Senate votes to block war money

GraceAbounds

Well-Known Member
2 2 2 1 1
Senate votes to block war money Republicans halt Iraq withdrawal plan and block bill to pay for Iraq
The Associated Press
updated 8:46 a.m. MT, Fri., Nov. 16, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Friday blocked a Democratic proposal to pay for the Iraq war but require that troops start coming home.
The 53-45 vote was seven votes short of the 60 needed to advance. It came minutes after the Senate rejected a Republican proposal to pay for the Iraq war without strings attached.
The Republican measure failed 45-53, 15 short of the number of votes needed to go forward.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the only way to get troops the money was to approve the restrictions outlined by Democrats.
"Our troops continue to fight and die valiantly. And our Treasury continues to be depleted rapidly, for a peace that we seem far more interested in achieving than Iraq's own political leaders," said Reid, D-Nev.
Republicans said Democrats were being irresponsible.
"We need to get our troops everything they need," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "We need to get it to them right now."
Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said this week that if Congress cannot pass legislation that ties war money to troop withdrawals, they would not send Bush a bill this year.
Instead, they would revisit the issue upon returning in January, pushing the Pentagon to the brink of an accounting nightmare and deepening Democrats' conflict with the White House on the war.
In the meantime, Democrats say, the Pentagon can eat into its $471 billion annual budget without being forced to take drastic steps.
"The days of a free lunch are over," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
At the White House Friday, deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said: "DOD would have to eat into their annual budget and I believe that still presents difficulties in getting the troops in the field the resources they need to carry out their mission."
"We'd rather see the Department of Defense, the military planners and our troops focusing on military maneuvers, rather than accounting maneuvers as they carry out their mission in the field," Fratto said. "I think Congress should send this money, allow these troops to get the equipment they need. There is no reason why they should not get the money. This isn't like this is a last-minute effort and call for funding."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that unless Congress passes funding for the war within days, he will direct the Army and Marine Corps to begin developing plans to lay off employees and terminate contracts early next year.
Gates, who met with lawmakers on Wednesday, said he does not have the money or the flexibility to move funds around to adequately cover the costs of the continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"There is a misperception that this department can continue funding our troops in the field for an indefinite period of time through accounting maneuvers, that we can shuffle money around the department. This is a serious misconception," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.
As a result, he said he is faced with the undesirable task of preparing to cease operations at Army bases by mid-February, and lay off about 100,000 defense department employees and an equal number of civilian contractors. A month later, he said, similar moves would have to be made by the Marines.
Some members of Congress believe the Pentagon can switch enough money to cover the war accounts, Gates said. But he added that he only has the flexibility to transfer about $3.7 billion, which is just one week's worth of war expenses. Lawmakers, he said, may not understand how complicated and restrictive the situation is.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: Senate votes to block war money - Politics - MSNBC.com


Drop the politics and send the troops the funds they need!!!!!!

:rant:
 
It's funny that when this war started, the president said that it would cost the US $50 billion, $60 billion tops....

Fast forward 5 years... and he's looking for the next "emergency" war supplemental to the tune of $190 billion

The troops won't run out of money Grace. They won't do without... It's the corporations that will suffer

Do you honestly think they will run out of bullets, food or weapons.... nope, never happen.
 
You didn't answer my question. Even so, your answer or your lack of an answer implies that you support the Senate blocking the money to our troops. I have no respect for that perspective.

Even if one does not support the war, one can support the fact that our troops are in harm's way and that they should have the best technology that can be made available to them and the fact that it takes money for that to take place.
 
There's really nothing new with armored units using makeshift armor. Its been happening since WW1.

They should have had been equipped with better armored vehicles, but maybe they would if Bush wasn't so heated into jumping into Iraq so fast.

Not every unit can be top of the line. It simply costs too much money.

You of all people I thought would understand that. How can you scream about us spending too much money on defence, but then complain about our guys not having what they need? :confused
 
Not every unit can be top of the line. It simply costs too much money.

You of all people I thought would understand that. How can you scream about us spending too much money on defence, but then complain about our guys not having what they need? :confused
I wouldn't be complaining if the majority of it was actually going to better outfit vehicles. But, you know, people aren't people in the government's eyes. They are statistics and numbers.
 
Back
Top