11.20.07
Bush Administration issues BS threat over war funding
Now, I’ve hardly been for cutting off funding for the war (actually, I’ve largely been against it for largely being ineffective and a political loser, overall, for democrats). However, that doesn’t excuse the Bush administration from making what amounts to BS threats for cutting funding for bases in the US.
The Army made public a document titled “Running out of OMA [Operations & Maintenance Army]: What the Army will Stop Doing”
This is what it says:
Assumption:
DoD will implement authorities of the Feed and Forage Act providing limited ability to continue some activities
What Stops:
- Army will warm [sic] base operations
- Child care centers, libraries, family and youth activities close [good excuse to screw social services I see]
- Post transportation, and custodial services stop.
- Environmental efforts stop [so this give a good excuse to screw the environment too]
- Training range operations cease [our boys will be unprepared!]
- Critical force protection, safety and health will continue at minimal operations using military labor – gate guards and fire protection.
- Civilian personnel will be furloughed.
- Up to 150,000 employees
- Furlough notices issued 30 to 60 days in advance (depends on local agreements).
- Family Advocacy Support Closes
- Terminate counselor services for returning Soldiers and their Families [one of the more vile threats, I thought]
- Respite care stops
- Media advertising will stop
- Unable to meet treaty obligations (NATO)
Impact:
- Retention may decline
- 5 to 6 brigades are returning from 15 month deployments to find curtailed services and support – a significant morale issue [like being in Iraq isn't demoralizing enough]
- Recruiting may decline
- Advertising stops and recruiting stations may close
- Delays initial entry training for those who have enlisted
- Depot Output Declines
- Orders decline, reset slows
- Operations to strategic readiness limited
- Civilian and contractor support for EUCOM, SOUTHCOM, and USFK stops. [So they cut down contractor support for Europe, South America, and Korea, but not Iraq]
- Army Command Operations reduced
- Civilian and contractor support for ARCENT, NORTHCOM, USARSO, and FORSCOM stops.
- Training Command operations stop.
- Recovery will be measured in years
Of course, what Bush and the Army doesn’t say is that Congress has already passed it’s 2008 Defense appropriations bill which should have already paid for all of this and, since those appropriation bills virtually always allow a certain amount of funds to be transferred as needed, the military could transfer funds to fund the war through Mid-February.
This ultimately is still a dicey situation for democrats, since historically, whenever something stops getting funded, people blame Congress, even if it’s largely due to presidential vetoes. However, if I were Congressional democrats, I’d basically go out and say “look, we already paid for this in the military appropriations bill. Bush and the Republicans shouldn’t make those working at domestic military bases and soldiers state-side suffer because they keep blocking our Iraq funding bills which are trying to end a war that no one but them supports.”
11.14.07
It’s Gaffe Time!
Well, both Obama and Clinton have had gaffes recently (being on stage with an anti-gay preacher for Obama, the drivers license flub for Clinton) and it appears Edwards decided to join the party:
John Edwards’ campaign against Hillary Clinton is definitely getting nasty. During an Iowa campaign stop, the New York Times reports that Edwards declined to answer whether he would support Hillary if she were the nominee. “I’m not willing to talk about that at this point,” Edwards said, then waiting for the next question.
Edwards came back and made it sound not quite as bad:
Today at a press availability John Edwards was asked by reporters about his refusal to say that he’d back Hillary for President if she wins the Democratic nomination. The Edwards camp has just emailed me his answer:
“I fully expect to support the Democratic nominee, and I fully expect to be the Democratic nominee.”
You’d normally expect something like this to come from a third-tier crazy candidate, not from a supposed 1st-tier one. Since it’s not an absolute statement, I’m wondering what possibly circumstances could come to pass for him to not support the dem nominee?
Ed Kilgore brings up a good point as well:
Any way you look at it, Edwards has guaranteed he’s going to get asked this question again until he specifically says he’ll support the nominee no matter who it is, much as Obama has already done–and perhaps until he gets into the habit of saying that much as he dislikes HRC, she’s far preferable to anyone the opposition can nominate.
I find it ironic how many of the same people who are defending Edward’s saying he “fully expects” to support the nominee are probably the same people who slam on Clinton anytime she makes any qualifications in any of her statements.
Yep, nothing will chance when Mukasey is confirmed
Or so the liberal bloggers told us. Oops:
The Justice Department has reopened a long-dormant inquiry into the government’s warrantless wiretapping program, a major policy shift only days into the tenure of new Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
The investigation by the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility was shut down after the previous attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, refused to grant security clearances to investigators.
“We recently received the necessary security clearances and are now able to proceed with our investigation,” H. Marshall Jarrett, counsel for the OPR, wrote to New York Rep. Maurice Hinchey. A copy of the letter, dated Tuesday, was obtained by The Associated Press.
I’m sure they’ll come up with some reason which explains how this proves that they were right about him.
Of course, it is early in his tenure, and a lot can still happen, but that’s hardly a first step with “DOOM” written all over it.
11.06.07
Pro-Defunders twist their own poll to make it look like people support defunding
Apparently democrats.com ran a poll to show that everyone is for defunding:
The single largest group – 40% – want Bush to bring U.S. troops home within 6 months using funds Congress has already given him for Iraq, which now totals $450 billion.
And then uses that poll to bash Reid over refusing to bring a vote on funding up on the floor of the Senate.
However, there is a problem with this.
Requiring Bush to bring troops home in 6 months with existing funding is an actual action by Congress – i.e., passing a bill telling him to do so. This is assuming that there is existing funding to do this in the first place.
Also, this isn’t truly “defunding” since, theoretically, troops would be home before funding expired. It’s not necessarily surprising that people would support this action since it both brings troops back and clearly doesn’t leave them without funding.
Which is why saying that this poll shows that people support defunding is a misrepresentation of the poll. It doesn’t support defunding the war, it supports telling Bush to get out, which is pretty much nothing new. The only new thing about this poll is asking people whether pulling troops out with already existing funding (assuming it is sufficient) is acceptable, and something like 55% of those who want troops to be out within a year thought so.
Heck, if one could assure that there was sufficient funding and that this pullout would actually occur, I would be for it, and I think defunding would result in a Republican president and congress in 2008 (to stress how much I’m against it).
But as I said, as much as they might try to pretend otherwise, this poll doesn’t ask about defunding, it asks what to do with the funding already allocated, which is an entirely different question. If they wanted to ask people whether they supported Congress refusing to pass for funding for the war, period, they would have asked it. But they didn’t, probably because they knew it would be a loser, especially when people are given other choices.
And given the situation of 50 votes in favor of the war and President Bush’s veto, we’re in a situation where there are two ultimate choices: either Congress passes the funding as Bush wants it, or refuses to pass any more funding at all, but also without any demands on Bush either. If one really wanted to get a look to see what Americans wanted, that is the type of poll question they would ask.
Instead, Democrats.com tried to ask a question which sounded like they were asking about defunding, and which they are trying to claim asked about defunding, but doesn’t really ask about defunding.
On a side note, the second article comes up with this brilliant plan to force Bush’s hand:
Reid could get the result he wants by using his power as Majority Leader to block all funding for Iraq. Then when Bush gets concerned, Reid can persuade Bush to agree to the compromise he describes above.
Of course Bush could refuse to compromise, in which case Bush would have to steal money from other accounts to keep the occupation going on his terms. And then Democrats would have one more reason to impeach him – and they would have the support of 73% of America.
So Harry, if you want to negotiate with Bush, start by blocking all funds – and make Bush compromise to meet your terms.
There are some serious problems with this. First, Bush won’t get concerned because he knows that there are enough democrats in conservative districts who are pretty certain that they will lose their next election if they go with this gambit and will force a vote on funding.
Even if this isn’t the case, the article goes ahead and says one option Bush could do to keep funding the war, and of course brings out the old “then impeach him!” line – and on top of that states that 73% would support said impeachment because 73% in the poll wants out of Iraq in a year (which, of course, are two totally separate and unrelated questions).
And this, of course, completely ignores the fact that people see Congress as the source of funding, and thus if bad things occur to troops because they lack funding, they aren’t going to blame Bush, they’re going to blame Congress and the democrats.
However, defunders are so convinced of their rightness, that they reject the possibility that democrats might get blamed for such a thing as ludicrous, pointing to Bush’s approval ratings, which have nothing to do with whether they support troops getting funding or not.
Senator Schumer Makes Sense
And also thinks that “it’s better to lose than to win” is a dumb idea.
11.05.07
Balance vs. Checkboxes
Over the weekend, I’ve mostly come around to the belief that it’s better to confirm Mukasey than not to, and no, it has nothing to do with being afraid that Bush will call democrats names.
While Mukasey’s answers on waterboarding are indeed concerning, there is a logic – and some hope – behind them.
First off, Mukasey, at the bare minimum, believes that Congress has a role to be in the discussion, which is better than what Gonzales believed. He also appeared to indicate that it was Congress’ domain to make torture illegal and to define what constitutes torture, but not necessarily the nitty-gritty aspects of detainments of enemy combatants, and I don’t think that is necessarily unreasonable.
There has been a lot of hay over Mukasey refusing to flat out say waterboarding is illegal because then he may be obligated to prosecute people – even very high ranking people – for it. While liberals may not only find no problem with this, but actually wish this were the case, to expect a nominee to put himself in such a position is probably asking too much of them, and added to the above statements of Congressional authority, Mukasey’s position on the matter, while still troubling, isn’t a show stopper for me.
On the other major issue that the new AG must face – politicization in the Justice Department – Mukasey appeared to be pretty clear on his belief that politics should be left at the door in the DOJ, and that is definitely a welcome change if he is sincere about it.
This brings me to the meaning behind the title of this post: Balance vs. Checkboxes.
I’ve pounded on this point before, but this is a new way to address it. Many people on both political extremes – both left and right – often decide (or say they will decide) whether to support someone or not based on whether they check off the correct, required check marks. If you check them off, you’re in, if not, you’re out, and other issues don’t really matter. And it’s not a matter of checking off the most boxes – you have to check them all.
This seems to be the similar case. There were several checkboxes Mukasey had to check off: politicization in the DOJ bad – check. Torture is illegal – check. Waterboarding is torture – oops. But that “oops” isn’t him saying it isn’t torture, he’s basically saying that he can’t say whether it is or not.
Now, since Mukasey didn’t check off that box in absolutist terms, he is automatically eliminated, regardless of any other circumstances, according to the liberal base of the party. However, as a moderate, I tend to look at the situation in an overall balance.
This includes the fact that there was never any expectation that Mukasey would be perfect, given that Bush in nominating him, the fact that he’ll only be AG for about 15 or so, and if we don’t confirm him, the acting AG who will be in his place is even worse, and has zero chance of improving the department in any way.
I think opposing Mukasey, while it appeals to the “we must hold to our principles, no matter what” crowd, just leads into a “it’s better to lose than to win” mentality which is often, in the end, counterproductive.
For a good example, let’s say there is a bill in congress that would result in cutting down the entire forest. Someone comes up with a compromise that would only cut down half the forest. People who oppose cutting down any of the forest are needed to pass the compromise and to prevent the passage of the original bill. However, this group, who decide to stand by their “principles,” decide that they aren’t going to vote for the compromise, because it would be wrong to vote for cutting down half the forest. As a result, the bill which will cut down the entire forest is passed.
What has occurred here is, that in their attempt to feel personally gratified by standing by their “principles,” they actually made the situation worse than it had to be. They had a choice between A and B, and only A and B, but acted as if choice C was a legitimate choice, when it really wasn’t, and as a result, the worst out of the two original choices came to pass instead of the best out of the two, even if it wasn’t a great choice.
A real life example of this would be liberals who didn’t view Gore as good enough in 2000 and voted Green, thus swinging Florida and New Hampshire to Bush – either of which going the other way would have given Gore the presidency. They didn’t want the “not good enough” Gore, voted for a, in their eyes better, yet non-viable, choice C, and ended up getting the worse out of the two original choices elected. Their decision to “stand by their principles” caused more damage than cutting their losses.
In a sense, they are just like Bush in how he treats Iraq – there are very few to no “good choices” but a lot of really bad choices, yet his principles on the matter cause him to keep believing in a non-existence “Choice C,” and as a result, things in Iraq just keep heading towards one of those “really bad” endings.
This is why I have never liked, and will never like, a “it’s better to lose than to win” mindset. I might be called unprincipled, but I actually think it’s more principled to cut your losses, than to pretend that you’re doing a good thing which in turn allows something even worse to occur.
