Rumsfeld Leaves 60 Percent of Funds For Iraqi Forces Unspent, Blames Congress for Cuts
Rumsfeld Leaves 60 Percent of Funds For Iraqi Forces Unspent, Blames Congress for Cuts
At yesterday’s press briefing, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld criticized Congress for not adequately funding Iraqi security forces:
In addition, cuts and delays in providing funds for the Iraqi security forces will delay what has been truly significant progress in turning over greater responsibility and territory to Iraq’s army and police. A slowdown in training and equipping the Iraqi security forces will have unacceptable harmful effects of postponing the day when our men and women in uniform can return home with the honor and appreciation they deserve.
Rumsfeld is right to say we need to effectively train Iraqi security forces; the quicker we do so, the quicker our troops can come home. But he forgets that under his watch, the Pentagon has not spent the the money Congress already appropriated for this purpose. From an AP report last month:
The U.S. military has spent just 40 percent of the $7 billion appropriated in 2005 for the training of Iraqi and Afghanistan security forces, a top Pentagon priority that is lynchpin for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Rumsfeld should stop blaming Congress and concentrate on effectively managing the taxpayer funding he’s been given.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
What a sicko. He’s like a spoiled kid trying to suck money out of his parents, but in this case his parents are the American people.
May 10th, 2006 at 10:11 amI never said that!
May 10th, 2006 at 10:12 amRumsfeld is a far worse liar than even the King of Liars Dubya Dunce Decider > lol.
May 10th, 2006 at 10:23 amthis guy is truly a world class downward buckpasser.
May 10th, 2006 at 10:24 amOT, kinda:
Rumor on Stephanie Miller is that Gen’l Hayden may already be “out.”
May 10th, 2006 at 10:34 amHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Rummy probably spent that money on something else … wonder what?
May 10th, 2006 at 10:41 amRummy, the #3 lieing scumbag, or is it #4. No matter, the money’s probably already disappeared either is stocking the Crawford fish pond or buying new flowers for the yard to help impress the saudi prince when he returns to hold hands with evil #2….It just keep’s getting better every day.
I keep wondering what little thing will it be that turns the rest of the sleeping public against this terrible regime. Ya just never know. I thought the Iraq war and all our losses, then Katrina, next Dubi ports, selling off all our public lands and parks, the gas prices, marching of illegal immigrants. All the scandles haven’t mattered. What will it be?, the crash of the dollar, another war, the draft, another hurricane…….Hummmmm….. I’m off to hug the trees while I still can………Blessings
May 10th, 2006 at 10:46 amHe’s becoming so ineffective and such a lightning rod for criticism, it’s only a matter of time before he “resigns.”
May 10th, 2006 at 11:02 amSharon – it will be the hookers. Nothing gets the attention of your average non-news watching American more than a sex scandal.
May 10th, 2006 at 11:06 amHe is playing politics with our men and women in harm’s way. How dare repubs try to play the I care for troops card. They obviously don’t. Over and over they prove that their greed always trumps their patriotism. This is just a game to these selfish warmongers; just a big wargame.
Show us the money, Rummy.
May 10th, 2006 at 11:07 amOnce again, a major player in the party of personal responsibility takes no responsibility for his/her actions. Their gut reaction is to blame someone else and count on some people believing it. I wish some reporter would question him on this at the next press conference and see if he denies ever saying this.
May 10th, 2006 at 11:11 amWhat’s he saving the f*cking money for? To finance his quick get away? He gives new meaning to the word “doddering.”
May 10th, 2006 at 11:11 amAnyone remember a week or two ago when Rummy said, “I’m not in the intelligence business.”
From the NYT…
The Pentagon has always been a behemoth in the intelligence world, largely because it controlled agencies with multibillion-dollar budgets like the National Security Agency and National Reconnaissance Office that are responsible for eavesdropping and satellites. What is different now is that the Pentagon is pushing deeper into human intelligence.
The C.I.A. has always been a much smaller organization than the Pentagon that served both the military and senior policy makers in Washington, including the president. But after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Pentagon felt it had to step in to fulfill many of its own additional intelligence needs that the C.I.A. could not.
This activity has stirred criticism from some lawmakers who express concern that the Pentagon is creating a parallel intelligence-gathering network independent from the C.I.A. or other American authorities, and one that encroaches on the C.I.A.’s realm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/washington/10cambone.html?ex=1304913600&en=02d98c44335086a8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
May 10th, 2006 at 11:17 amWhy spend it on Iraqi security forces when you have no intention of ever leaving and a built-in excuse.
May 10th, 2006 at 11:17 amPerhaps if he were spending the allocated funds, Iraq would be in better shape today — but wait ! – then we would lessen the need for our being there, for permanent bases being built there, for keeping the status quo.
May 10th, 2006 at 11:19 amI thought this was Colin Powel’s fault? Or was it the Generals who didn;t ask for enough troops?
May 10th, 2006 at 11:22 amThis points to a bigger problem. It has long been argued that we won’t be able to pull troops out of Iraq until such time as the Iraqi forces have been adequately trained. If we aren’t doing that job…and if we aren’t using the funds it is hard to imagine the job is being done…we will have to keep our troops in harms way for a longer period of time.
Sadly, this was a campaign issue in the 2004 presidential election. Senator Kerry repeatedly stated we need to begin training Iraqi troops if we were going to be able to withdraw American forces. I find myself completely baffled by both the incompetence and the arrogance with which this administration continues to handle this failing effort in Iraq.
read more observations here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
May 10th, 2006 at 11:42 am[...] From Think Progress: Rumsfeld criticised Congress yesterday for not funding the training of Iraqi security forces. But he hasn’t even spent 60% of the money he received in 2005 for training Iraqi security forces. [...]
May 10th, 2006 at 12:00 pmAs Syn pointed out in #15 not getting the Iraq police and military up to speed, has two effects.
1.) Because US troops won’t leave until Iraqi troops are able to take over, they have an excuse to keep US troops in Iraq. Remember Bush has already said it will be up to other presidents to remove troops from Iraq. So at least 2 more years of US presence in Iraq.
2.) with a conflict in Iraq, it helps to keep oil prices high. Not so good for the GOP, but very good for the oil companies, that Bush and his cabinet are so close too. I wonder how Cheney’s stock options in Haliburton are doing?
May 10th, 2006 at 12:02 pmI think Rummy blew the whole wad on hookers.
May 10th, 2006 at 12:29 pmLet’s give him some more money; he looks like
he needs to get laid again…or is he just permanently
constipated?
Somewhat related: For a discussion of accountability in reconstruction funds, check The Carpetbagger Report:
“A stunning tolerance for corruption in Iraqi reconstruction aid”
May 10th, 2006 at 12:39 pmhttp://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7373.html
Hey, Rummy did too pay the Iraqis.
You want Proof? Huh Huh
Yeh I’ll Give you Proof!!
Yew DAMM ‘LIBRULS’!!
US lost track of some nine billion dollars meant for Iraq’s …
WASHINGTON (AFP) – The former US-led Coalition Provisional Authority headed by American Paul Bremer lost track of nearly nine billion dollars it transferred …
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1332676/posts
~~~~
“Paul Bremer was just following instructions” by Michael Hirsh
… chattering classes that Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq was … Bremer’s book will do lasting damage to Rummy’s already crumbling …
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0603.hirsh.html
Yeh See ther yew stoopid Libruls!!
HAH I told you They SPent 8 billion in IRAQ!!
but we don’t know where it went…
May 10th, 2006 at 12:50 pmNot to worry…
…Bushiva and L’il Dick are doing their due diligence in making sure that every penny…
…finds its way into the pockets of their cronies…
“A report released last summer found that more than $1 billion in funds paid to Vice President Cheney’s former firm Halliburton for work in Iraq were found by auditors to be “questioned,†“unreasonable in amount,†“inflated,†or “excessive,†while another $422 million were “unsupported†by Halliburton’s documentation.â€
-American Progress Report-
May 10th, 2006 at 12:55 pmFor the few progolodytes here with an open mind there is Rumsfeldian humor, along with some encouraging facts, at http://op-for.com/2006/05/al_qaeda_is_losing.html, in an article entitled “Al Qaeda is Losing.”
The article is based on intercepts of some very pessimistic jihadist emails, which decry their own lack of organization, lack of success in battle, and failure to achieve widespread popular and media support (sound familiar?). My favorite graph is the one dripping with sarcasm:
Well, there obviously is gross mismanagement of the Iraq strategy here, and I think the best way to handle the situation is for all the leaders to admit there mistakes, and accept Zarqawi’s resignation. Al Qaeda based their entire strategy on lies and “cherry picking†of intelligence to present the picture that AQ forces were winning and accomplishing noble goals in Iraq. Now they seem to be paying the price of a flawed foreign policy, with hundreds (?) of their fighters dying every month (if you believe the inaccurate press reports coming out of the region).
Read it and weep, progs. America is winning the war on terror.
May 10th, 2006 at 12:55 pmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5801.htm
See YEW DAMM LIBRULS
May 10th, 2006 at 1:02 pmLOOK, there it is Halliburton has some of it, SEE?
Right THERE It is, In DICKS FRIENDS POCKETS!
SO Nanna Nanna Boo Boo.
Tole yew n tole yew damm libruls.
FREE MARKETS dont you know EEckononmomics?
Stupid Poor Libruls, YOur Sposed to GIT rich off DEATH.
Sheesh o Pete. Blood Is money!
~~
LOL at BSR, Emails?
HAHAH, DO you know that I can send a SPOOFED email from right here, on my puter, thru telnet, thru an open email server and make it come from anywhere I want?
Santaclaus@northpole Or IRS@YOUOWEUS.com
Or DUHBYA@LieHouse.com??
You are grasping at Air BSR.
And well, you should get to know more about SMTP protocols.
Shheeesh Stupid ‘Libruls’
Oooo a Big word progolodytes…
May 10th, 2006 at 1:04 pmShouls I be Impressed now
or never?
HERE WE GO WITH MORE THINKLIES FROM THINKPROGRESS
It’s every day now that you’re misleading your public here on this far left wing lie site. You always claim Republicans are unethical or lying, yet you do it here with twisting words, omitting the full truth or just straight lying.
In this case you fail to mention that the 60% is already allocated. Just because it hasn’t been spent at this very moment, that doesn’t mean it’s unallocated. You get funds not just to spend in the next week. You get funds and you allocated and budget them.
It’s like that in business too. Go back to school
May 10th, 2006 at 1:08 pmRead it and weep, progs. America is winning the war on terror.
Comment by Blue State Red — May 10, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
I am heartened that despite the flawed foreign policy of the Bush admin, and the gross incompotence of Rumsfeld, and the other political hacks in the white house, that the US military can still succeed. I never doubted that the US could win “the war on terror”. I have always doubted that the debacle in Iraq was necessary to defeat the religious fundementalsists. The US could have come to a speedier conclusion, if we had focused on Osama Bin Laden, focused on cutting funding for Al Qaidi, and focused on alternative sources of fuel. Instead of going after a toothless dictator for ever changing reasons. We could have avoided trillions in debt, and thousands of dead and wounded.
It would help also we if we defeated the fundementalists, like you BSR, at home. I for one have no desire to live in the a christian theocracy. From the tone of you pasts posts, including the one where you claim the supreme court made the seperation of church and state from a whole cloth. I suspect that you would like to see Jerry Falwell as supreme religious leader, or some other equally bizarre personage. I find it amusing that fundamentalist christians, and fundamentalist muslims have so much in common. hatred of gays, hatred of women, hatred of anything they don’t like. add into it a desire to push their standards on everyone and you they look the same.
May 10th, 2006 at 1:11 pmIf the funds are allocated mxxlent, then why is rummy blaming congress for the cuts? Perhaps you should read a little closer. Or spend more time away from your precious blog. there is a whole wide world outside those windows.
May 10th, 2006 at 1:14 pmThe trolls have received their talking points. *sigh*
May 10th, 2006 at 1:23 pmIn this case you fail to mention that the 60% is already allocated. Just because it hasn’t been spent at this very moment, that doesn’t mean it’s unallocated. You get funds not just to spend in the next week. You get funds and you allocated and budget them.
Comment by MXXLENT — May 10, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
Dear Dickwad – I am no accountant but it seems to me that if the money is allocated for some project that will have to be undertaken in the future – then that means it is available to be spent on some other project that has to be undertaken today – like say maybe the training of Iraqi forces?
Besides – there are emergency appropriations every year for Iraq – If you are not going to spend the emergency money the year that you get it – then it’s not really all that big of an emergency is it.
May 10th, 2006 at 1:27 pmWhen will someone just step up and take action and not blame the other guy?
May 10th, 2006 at 1:50 pmBut you go to war with the money you have, not the money you wish you had…. What? We had the money? Umm, let me get back to you….
May 10th, 2006 at 1:58 pmI am heartened that despite the flawed foreign policy of the Bush admin, and the gross incompotence of Rumsfeld, and the other political hacks in the white house, that the US military can still succeed. I never doubted that the US could win “the war on terrorâ€.
Yeah, right. I’ve noticed how often you devote your posts to praising the U.S. military and urging the troops on to victory. You can’t even call the war by it’s true name without using cynical quotation marks. Stop with the lip service already. You don’t fool anyone.
May 10th, 2006 at 2:15 pmMaybe Rummy can find and then use the 2.3 trillion dollars that he reported loosing on Sep. 10th 2001… hell with that kinda money he could just pay the Iraqis to stop fighting.
May 10th, 2006 at 2:23 pmYou don’t fool anyone.
Comment by Blue State Red — May 10, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
LOL neither do you. On the other hand I am not trying to fool anyone. And in case you didn’t hear, it is now the “war on violent extremism” or did Bush drop that and go back to the war on terror?
If you had any retention beyond 5 minutes ago, you would remember several posts, were I refer to friends who are in Iraq, or have fought in Iraq, I have nothing but respect for the military. They are following the orders of the civilian command, the way our founding fathers intended. I wish no harm on them, and pray that they will return home safe. My desire would be for Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and all the others to go into harms way for their country. they didn’t during vietnam, so why would they go now? What about you BSR? you planning on signing up? they raised the minimum age. Or how about your kids if you have any? Are you going to encourage them to sign up if the war in Iraq is still going?
May 10th, 2006 at 2:28 pmI’m not really sure GW,
he did pull that from a thread a while back. I think he is one beer short of a sixpack. Just my humble opinion though. I mostly base my statement on his complete incoherence and lack of relevance to any thread he posts on.
if he wants to stalk me that is up to him, but I am not an easy target.
May 10th, 2006 at 2:45 pmIt would help also we if we defeated the fundementalists, like you BSR, at home. I for one have no desire to live in the a christian theocracy.
No one has asked you to live in the a christian theocracy, chum – least of all me. All I ask is that you study the history of the so-called “wall of separation” between church and state. You will find that it does not exist anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.
The “wall of separation” phrase was used by President Jefferson, in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, of Danbury, CT. Nowhere in that letter did he use it as anything other than an expression of his personal opinion, and nowhere did he suggest a belief that the First Amendment required absolute separation of church and state. Otherwise we should expect to find historic evidence that Jefferson took action to abolish the state establishment laws that then were in existence.
There is no such evidence, for the simple reason that Jefferson correctly understood the First Amendment to prohibit Congressional laws either establishing a particular federal releigion or prohibiting the free exercise of any or all religions. As a staunch anti-federalist, he would never have suggested that any branch of the federal government had the power to strike down state establishment laws. That is a far cry from today’s “wall of separation” jurisprudence, in which federal courts routinely prohibit all forms of school prayer – even moments of silence – and order the removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouse walls.
After 1802 the “wall of separation” phrase lay dormant until 1879, when it was used by the Supreme Court, in dicta, in U.S. v. Reynolds, a case upholding anti-polygamy laws. It did not become the basis for church-state jurisprudence until 1947, when Justice Black unilaterally wrote it into the First Amendment for the first time in the Everson case.
The Everson case, incidentally, was decided on a 5-to-4 vote, with Justices Burton, Frankfurter, Jackson and Rutledge in the dissent. That’s not exactly strong evidence that the “wall of separation” existed prior to 1947. It is more accurate to say that Justice Black used Jefferson’s words – in a way Jefferson himself never used them – to amend the First Amendment by judicial fiat.
In other words, Justice Black made up the “wall of separation” out of whole cloth, to achieve a particular result. That’s nice work if you can get it, but it sure ain’t the way our constitutional system was intended to work.
May 10th, 2006 at 2:52 pmif he wants to stalk me that is up to him, but I am not an easy target.
Comment by Krazny — May 10, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
I think Judd’s been trying to encourage her (oddly, Santo is a her) to find a more appropriate blog. I’ve suggested myspace.com, but it just gets me stalked by her admirer GURU who also calls himself Denny, E. Coli and a few other assorted monikers. It’s like whack-a-trolls on acid most days.
May 10th, 2006 at 2:55 pmWhat about you BSR? you planning on signing up?
[yawn] Nope. And if your point is that only those in the military have the right to express their opinions, then you’re more of a fascist than I thought. On the other hand, that viewpoint should make you a BIG supporter of Gen. Hayden. I know I’d feel a LOT more secure if we had a few more of the right kind of generals running the show. I’m glad we can agree on that.
BTW, you’re right about my retention. Five minutes is about the longest anything you posted ever stuck in my memory. Of course, maybe that’s due less to the strength of my memory, and more to the stupidity of your posts.
May 10th, 2006 at 3:02 pmI disagree BSR and here is why.
The simple act of guaranteeing religious freedom, and designating no religion as the “state religion†indicates a separation. They had seen the effects of a state mandated religion, and governments being cozy, and did not like the results. You seem to want to gloss over, that many of the early settlers to America were escaping religious persecution at home.
As for federal courts overruling local states on such laws, you are moving the argument into a phase discussing state rights vs. federal rights. Personally I don’t see a public school funded by public tax dollars as a place where religion should be taught. And I don’t expect churches to teach the collected works of Shakespeare. That would be part of not placing one religion above another. As for the Christian theocracy, the sites that you quote so fervently about the separation of church and state often see their goal as just such an establishment in the US. Check out the groups that have supported the likes of Bill Frist, and John Boehner. Does it not bother you that evangelical leaders of every stripe have a disportionaly large say in our government?
as for post 44, no I don’t think only those in the military should have a say. I was asking you, a big supporter of this war if you planned on fighting? or plan on having your children fight. I guess I should not expect much from a chickenhawk.
May 10th, 2006 at 3:13 pmI think I can safely say America has lost the war on terror, and support of 95% of the worlds population, Goodnight
May 10th, 2006 at 3:15 pmWhen one argues with a fool there are two… so I will avoid arguing with you RSB… instead I will make and ad homonym attack.
RSB you are a putz, a fool, a real boneheaded idiot… I wish I could take you, all your fundamentalist friends, and all your fundamentalist enemies – place you all in Death Valley and have you all throw sand at each other until you were all on your death beds from dehydration… and right before each of you died I would want each of you to have the realization that there is no God… at this point I would like take a picture of your faces and then quickly show them to you before you died… man that would be great… fun times man… fun times!!!
May 10th, 2006 at 3:22 pmHenry Kissinger once said, “Of all the despots I’ve had to deal with, none was more ruthless than Donald Rumsfeld.”
“The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.” — Winston Churchill
We must, must get rid of the Rumsfeld/Cheny cabal, et al – if we are to survive as a TRUE DEMOCRACY of THE PEOPLE – not the Corporation and all that entails.
May 10th, 2006 at 3:48 pm[...] Think Progress [...]
May 10th, 2006 at 5:22 pmI was asking you, a big supporter of this war if you planned on fighting? or plan on having your children fight.
There’s no point to your question, except to underscore your ridiculous belief that no one is permitted to support the war unless they personally go and fight, or ulnless they send their children to fight. In other words, “serve the state or shut your face” – that sure sounds like a fascist concept to me. Either that, or maybe you’re in favor of a universal draft, with no minimum or maximum ages?
Whatever the case, you are a moron for asking the question, but I answered it anyway. I’m too old, and my kids are too young, except for my son the firefighter -who already has done more public service in his short life than most people. You got a problem with that? Too bad. It has nothing to do with the price of peas.
I support the troops, their mission AND their commander in chief. You, on the other hand, oppose them all. God and history will judge us both. I’m happy to have it that way.
May 10th, 2006 at 5:47 pmBSr
the usual chickenhawk cowardice. always so willing to send others to die. The point to my question, is you support sending troops into harms way for the dear decider, when you yourself are not in the military, or have any children in the military. you are a coward and chicken hearted fool. They raised the recruiting limit to 41 I hear, you may not be too old. As for you son good for him to serve as a firefighter, I hear they could use his skills in Iraq. As for the serve your state or shut your face comment, you are the one who believes in the Iraq war not me. Can’t you show your belief in the mission by signing up, or convinceing you son to sign up?
Coward, always so willing to send others to die just like the fools and cowards in the white house. How many of them served in the military? How many of them fought in vietnam? where were you during vietnam? if you told old to serve now were you too old to server then?
you are a crazy batshit insane prick. I wish I could see the look on your face when the republicans lose congress, the senate, and the white house.
May 10th, 2006 at 5:56 pmyou are a crazy batshit insane prick. I wish I could see the look on your face when the republicans lose congress, the senate, and the white house.
How certain are you that you will live that long?
May 10th, 2006 at 7:37 pmPlease people:
you need to calm down and take a ste back.
Blue State Red has eveyright to support the troops, mission, war and president without fighting the war itself. Thats hes right.
We know that the US amy is suffering manpower shortages. I beilive it is due to incompetence, mismanagment and criminal negligence. Blue State Red belives it isnt. that is fine with me. But the facts will speak for themselves.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:09 pm“The U.S. military has spent just 40 percent of the $7 billion appropriated in 2005 for the training of Iraqi and Afghanistan security forces,….”
If Rumsfeld is asking for more money from Congress, then the $7 billion must have been spent.
Which raises the interesting question. If the Pentagon auditors are reporting that only 40 percent of the $7 billion went toward training, as Congress intended, then where did the other 60 percent (or $4.2 billion) of taxpayer monies go?
I mean, we are dealing, unfortunately for our democracy, with a bunch of no-good, shifty Republicans in the Bush administration who have already proven that “shift” funds from whatever has been congressionally mandated to whatever the hell scheme they are working on in secret.
Remember how the “shifty” Bush administration illegally “shifted” funds congressiionally mandated for Afghanistan, and the capture of Osama bin Laden, to their illegal buildup for war with Iraq?
So, maybe we are getting another “two-fer” this time. But instead of taxpayer money illegally being shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq War preparations by the “shifty” Bush administration, they are “shifting” taxpayer money meant for Bush’s ongoing and disastrous war in Iraq to their buildup in preparation for starting a war with Iran?
At least, that’s my guess.
The Bush administration is not just incompetent and dangerous, I am beginning to believe that they are evil. And the Republicans in Congress are no better. A horrific Satanic darkness has descended on our democracy, with all the Republicans and their campaign donors caught up in a vampire-like feeding frenzy. And the children of our nation are not even spared from their ravenous feeding frenzy. Evil, pure evil. And the Bush administration is the epicenter of the evil besetting our land.
May 10th, 2006 at 9:07 pmI think it is time we all realize that the Bush administration is being run by sick, sad, old men who have lived with the dream of overthrowing our democracy for far to long.
It is evident that Don Rumsfeld is incomptant and needs to go. When they can not seem to keep up with the lies they tell, and when they have told them, it is time for retirement. Let Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney go to there summer homes (which are side by side) and sit in their rocking chairs. They can look back on the good ole days and how much money they bilked out of the stupid huddled masses.
40% of the money for Iraq & Afganistan forces training is all they will receive out of the 7 billion. 60% is just not accounted for yet.
May 11th, 2006 at 12:04 amObviously the foundation/slush fund for Iran:
May 11th, 2006 at 3:40 amOperation Obtain Petroleum Strategy
(OOPS)
Given Rumsfeld’s faulty memory skills, currently on display, perhaps he just “forgot” about the money he already has, for the ‘training and equipping’ of those multitudes of freshly trained ‘troops’? He should be reminded of it, then told to spend what he has, before whining for more. By the way, how is that body armor coming along? Do all of the troops have what they need yet? Since they aren’t allowed to wear any that their families sent them. Why is that, anyway? I can’t remember the reason. Did anyone tell him that he is indeed in the intelligence business, yet? What a dork.
May 11th, 2006 at 5:18 amThe multitude of ‘bottomless money pits’ that are covered by the massive ‘umbrella’ of the DOD and the Pentagon, just keep on sucking in the TRILLIONS, while not being subjected to any standard auditing procedures, because of ’security issues’, and are given a free pass to ‘lose’ any amount, without fear of accountability. Just the way they like it. That is why worthless programs like “star wars” go on and on and on, sucking up far to many billions of dollars, and always failing. But the money just keeps on rolling in. And Rumsfeld is in charge of it ALL. Oh, joy.
May 11th, 2006 at 6:03 amTo #33 MXXLENT-
For the record, the Federal government operates on an October 1-September 30 fiscal year. We’re almost 60% of the way through this fiscal year but have spent only 40% on supposedly critical Iraqi training.
Rumsfeld has consistantly tried to run this war on “the cheap”, at home as well as abroad. Since he’s short-changed our own troops when it comes to equipment overseas, closing PX’s at home and cutting access to VA hospitals, it doesn’t surprise me that he’d short-change the Iraqis as well.
Now, before you start heaping calumny upon me, and to be quite clear, I support the troops (because they are US) and the mission in Afghanistan. I do not think invading Iraq was wise, but since we have boots on the ground, those guys should have every single thing they need to mitigate that hell and be able to come home safe and whole. That means that KBR/Halliburton should be force to actually supply those things for which it is getting paid.
Let’s not even start on Iran, although I don’t trust their president any more than I trust ours.
Eric In CT
May 11th, 2006 at 10:43 amTo Blue State Red-
The only thing greater than your wanton ignorance is the pride with which you display it for all to see.
Eric In CT
May 11th, 2006 at 10:46 amLet’s see. 60 percent of 7 billion I believe that’s 4.2 billion…huh! Say wouldn’t that be nice if that money was spent on schools for our children, medical help for those without it or even a program to help the unemployeed in this country to get jobs. It’s just a thought.
May 11th, 2006 at 12:34 pmWell I cannot wait for this November so we can see these bastards impeached!
May 11th, 2006 at 7:17 pmBSR, you should drop the “R”. All your proud recitations do nothing but prove that the church-state separation has been upheld in ruling after ruling after ruling from our judiciary.
The ban on school prayer in 1963, as well as the victory of employers over workers’ rights to take off religious holidays in the 1980’s, and many others, confirm and affirm the basic principle of church-state separation, no matter how much you krazy kristians would love to see them merge. You are too obtuse even to realize that the wisest heads amongst your own kind—-i.e. religious leaders of every stripe—-heartily support church state separation, as it a) enforces their exemption from taxes and b) prevents the government from interfering with Church business.
May 12th, 2006 at 9:44 am