medicineman
New Member
Democrat Side of War Party Calls for More Mass Murder and Misery in Iraq
Kurt Nimmo
Another Day In The Empire Democrats are not innocent of warmongering, here's come commentary on this
Friday, December 1, 2006
“Although the Democrats are very uncomfortable with the way the Iraq policy is being executed, they are at pains not to appear that they are shortchanging troops in the field,” Loren Thompson, CEO of the Lexington Institute, yet another “think tank,” this one connected at the hip to the neocon infested Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the Associated Press. “This is their opportunity to show that they, too, are pro-defense,” that is to say pro-killing Iraqis in prodigious numbers with an inventory of truly heinous weapons.
In order to test the loyalty to the neocon ethic of ever ballooning “defense” (i.e., invade small countries) appropriations, the “Bush administration is hammering out its largest-ever appeal for more Iraq war funds—a record $100 billion, at least, and that figure reflects cuts from wish lists originally circulating around the Pentagon,” a “wish list” no different than one submitted by a heroin addict, forever increasing his dosage and thus requiring more and more money, to the ultimate ruination of family and friends.
The neocon-haunted Pentagon is bankrupting America. In 2006, the Pentagon spent around $120 billion killing Iraqis and wrecking their country, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Next year, they estimate they will need $200 billion to sustain the same level of terrorism.
Not a problem for Democrats.
“Despite widespread discontent over the Iraq war and President Bush’s handling of it, Democrats are expected to grant the vast majority of the request. Yet evidence is accumulating that the figure the White House sends to Capitol Hill will not be limited to dollars critically needed for troops and war-fighting,” the Associated Press continues. “There is much sentiment among Democrats to protect troops and fear about being portrayed as unsympathetic to men and women in uniform. These factors probably would overwhelm any efforts by anti-war Democrats to use the debate over the Iraq money to take on Bush’s conduct of the war.”
In short, don’t expect any significant changes while Democrats are in the saddle. In fact, Democrats represent nothing more than a few minor changes in the management team.
“Democrats want to win the war, which is why we want to change the strategy,” Chuckie Schumer declared after fusty neocon apologist Elizabeth Dole attacked Democrats as soft on spending outrageous amounts of taxpayer money on killing Iraqis and wrecking their country. “He said if Democrats gain the majority in the Senate, they would push for new policies including withdrawing troops for deployment elsewhere and adding forces for counterterrorism such as pursuing Osama bin Laden,” the Associated Press reported two days before the midterm elections.
Of course, as we know, and as the Iraq Study Group of neolib and neocon insiders recommended, the U.S. military will be in Iraq at least until 2008. Call it Iraqization, as the “US role would change from leading the fight against insurgents and terrorism to supporting Iraqi government forces in the conflict,” according to the Washington Post.
Obviously, the neocons and their complaisant, even eager, Democrat collaborators are looking to make to make the duration of the “war” twice as long as World War 2.
Naturally, come 2008, there will be yet another excuse issued by a “study group” of neolibs and former Iran-Contra criminals to keep our “men and women in uniform” on the ground in Iraq, that is if they are not killed off in large numbers after the neocons attack Iran and our soldiers are hemmed in by incensed Iranians.
In the meantime, Democrats have to keep up appearances.
“It won’t just be a rubber stamp on what they give us,” Kirsten Brost, spokeswoman for the incoming chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. David Obey, told the Associated Press.
Prior to the election, neocons and Israel Firsters worried mightily Obey, as chair of the Appropriations Committee, would cut the budgets of both the Pentagon and Israel. “Military aid is key to Israel’s ability to defend itself,” the Jewish Press reported in October. “Will Obey cut aid to Israel, as he has already voiced a desire to do (over the settlements issue)? Will he try to cut funding for military programs that create high-tech weapons? These are the very defense items we supply Israel with and that give the Jewish state a qualitative edge over foes that vastly outnumber it.” Such foes include malnutritioned and impoverished Palestinians, cut off from the outside world in their open-air gulag, the largest in the world.
It is said Obey is a “supporter of the policies of the more dovish Labor Party in Israel,” although there are thousands and thousands of Palestinians that would dispute this alleged difference.
Dave knows AIPAC can make or break congressional career choices, even though Obey has been in Congress since Moses brought down the stone tablets. Naturally, both the Pentagon and Israel do not face liquid diets, imposed by Dave Obey or any other Democrat.
In fact, when it comes to the Pentagon, Obey may suffer from the same malady as his Republican predecessor. Like a spendaholic, shop-til-you-drop junkie at the mall, “Congress doesn’t seem to know how much it appropriated” for the “war,” according to Winslow T. Wheeler, the director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information in Washington. “DOD’s supplemental budget requests and the monthly obligation reports issued by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service often do not provide enough detail to determine how … funds for operations in Iraq and the war on terrorism have been obligated,” as there are “deficiencies in DOD’s financial management systems and business processes, the use of estimates instead of actual cost data, and the lack of adequate supporting documentation.”
Another Day In The Empire Democrats are not innocent of warmongering, here's come commentary on this
Friday, December 1, 2006
“Although the Democrats are very uncomfortable with the way the Iraq policy is being executed, they are at pains not to appear that they are shortchanging troops in the field,” Loren Thompson, CEO of the Lexington Institute, yet another “think tank,” this one connected at the hip to the neocon infested Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the Associated Press. “This is their opportunity to show that they, too, are pro-defense,” that is to say pro-killing Iraqis in prodigious numbers with an inventory of truly heinous weapons.
In order to test the loyalty to the neocon ethic of ever ballooning “defense” (i.e., invade small countries) appropriations, the “Bush administration is hammering out its largest-ever appeal for more Iraq war funds—a record $100 billion, at least, and that figure reflects cuts from wish lists originally circulating around the Pentagon,” a “wish list” no different than one submitted by a heroin addict, forever increasing his dosage and thus requiring more and more money, to the ultimate ruination of family and friends.
The neocon-haunted Pentagon is bankrupting America. In 2006, the Pentagon spent around $120 billion killing Iraqis and wrecking their country, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Next year, they estimate they will need $200 billion to sustain the same level of terrorism.
Not a problem for Democrats.
“Despite widespread discontent over the Iraq war and President Bush’s handling of it, Democrats are expected to grant the vast majority of the request. Yet evidence is accumulating that the figure the White House sends to Capitol Hill will not be limited to dollars critically needed for troops and war-fighting,” the Associated Press continues. “There is much sentiment among Democrats to protect troops and fear about being portrayed as unsympathetic to men and women in uniform. These factors probably would overwhelm any efforts by anti-war Democrats to use the debate over the Iraq money to take on Bush’s conduct of the war.”
In short, don’t expect any significant changes while Democrats are in the saddle. In fact, Democrats represent nothing more than a few minor changes in the management team.
“Democrats want to win the war, which is why we want to change the strategy,” Chuckie Schumer declared after fusty neocon apologist Elizabeth Dole attacked Democrats as soft on spending outrageous amounts of taxpayer money on killing Iraqis and wrecking their country. “He said if Democrats gain the majority in the Senate, they would push for new policies including withdrawing troops for deployment elsewhere and adding forces for counterterrorism such as pursuing Osama bin Laden,” the Associated Press reported two days before the midterm elections.
Of course, as we know, and as the Iraq Study Group of neolib and neocon insiders recommended, the U.S. military will be in Iraq at least until 2008. Call it Iraqization, as the “US role would change from leading the fight against insurgents and terrorism to supporting Iraqi government forces in the conflict,” according to the Washington Post.
Obviously, the neocons and their complaisant, even eager, Democrat collaborators are looking to make to make the duration of the “war” twice as long as World War 2.
Naturally, come 2008, there will be yet another excuse issued by a “study group” of neolibs and former Iran-Contra criminals to keep our “men and women in uniform” on the ground in Iraq, that is if they are not killed off in large numbers after the neocons attack Iran and our soldiers are hemmed in by incensed Iranians.
In the meantime, Democrats have to keep up appearances.
“It won’t just be a rubber stamp on what they give us,” Kirsten Brost, spokeswoman for the incoming chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. David Obey, told the Associated Press.
Prior to the election, neocons and Israel Firsters worried mightily Obey, as chair of the Appropriations Committee, would cut the budgets of both the Pentagon and Israel. “Military aid is key to Israel’s ability to defend itself,” the Jewish Press reported in October. “Will Obey cut aid to Israel, as he has already voiced a desire to do (over the settlements issue)? Will he try to cut funding for military programs that create high-tech weapons? These are the very defense items we supply Israel with and that give the Jewish state a qualitative edge over foes that vastly outnumber it.” Such foes include malnutritioned and impoverished Palestinians, cut off from the outside world in their open-air gulag, the largest in the world.
It is said Obey is a “supporter of the policies of the more dovish Labor Party in Israel,” although there are thousands and thousands of Palestinians that would dispute this alleged difference.
Dave knows AIPAC can make or break congressional career choices, even though Obey has been in Congress since Moses brought down the stone tablets. Naturally, both the Pentagon and Israel do not face liquid diets, imposed by Dave Obey or any other Democrat.
In fact, when it comes to the Pentagon, Obey may suffer from the same malady as his Republican predecessor. Like a spendaholic, shop-til-you-drop junkie at the mall, “Congress doesn’t seem to know how much it appropriated” for the “war,” according to Winslow T. Wheeler, the director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information in Washington. “DOD’s supplemental budget requests and the monthly obligation reports issued by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service often do not provide enough detail to determine how … funds for operations in Iraq and the war on terrorism have been obligated,” as there are “deficiencies in DOD’s financial management systems and business processes, the use of estimates instead of actual cost data, and the lack of adequate supporting documentation.”