (1) not to exceed $15,000,000 may be used for the CINC Initiative Fund account, to be used primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan; and


    (2) $1,000,000,000, to remain available until expended, may be used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payments to reimburse Pakistan, Jordan, and other key cooperating nations, for logistical, military, and other support provided, or to be provided, to United States military operations: Provided, That such payments may be made in such amounts as the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, and in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, may determine, in his discretion, based on documentation determined by the Secretary of Defense to adequately account for the support provided, and such determination is final and conclusive upon the accounting officers of the United States, and 15 days following notification to the appropriate congressional committees: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall provide quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations on the use of these funds.



    Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve


    For an additional amount for `Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve', $16,000,000.



    Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve


    For an additional amount for `Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve', $53,000,000.



    Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard


    For an additional amount for `Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard', $214,000,000.



    Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid


    For an additional amount for `Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid', $35,500,000.



    Iraq Freedom Fund



    (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)


    For `Iraq Freedom Fund', $1,988,600,000, to remain available for transfer until September 30, 2005, for the purposes authorized under this heading in Public Law 108-11: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer the funds provided herein to appropriations for military personnel; operation and maintenance; Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster Assistance, and Civic Aid; procurement; military construction; the Defense Health Program; and working capital funds: Provided further, That funds transferred shall be merged with and be available for the same purposes and for the same time period as the appropriation or fund to which transferred: Provided further, That this transfer authority is in addition to any other transfer authority available to the Department of Defense: Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall, not fewer than 5 days prior to making transfers from this appropriation, notify the congressional defense committees in writing of the details of any such transfer: Provided further, That the Secretary shall submit a report no later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter to the congressional defense committees summarizing the details of the transfer of funds from this appropriation.



    PROCUREMENT



    Missile Procurement, Army


    For an additional amount for `Missile Procurement, Army', $6,200,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006.



    Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army


    For an additional amount for `Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army', $104,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of House Concurrent Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available only to the extent that an official budget request for a specific dollar amount, that includes designation of the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in House Concurrent Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.



    Other Procurement, Army


    For an additional amount for `Other Procurement, Army', $1,078,687,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of House Concurrent Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available only to the extent that an official budget request for a specific dollar amount, that includes designation of the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in House Concurrent Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.



    Aircraft Procurement, Navy


    For an additional amount for `Aircraft Procurement, Navy', $128,600,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006.



    Other Procurement, Navy


    For an additional amount for `Other Procurement, Navy', $76,357,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006.



    Procurement, Marine Corps


    For an additional amount for `Procurement, Marine Corps', $123,397,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006.



    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force


    For an additional amount for `Aircraft Procurement, Air Force', $40,972,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006.



    Missile Procurement, Air Force


    For an additional amount for `Missile Procurement, Air Force', $20,450,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006.



    Other Procurement, Air Force


    For an additional amount for `Other Procurement, Air Force', $3,441,006,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006.



    Procurement, Defense-Wide


    For an additional amount for `Procurement, Defense-Wide', $435,635,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006.



    RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION



    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy


    For an additional amount for `Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy', $34,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2005.



    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force


    For an additional amount for `Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force', $39,070,000, to remain available until September 30, 2005.



    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide


    For an additional amount for `Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide', $265,817,000, to remain available until September 30, 2005.



    REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS



    Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide


    For an additional amount for `Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide', $600,000,000.



    National Defense Sealift Fund


    For an additional amount for `National Defense Sealift Fund', $24,000,000, to remain available until expended.



    OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS



    Defense Health Program


    For an additional amount for `Defense Health Program', $658,380,000 for Operation and maintenance.



    Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense


    For an additional amount for `Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense', $73,000,000: Provided, That these funds may be used only for such activities related to Afghanistan: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer the funds provided herein only to appropriations for military personnel; operation and maintenance; procurement; and research, development, test, and evaluation: Provided further, That the funds transferred shall be merged with and be available for the same purposes and for the same time period, as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That the transfer authority provided in this paragraph is in addition to any other transfer authority available to the Department of Defense: Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.



    RELATED AGENCIES



    Intelligence Community Management Account



    (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)


    For an additional amount for `Intelligence Community Management Account', $21,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 2005; of which $3,000,000 may be transferred to and merged with the Department of Energy, `Other Defense Activities', and $15,500,000 may be transferred to and merged with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, `Salaries and Expenses'.



    CHAPTER 2



    MILITARY CONSTRUCTION



    Military Construction, Army


    For an additional amount for `Military Construction, Army', $119,900,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That such funds may be obligated and expended to carry out military construction projects not otherwise authorized by law.



    Military Construction, Air Force


    For an additional amount for `Military Construction, Air Force', $292,550,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That such funds may be obligated and expended to carry out military construction projects not otherwise authorized by law.



    CHAPTER 3



    GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS TITLE


    SEC. 301. Section 202(b) of the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-327) is amended by striking `$300,000,000' and inserting `$450,000,000'.


    SEC. 302. Upon his determination that such action is necessary in the national interest, the Secretary of Defense may transfer between appropriations up to $2,500,000,000 of the funds made available in this title, and in addition such funds as necessary, not to exceed $5,000,000,000, as approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, Subcommittees on Defense: Provided, That the Secretary shall notify the Congress promptly of each transfer made pursuant to this authority: Provided further, That the transfer authority provided in this section is in addition to any other transfer authority available to the Department of Defense: Provided further, That the authority in this section is subject to the same terms and conditions as the authority provided in section 8005 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2004.


    SEC. 303. Funds appropriated in this title, or made available by transfer of funds in or pursuant to this title, for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414).


    SEC. 304. None of the funds available to the Department of Defense may be obligated to implement any action which alters the command responsibility or permanent assignment of forces until 90 days after such plan has been provided to the congressional defense committees.


    SEC. 305. Sections 1318 and 1319 of Public Law 108-11 shall remain in effect during fiscal year 2004.


    SEC. 306. From October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004, (a) the rates of pay authorized by section 310(a) of title 37, United States Code, shall be increased to $225; and (b) the rates of pay authorized by section 427(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, shall be increased to $250.


    SEC. 307. (a) Section 1313 of Public Law 108-11 is amended by adding the word, `unobligated', before `balances'.


    (b) After October 31, 2003, adjustments to obligations that would have been properly chargeable to the Defense Emergency Response Fund shall be charged to any current appropriation account of the Department of Defense available for the same purpose.


    SEC. 308. Within 30 days after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall report to the Committees on Appropriations on progress to implement the terms of section 8082 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2004.


    SEC. 309. Not later than thirty days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees describing an Analysis of Alternatives for replacing the capabilities of the fleet of KC-135 aircraft.


    SEC. 310. None of the funds provided in this title may be used to finance programs or activities denied by Congress in fiscal year 2003 or 2004 appropriations to the Department of Defense or to initiate a procurement or research, development, test and evaluation new start program without prior notification to the congressional defense committees.


    SEC. 311. During the current fiscal year, funds available to the Department of Defense for operation and maintenance may be used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to provide supplies, services, transportation, including airlift and sealift, and other logistical support to coalition forces supporting military and stability operations in Iraq: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense shall provide quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations regarding support provided under this section.


    SEC. 312. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, from funds available to the Department of Defense for operation and maintenance in fiscal year 2004, not to exceed $200,000,000 may be used by the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to provide assistance only to the New Iraqi Army and the Afghan National Army to enhance their capability to combat terrorism and to support U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: Provided, That such assistance may include the provision of equipment, supplies, services, training and funding: Provided further, That the authority to provide assistance under this section is in addition to any other authority to provide assistance to foreign nations: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify Congress not less than 15 days before providing assistance under the authority of this section.


    SEC. 313. (a) REPORT ON MILITARY READINESS IMPLICATIONS OF OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM-


    (1) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report assessing the implications for United States military readiness of the participation of United States ground combat forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom.


    (2) The report shall be submitted not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.


    (b) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED- The report under subsection (a) shall include the following:


    (1) An estimate of the total number of forces required to carry out Operation Iraqi Freedom, including forces required for a rotation base.


    (2) An estimate of the expected duration of the operation.


    (3) An estimate of the cost of the operation together with an explanation of how the Secretary will use the funds provided for the operation, and an assessment of how such proposed funding plan would affect overall military readiness.


    (4) An assessment of how readily forces participating in the operation could be redeployed to additional overlapping major conflicts while providing for the President the option to call for victory in one of those conflicts, as well as to conduct a limited number of smaller-scale contingency operations, including an analysis of the availability of strategic lift, the likely condition of equipment, and the extent of retraining necessary to facilitate such a redeployment.


    (5) An assessment of the effect of the operation on the general combat readiness and deployability of combat units to defend the homeland and for the Global War on Terrorism.

  10. #10

    Re: Democrats - please explain this

    its a good question
    consider this: bush spent over $200 million branding kerry as a flip flopping wheasel on this issue alone. I had the same question about this till i heard kerry answer in several interviews and during the debates.
    it appears now the "flip flop" issue branding wasn't as successful as planned. now the RNC spin machine is shifting gears and painting kerry as a evil "ultra liberal from boston"!" worse the ted kennedy! oh i am terrified of this.. worse then kennedy!
    i have several problems with this latest antic:
    1. its so damn culturally divisive! north vs south etc liberal vs conservative etc
    2. its insulting to those to least 49-50 % of the voters.
    3. it's very insulting to bostonians.IE bostonians are liberal morons ready to take the country to hell.

    if kerry had a equal counter attack it would be something like this:
    bush is to far to the right, he's a dumb, jesus freak from texas!
    he's even more conservative then storm thurmond! or pat roberson!
    he thinks god talks to him! he wants to turn america into a theocracy!
    just like the terrorist states we are fighting!!( low pad music here)
    i have to admit karl roves attacks on are well thought out. he always attacks his enemies strengths NOT their weakness . something to think about next time you see the RNC on the attack

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •