87 billion plan now moot, Clark says

[robbedvoter]

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/story_National.php?storyid=44658

$87 billion Bush plan now moot, Clark says

BY PAUL BARTON

Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003

WASHINGTON — Presidential candidate Wesley Clark, criticized for not taking a stand on the
issue earlier in the week, Thursday called on Congress to "send back to the drawing board"
President Bush’s request for an additional $87 billion in Iraq-related spending.

Clark, the retired Army general from Little Rock, issued the comment after the United Nations
Security Council adopted a resolution calling on member nations to send troops and money to
help in occupying and rebuilding Iraq. "Now that the administration is finally doing what it should
have done all along and is making some headway at the U. N., there are new opportunities that
the administration must seize to share the cost and the responsibility of Iraq more broadly,"
Clark said in a statement released by his campaign.

Clark also said Bush "should not be playing politics with the safety of our troops" and should
divorce the issue of additional aid for Iraq from the need for additional funding for U.S. troops
there. The two issues are tied together in the $87 billion request, which Congress began to
seriously debate this week. More

[IkeWarnedUs]

1. The troops don't even need the money

MoveOn.org sent this out yesterday in an afternoon edition of their e-mail alerts, the Daily MisLead.

A report released October 15, 2003 by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) says the defense department budget has sufficient money to fund the troops in Iraq through May 2004!

From the Daily Mislead:

<snip>

The (Congressional Research Service) CRS study released yesterday suggests that the recently-passed $368.2 billion 2004 Defense funding bill plus the emergency funding Congress passed at the start of the war provides the Army alone with $37 billion in funding for personnel and operations and maintenance, enough to fund operations through early May.2

President Bush requested the money in September, saying, "We have conducted a thorough assessment of our military and reconstruction needs in Iraq."3 But even prior to the CRS survey's conclusions, Republican aides said that the administration inflated its budget request in part to avoid having to ask for additional funds the following year -- during the election season.4

more: http://www.misleader.com/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df10162003.html

Here is a link a pdf of the CRS report. Note it is provided by Jan Schakowsky's House site:

http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/04-Supp-availability_of_Army_funds-memo-15Oct03.pdf

[FrenchieCat]

2. the silly thing is, they don't need the $87 Bil until the spring....

But of course, Bushco & Rove etal. have done their bid to get the bad news over with...before Spring (seasonal timing is everything for them). Spring is when the real campaign starts....and they sure wouldn't need that then (note the big drop in Bushco's numbers). Funny how it was all so rushed (as usual)....as though the troups would just fall down starving if this bill didn't get addressed right away. Although some might want to be blinded, this is where the underhanded and subliminal theme "are you a realpatriot?" continues to manipulate the entire timber of our public debates. If he votes yes, he supports the troups....If he votes no, he's good with the anti-war faction in America. None of the candidates actually reframed the question and the issue as to why now??? or any other reframing of the issue whatsoever...they just took the bait (no surprisingly).

That is the difference in quality.....for those who would dare see it.

Clark had it right, as usual.....this needed more details and more debate....and waiting for the UN vote, and the donor conference to be held prior to determining how much money we really needed to give up was not put up by any candidate as a response.....except for Clark.

But again, politicians (which Clark is not) and the media takes their marching orders from the WH PR office.

This only reinforces my view that Clark is not a hasty man who makes pronouncements to pacify those who have got their fingers on the "go" button.

Funny how easy one can be manipulated to see it all in Black & white if only presented with those options.

That is why nuance is a virtue....and critics, naysayers and the likes that feel that Clark should jump everytime someone says boo are in for some clear disappointment.

A word to the wise, don't underestimate the General and his election war plan.

[wabeewoman]

6. This has been their MO on everything.....

hurry hurry, the sky is falling. Vote for the Iraq invasion(no time for discussion), vote for the patriot act(no time to read it), vote for arnold (no time to explain his positions), vote for 87 billion(DO IT NOW!). Its all part of their plan: make it urgent and get it passed before anyone can ask uncomfortable questions. When will the democrats start a quick response team to dig up the facts and get them out quickly??

[teryang]

3. Would you give 87 billion to someone with a D

...in accounting? That's the grade the Comptroller General of the United States gave the Pentagon.

[shance]

4. Progress with the UN?

What progress have we made with the UN?

[veganwitch]

5. thats what i was thinking

it's not like we will be getting much money/warm bodies from this lastest resolution.

and as long as bush isnt willing to share his toy with others, they arent going to.

[Wickerman]

7. use their words against them

We've made progress, don't need tha money, right?
Of course, its moot. The Senate Dems have no spine.

[leesa]

8. Bush doesn't give a shit about the safety of 'our troops'. Isn't

that quite obvious? Just more expendable servants to him.