Tell me again how Republicans are pro-military

[Ocotillo]

Army Times Editorial (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292259-1989240.php)

Editorial: Nothing but lip service



In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.
For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.

Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.

Then there’s military tax relief — or the lack thereof. As Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of tax cuts, they can’t seem to find time to make progress on minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training and parents deployed to combat zones, among others.

Incredibly, one of those tax provisions — easing residency rules for service members to qualify for capital-gains exemptions when selling a home — has been a homeless orphan in the corridors of power for more than five years now.

The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush’s proposed 2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for some ranks, he also proposed capping raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent.

The Senate version of the defense bill rejects that idea, and would provide minimum 3.7 percent raises for all and higher targeted hikes for some. But the House version of the bill goes along with Bush, making this an issue still to be hashed out in upcoming negotiations.

All of which brings us to the latest indignity — Bush’s $9.2 billion military construction request for 2004, which was set a full $1.5 billion below this year’s budget on the expectation that Congress, as has become tradition in recent years, would add funding as it drafted the construction appropriations bill.

But Bush’s tax cuts have left little elbow room in the 2004 federal budget that is taking shape, and the squeeze is on across the board.

The result: Not only has the House Appropriations military construction panel accepted Bush’s proposed $1.5 billion cut, it voted to reduce construction spending by an additional $41 million next year.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, took a stab at restoring $1 billion of the $1.5 billion cut in Bush’s construction budget. He proposed to cover that cost by trimming recent tax cuts for the roughly 200,000 Americans who earn more than $1 million a year. Instead of a tax break of $88,300, they would receive $83,500.

The Republican majority on the construction appropriations panel quickly shot Obey down. And so the outlook for making progress next year in tackling the huge backlog of work that needs to be done on crumbling military housing and other facilities is bleak at best.

Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt morale — especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease.

Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, who notes that the House passed a resolution in March pledging “unequivocal support” to service members and their families, puts it this way: “American military men and women don’t deserve to be saluted with our words and insulted by our actions.”

Translation: Money talks — and we all know what walks.

This is the sort of stuff Republicans have always done. They wave the flag, put a magnetic sticker on their car and call liberals anti-American and anti-military. The Republicans have one interest group period. That is corporate interests. Whatever it takes to make it easier to get a buck. Exploit the military, environment, labor, undocumented workers, whatever, just so it gets them and their peers more cache in their wallet. That is the way of the Republican party......always has, always will be.

[Ocotillo]

more Republican screwing the military (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05230/555783.stm)

Republican Leader Sam Smith of Jefferson County fears that funding benefits for guardsmen on federal duty might set a precedent for how the state treats other federal workers, said Steve Miskin, his spokesman.

"Should we have taken money away from education and paid for this? Should we have taken money away from the libraries to pay for this? Should we have taken money that went to whatever else we can think of? It's all an open question," Miskin said.

<snip>

What did the Democrat say about this?

Rendell said through a spokesman Tuesday that he hopes the Legislature will vote to subsidize the premiums when it reconvenes late next month.

Rendell is Ed Rendell the Democratic govenor of Pennsylvania.

[Ocotillo]

Nebraska Republicans (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050818/ts_nm/iraq_heartland_dc)

<snip>

But Hagel said even some who had previously backed Bush strongly on Iraq now felt deep unease.

"The feeling that I get back here, looking in the eyes of real people, where I knew where they were two years ago or a year ago -- they've changed," he said. "These aren't people who ebb and flow on issues. These are rock solid, conservative Republicans who love their country, support the troops and support the president."

Senator Hagel, look those rock, solid Republicans in the eye and tell them what they are. Your party has a word for it.........flip floppers

[Ocotillo]

What does leading Republican Rush Limbaugh think of vets who have served in Iraq?


"Civilian affairs staff puke!"

Of course that's if they're not good little Republican soldiers and put the GOP elephant above the American Eagle.

[Ocotillo]

So what the heck is this? Republican talking points 1999 (http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2005/08/17/heresWhatRepublicansSaidAboutClintonAndKosovo.html )

Here's what Republicans said about Clinton and Kosovo


Why did they second-guess our commitment to freedom from genocide and demand that we cut and run?
"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be
away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush


Why did they demoralize our brave men and women in uniform?
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)


"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."

-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99


"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"

-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)


"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."

-Senator Inhofe (R-OK )

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99


Why didn't they support our president in a time of war?

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)


"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."

-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

"The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president."

-Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)


"You can support the troops but not the president"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)


"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)


For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)


Why did they blame America first?
Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)


"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"
Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)


"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"

-Pat Buchanan (R)


"These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ...who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."

-Michael Savage


"This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."

-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)


"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."

-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)


"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"

-Pat Buchanan (R )


"By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will
either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia."

-Bob Djurdjevic, founder of Truth in Media

Give Buchanan credit, he has been consistent. Anyway, how many Americans died in Kosovo? Tell me how we are supporting the troops by sending them into the hellhole that is Iraq with no specific mission.

[MannyIsGod]

Great thread.

[Vashner]

I'll agree it's somewhat a good post. But he added on so much shit that it's hard to respond to. Kinda like driving all over the road.. you ruined a good post but just ranting one too many.

I have worked at 3 bases her in San Antonio so my experiance in those 8 years was that democrats could give a fuck less about the military. Not all just most.

The BRAC process is why they are holding out construction money.. As for the enlisted raises.. I don't know why it would be capped lower than the higher NCO ranks.

4.0 is not your normal raise. They are 2.0 to 3.6.. I think they have only done 4.0 one or 2 times before in the past. Yea Bush is tight with spending. But they are trying to make the military lean and mean. He said that in is campaign so he's just doing what he said he would do.

From what I hear from my friends still in the military is that housing and other things are great. Not that they are falling apart. I guess that can vary from place to place.

There are some good points there. And some stupid things said by some Republicans there. All in all a good post. Just seems that a couple of the things you put are fucked up like the Rush Limbaugh joke. The civil affairs comment is out of context because of something that happend in Afganistan when he went there. If anything he was giving them a little humor plug (name dropping them for a good thing).

Kosovo is interesting. And really people don't study it more. But the bottom line on Kosovo is like Iraq we got the job done even though people cried. The boots on the ground and F15's the Kerry and friends voted against got it done.

I do think the republicans .. I myself a RNC member.. are not spending enough on military. But I do trust Rummy and I think Bush is basically just rubber stamping Rummy's budget request. They did say they have that lighter force plan so...

You know like every M1 tank needs to be replaced for various reasons.. troops can't even walk behind them like WWII... etc..

The majority of Republicans in office and voters do support the military and the mission they are currently on. I think that's a commen sense thing that no matter how much West Wing spin you try to put on it holds true.

Supporting the military goes beyond just cash. I think if you look at the numbers it would show right now we are spending more cash than ever before in total on DoD.

Supporting them is holding them high.. knowing they can win the mission assigned. Knowing they are liberators .. not opressors..

Quote from Sen. Zell Miller

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter.

But not today.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier.

And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn that flag.

No one should dare to even think about being the commander in chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism, it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking.

They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace. They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war. They were wrong.

And no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy and Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that are now winning the war on terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security.

[Dos]

kerry being the prime example of the lefts thinking on this...

"I voted against the military budget, but then I voted for it..... "

[Ocotillo]

kerry being the prime example of the lefts thinking on this...

"I voted against the military budget, but then I voted for it..... "

Actually that post is profound. Why?

It is a paraphrasing of what Kerry said but it doesn't miss by much.....

There was a technical explanation to why he did what he did when "he voted for the 87 billion before he voted against the 87 billion" For those that were not paying attention, there were two different bills for the Iraq funding. Kerry voted for a version that called for the Iraqi's to kick in for the cost. Bush threatened to veto that version.......actually threatening to veto the 87 billion before he signed the 87 billion dollar bill.

Kerry's mistake was saying the line......... His reasoning was correct. His position was fine, one may disagree as Bush did, but there was a clear logic to what he did.

The beauty for the Republicans was he said the infamous I voted for it before I voted against it quote on tape. Thus the tape was played ad nauseum in commercials and repeated by the drum beaters on the right over and over.

Democratic (read Kerry) attempts to explain were futile because the explanation was wordy or to use an overused word from campaign 2004....nuanced.

I say profound. Here we are nearly a year later and what does Dos remember? The line that was drilled into his head by the noise machine over and over until it became an example of Democrats being non supportive of the military.

It drives me nuts, but it works.

[Dos]

and your going to tell me the democrats have a better voting record for military spending.. go ahead so me the democratic record for being pro-military. Show me military spending under clinton especially that of the intelligence services...

[Ocotillo]

Once the Soviet empire collapsed, there was not the same need for the levels of defense spending we had during the cold war.

There is a new threat now. The armed forces need to take on a new look for a new mission. Take the situation in Iraq now for instance.

We are capable using the expensive weapon systems we have today to overwhelm most any enemy we want to. That is what the military is designed for at the moment and they do it as well as anyone in the history of the world.

But when it comes to the occupation of Iraq (or another nation) we don't have enough personnel. We are literally stretched thin and recruiting results are currently abysmal leaving little hope for short term "reinforcements".

Now I don't believe we should be occupying Iraq but that is a whole different argument.

The greatest threat to our national security today is:

1. Terrorism
2. Unstable regime in N.Korea
3. China
4. Iranian influence in the middle east

To fight terrorism is a different beast then fighting the Soviet Union or the Republican Guard in Iraq for that matter. The special ops mission in Afghanistan was the way to fight terrorists. Surgical strikes, law enforcement, intelligence and regular military support. We work with other countries to track down and kill or bring the terrorists to justice. For that reason, I believe the military budget needs to be tweaked to have more special forces guys to support this sort of defense effort.

A Korean theatre conflict would be a mess and would require a more conventional type of military. Diplomacy is the way here to try and avoid the mess that would happen if N. Korea crossed the DMZ en masse or lobbed a nuke at someone. Props to the Bush administration for having one on one negotiatons with N. Korea even though he refused during the campaign and derided Kerry for suggesting it in the debates.

China is a fight we don't want and the greater threat is that we owe them so much money. If that was a fight we found ourselves in militarily, it would require a herculean effort like WWII whereby tremendous sacrifice by all of us would be required.

We are fighting militant Islam in the WOT but Iran brings state status to militant Islamism. Their influence in the middle east grows with the mess in Iraq and the price and demand of oil going up. Sanctions mean little to them as they will find plenty of willing buyers for the oil. We are stuck in a hard place there. The only way to fight them today would be a massive air campaign like the one in Iraq but once the place is rubble, we don't have the army to go in and finish the job.

Thus they would crawl out from the rubble even more bitter about us increasing the terrorists attacks for revenge.

I'm rambling.....

Nutshell, having different priorities on how we spend defense dollars does not make one side "soft" on military spending.

[MannyIsGod]

It is amazing how most people have such a weak grasp on how our system of government works.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Great thread!!

It truly shows how hypocritcal republicans are.

Do as they say not as they do.

And Dick Cheney himself proposed many of the big military spending cuts so don't me that bullshit about democrats cutting military funding.

[Dos]

and you never complained when the democrats were cutting military budgets.. I think it's hypocritcal for people who never say a word about cuts when they are in power, now all of sudden find anything to bad mouth those that are in power.... well if you want changes... get yourself or your party elected.... simple as that...

[Clandestino]

the largest cuts in the military were done during the clinton years..

[MannyIsGod]

the largest cuts in the military were done during the clinton years..
There is a reason for that. You know damn well what the reason is. People love to give Regan credit for it all the time.

[Clandestino]

There is a reason for that. You know damn well what the reason is. People love to give Regan credit for it all the time.

:blah

[Clandestino]

Re: $6,000 death gratuity... Actually most soldiers have between $100,000-$200,000 of life insurance.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, and don't forget who controlled Congress in the Clinton years. They love to take credit for the balanced budgets we had. How do you think they got there?

[JoeChalupa]

Republicans voted for the military cuts too and the process began before the Clinton years if I'm not mistaken.

[Clandestino]

just like the recession started during the clinton years, but everyone blames it on bush...

[JoeChalupa]

When it works = Bush

When it sucks = Clinton's fault

[JoeChalupa]

just like the recession started during the clinton years, but everyone blames it on bush...


But I see you agree that it DID start before Clinton.

Thanks.