Will one of my readers please explain to me (and I ask this question with all sincerity) how not passing any sort of funding at all for the continuation of the Iraq war would be materially bad for anti-war progressives?
I'm not concerned with the propaganda value of such an action. The last time right-wing pro-war propaganda had anything to do with any actual facts was... well, never.
So let's assume that one way or another, the progressive minority in Congress could somehow successfully block any and all supplemental funding for the Iraq war. How would this be bad? The equation seems simple: No money, no war. Am I missing something?
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
5 comments:
Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.
With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.
No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.
See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.
Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.
I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.
Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.
I've already answered some typical comments.
I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Money for a war also includes any moneys that would be used for withdrawal. So, even if the Congress had the power to dictate the deployment of the armed forces (which, if it got off its ass and actually tried exercising the goddamn War Powers Act, it might in this instance), it would still need to appropriate funding.
ReplyDeleteAccording to your cost counter, it takes the U.S. military 12 seconds to spend what I make in a year, pre-tax.
ReplyDeleteI don't buy it. The Pentagon has to have enough change in the cushions to transport the troops home even if no additional supplemental financing is passed.
ReplyDeleteOne would think so, but that's unfortunately not how governmental budgeting rules work. Because of accounting standards, you have to use money for what it's earmarked for. If you don't use it, it gets sent back, not diverted to other funds. Of course, 40% of the Pentagon budget is "black": given in lump sum for unspecified projects (DARPA, Special Forces, Defense Intelligence Agency, etc.). But it's technically illegal to shift funds from one project to another. That's why they've been hiding the costs of the war with supplemental appropriations.
ReplyDeleteEssentially, the system has never been fixed from when Teddy Roosevelt bullied Congress into giving him more funds for the Navy. He sent THE WHOLE NAVY halfway around the world and said, "Give me my money, bitches, or the Navy stays in the Philippines forever." You'd think Congress would have done something about it, but they didn't.
"Soldiers Killed by Red Tape" makes for a rather more ignominious end to the whole debacle.
All right, I'll buy a piece of it. But still: Keep the fully-funded withdrawal on the table, ready to pass quickly, and hold the line on anything else.
ReplyDeleteI've heard the war is fully funded until September-ish, no? There's no need to pass anything in a hurry.