CONGRESS PASSES $500 BILLION PENTAGON BILL: 100-0 IN SENATE

[Jcrowley]

Congress Tries to Break Logjam of Bills

By CARL HULSE


WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — Congress approved a major Pentagon spending bill today along with a stop-gap measure to keep the rest of the government running through the elections, as lawmakers also tried to dispose of border-control and abortion legislation before heading home to campaign.

On a 100-to-0 vote, the Senate passed and sent to President Bush a $447.6 billion bill for the Defense Department, including $70 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan — a sum that will bring the total spent on those wars and other military operations to more than $500 billion. The House also approved $34.8 billion in homeland security spending, and the Senate was expected to follow suit later tonight.

<snip>

In the Senate, lawmakers were expected to approve a 700-mile fence along the nation’s southwest border — the chief remaining element of their immigration overhaul after an attempt to enact a broader bill collapsed.

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/nyt493.html

[C_U_L8R]

1. wow.. breathtakingly spineless

[indepat]

3. Mindless fiscal policy destroying Amerika's future security and economy

[LynneSin]

7. Bill would have happened no matter what the democrats did

And I don't care what any poll says - as soon as you start making claims that 'Democrats aren't supporting our soldiers' the general voting population DOES buy into that. After five years we've condition the american population to hate the war but support our soldiers. This was a smart move by the democrats because it would have passed no matter how they voted.

We need the majority, let's not make it easy for the Repukes to keep it

[LynneSin]

4. We have troops over there still

This is not spineless. Say what you will about this war (and I'll probably agree) but we still have soldiers over in Iraq and Afghanistan who still need our help. We deny this bill and not only might it hurt our soldiers but you know this is going to be used mightily against the democrats in the upcoming midterms.

I don't know what's in that bill but I'm hoping it's a few things that can help better the lives of our soldiers over there. We aren't getting those folks home until we get control of the house and/or senate.

This was a no-brainer vote and democrats were smart to do it

[Jcrowley]

8. Other way around

They vote against the war funding the war becomes untenable troops come home sooner are then safer. Not to mention the fact that it is an illegal invasion and wholesale slaughter of Iraqi citizens. In short this sanctions more of the War Crimes.

More could be added into the calculus as the US spends more on weapons then the rest of the world combined which means it's children go hungry and don't receive health care. Add even more into the equation if you want to get the end result right, the US Military is THE world's leading contributor to greenhouse emissions and the world's worst polluter. Saying yes to $500 billion/yr to The Pentagon is sanctioning more activity from the world's most irresponsible, murderous and dangerous entity.

[LynneSin]

12. Troops aren't coming home - you heard Bush

They're stuck there until at least he's out of office. He said that we're in Iraq as long as he's in office. You think the republicans are going to stop this war just because a few democrats won't give them the money or even if Democrats managed to filibuster that bill. Pul-lease - they're stuck there and perhaps if we can get the democratic majority we MIGHT have a chance of getting them home earlier but we're gonna need a few repukes to help us on that one too.

[katinmn]

19. That's how the Vietnam War ended. Congress stopped funding it.

[LynneSin]

22. Republicans were also independant thinkers back then

And were willing to stand up to an unpopular president in their own party

How many republicans are willing to do that today? One - maybe, Lincoln Chafee.

[katinmn]

26. And the people had awoken from their slumber and became vocal

The fox is in the henhouse and where are the roosters?

[LynneSin]

32. That right there is the biggest problem

I mean we're vocal alright - just have to get the rest of America to turn off Fox News and take it to the street. I just think as a whole, our country is more desensitized to bad things being shown on TV

[LynneSin]

21. So then we put our soldiers at greater risk

I mean put all the blame you want on the Bush Regime for this illegal war, I do. But those soldiers do not deserve to be pawns in this war. I don't want to be visiting another wall in DC with 50,000+ names on it.

Let's get this midterm election overwith and hopefully (I pray) get the majority somewhere. Then perhaps we can make a difference in what is happening in Iraq

[katinmn]

2. they just flipped the bird to a majority of America again

They can't get out of DC fast enough. They have to record those campaign ads you know.

[LynneSin]

5. So instead we should just flip the finger to our soldiers

:shrug:

No matter what you and I and the rest of America thinks about that war, if democrats didn't support this bill then it would be all over the news that "Democrats won't support our troops" It's a shitty-ass move but it would have been dumbass for us to not support it. Repukes do this right before each major election because if they need it for campaign fodder.

Our troops will not come home until we get back control of either the house or senate. It was smart for Democrats to let this go through because it would have no matter what so why should we fuck up the midterms because of it? I hate the war but I do support our soldiers. There served no purpose for us voting against this bill

[NJCher]

10. sadly, your post makes sense

Yesterday I called my senator's office to say how unhappy I was that he voted for the torture bill. This senator, Menendez, has an a voting record about which I have few complaints. After talking with the person answering the phone, something similar to what you wrote above occurred to me as the reason. Menendez is running a few points behind Kean--he couldn't lose on this issue. After all, who are we progressives going to vote for, after all?




Cher

[LynneSin]

11. I'm thinking their is madness behind the Menendez/Lautenberg vote

I made my post about the dems wanting this to go to the courts and probably wanted Mendendez to do what he thought it would take to stay competitive with Kean. As much as it sucks, voters still buy into this "Dems are week on Terror/don't support our troops" bullshit. Lautenberg is also pretty progressive (and a guy I was excited to see come back to congress) and probably wanted to help out Menendez so he didn't look bad for voting yes.

Keep your fingers crossed about the court thing. Menendez is a good guy and I would be happy to have him or Lautenberg as my senator (I am actually ok with Biden but Carper is on my shit-list even though I'll vote for him)

[katinmn]

14. Call me old fashioned, but America has become so jaded that

citizens support politicians who vote against our interests and even make excuses for them.

War and torture should not be treated like a high stakes crapshoot. The 3000 Iraqis dying a month deserve more than this.

BTW, I know I hold a minority view on DU. Most of those here support your view, LynnSin. I just hope you are right and I am wrong.

[LynneSin]

15. Well this thread was about the Pentagon spending bill

and I will stand by that vote.

The Torture Bill - I just don't know but those votes sure didn't make sense to me either

But no matter how the dems voted on the Torture bill - it was happnening and it would continue to happen :cry:

[nolabels]

18. You stand behind the pork of the war budget?

The whole premise behind a 500b budget sounds ludicrous to me

[LynneSin]

20. I don't stand behind that but I understand why the vote happened

I think it would have been foolish to have voted otherwise.

We have a voting population that has the attention span of a gnat with ADHD. We seem to be polling well across the country but all we need is to reject a bill like this Pentagon spending bill and suddenly every republican will have a campaign ad that says "Democrats voted against supporting our troops"

The money would have been spent no matter what, why allow this to affect the mid-term election

[nolabels]

34. So in other words survival for some is keeping up with the Jones

In politics, things always happen to lead one side to play outside reality. The first one to blink in this game of treachery is always the loser. Just like in warfare, fighting imaginary battles with imaginary opponents in imaginary scenarios is a recipe for disaster when this thing called reality is finally encountered.

I rather think about these appointed people they call democratic leaders as something different. I think about them as imaginary followers



Imaginary lovers
Never turn you down
When all the others turn you away
They're around
It's my private pleasure
Midnight fantasy
Someone to share my
Wildest dreams with me
Imaginary lover
You're mine anytime
Imaginary lover, oh yeah

When ordinary lovers
Don't feel what you feel
And real-life situations lose their thrill
Imagination's unreal
Imaginary lover, imaginary lover
You're mine anytime



Imaginary lovers never disagree
They always care
They're always there when you need
Satisfaction guaranteed
Imaginary lover, imaginary lover
You're mine all the time
My imaginary lover
You're mine anytime


THE ATLANTA RHYTHM SECTION lyrics - "Imaginary Lover"
http://www.lyricsondemand.com/a/atlantarhythmsectionlyrics/imaginaryloverlyrics.html

[LynneSin]

36. Well, I'm thinking if we try it your way

We'll just keep letting the Republicans have control of the office. Not exactly my cup of tea.

Politics is, unfortunately, all about strategy. So go ahead and post your silly lyrics while I try to understand the strategy and help fight to get the republicans out of office

[nolabels]

37. It's only silly because others have made it silly

There is no opposition here, one group of chameleons is trying to out hide another set of chameleons. The cheerleaders for them (the press) would have us believe there is some drastic difference between the the two but obviously their is none. We have 100 people from all around the country agreeing unanimously on something that affects hundreds of millions (potentially billions)with annual budget of a half-trillion dollars and you are calling me silly for calling it out. That seems to be quite jump in logic if you were to ask to me.

There is obviously more to it than meets the eye but that doesn't qualify it as politics. I would say that was getting them hundred people all to agree it was in their interests and everybody else's was an impossibility unless that same hundred people were being intimidated from forces outside them. I for one don't think them hundred people represent me or my interests on iota. Unless you are one the stakeholders in one of the multinationals then how was this politics. This is coercion in the highest form. This not politics, this is mass hypnosis

If it was anything other than what it is, it would probably be impossible.

[Jcrowley]

24. Keepin' the world safe

for Halliburton.

McDonald's McDonnell Douglas and all that.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

[madokie]

6. I wonder if the Dems are thinking they will take the house and senate

in nov. so they are letting this shit go on with the understanding amonst themselves that they will be making some big changes starting in january, the votes now to take the election issues out of the re:puke:s war chest, I'm a wondering anyway

[LynneSin]

9. With this bill I would say yes, with the torture bill

I'm thinking there are alternative reason for letting that go through, like getting the Courts involved and making torture illegal - it's a crap shoot but will be interesting to see how that one pans out.

But it would have been stupid to not allow this bill to go through. Voters oppose the war, but they do not oppose our soldiers. We fight this bill and that's what you're going to see on every republican campaign ad. Let's not make their job any easier this November!

[madokie]

16. I think someone in the ranks of the Dem's are doing some serious thinking

[leftchick]

27. I highly doubt it.

Nice thought though. It has become very apparent where their interests lie and it ain't with we the people. Follow the money. :(

[pooja]

13. Why even bother with fences, they are already moving ahead

with plans for the North American Union.

[Bill McBlueState]

17. What a waste.

There is no reason that any country on the face of the planet, let alone one protected by two oceans, should have to spend half a trillion dollars in a single year on war.

With less than one fifth of that amount, the government could pay for college for everyone who wants to go.

We've got a long way to go to change the direction this country is headed in. The best hope we have in the short term is to elect a Democratic majority. Most Democrats are just as wasteful as the Republicans when it comes to war spending, but the only way someone like Dennis Kucninch -- one of the few who sees the big picture -- will have any influence at all is if his party has a majority.

[LynneSin]

23. Yeah, let's just let our soldiers get slaughtered

I don't know if that would happen but that's pretty much what you'll see on every Republican campaign ad if the democrats fought this bill.

This was a smart vote for the democrats. It was nothing more than a mid-term election tactic in hopes of getting some campaign fodder to use against the democrats.

[Bill McBlueState]

25. more money does not imply less slaughter

Most of that $500 billion will be wasted. Last year's war budget was pretty close to $500 billion, and that didn't protect the soldiers who died. I don't know where all that money's going, but the "Defense" Department certainly isn't spending it on adequate body armor.

Of course it would be politically stupid for the Democrats to vote against it. That doesn't mean those of us who aren't running for office shouldn't openly hope for a better day.

[MindPilot]

29. That's pretty much where I was going on this

I think the Dem position could have been a little bit better articulated than go-along-to-get-along, but the Dems have been doing that for several years now.

Dems could have voted no to protest the allocation of that money, but they are too afraid of being seen as "weak on terror". Anyone who has ever been in or around the military knows that not a dime of that funding will ever find it's way down the soldier in the field.

Is that powder ever going to be dry enough to actually use?

[Jcrowley]

30. Same old song and dance

Rinse and repeat. More BS about taking an immoral stand for political expediency.

Meanwhile Papa Merika gets more guns in the cabinet why the children go hungry.

[LynneSin]

31. I agree with you 110%

Trust me, I'm not happy with the bill, just putting it into perspective with 6 weeks until the midterm elections

[leftchick]

28. Chalmers Johnson has said it best

Chalmers Johnson: Militarism and the American Empire

Distinguished social scientist and public intellectual Chalmers Johnson, joins host Harry Kreisler for a conversation on the nature of the American Empire and its costs and consequences for the future of American democracy and power in the world. Video


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6379.htm



Interview here....http://www.americanempireproject.com/johnson/johnson_interview.htm

THE SORROWS OF EMPIRE discusses imperialism and militarism and illustrates how they determine American foreign policy today. Can you explain the difference between the two?

Militarism and imperialism are Siamese twins joined at the hip. Imperialism depends upon large standing armies and the expenditures to sustain them, and the resultant militarism -- meaning not national defense but vested interests in a large and growing military establishment -- is the midwife of new imperialist adventures.
Wars usually begin because political leaders convince a people that the use of armed force is necessary to defend the country or pursue some abstract goal. For a major power, prosecution of any war that is not a defense of the "homeland" usually requires overseas military bases for strategic reasons. After the war is over, it is tempting for the victor to retain such bases and easy to find reasons to do so. Over time, if a nation's aims become imperial, the bases form the skeleton of an empire. In recent centuries, wars launched from such bases have been the primary means through which imperialism has prospered and expanded. Since the end of World War II, American administrations have offered many rationales for the bases they were collecting around the world, including containing Communism, warding off the "domino theory," fighting "ethnic cleansing," and preventing the spread of "weapons of mass destruction."

You say there are at least 725 American military bases in existence outside the United States. What purpose do they serve?

America's empire of military bases is there to garrison the world, to ensure that no nation or combination of nations can exert influence that the president, his advisers, and the Pentagon have not sanctioned.

[sakabatou]

33. I'm a bit confused

Does this make the total cost of the WoT $500B or $1T?

[cynatnite]

35. No one will vote against a defense bill at election time...

Not in the senate, anyway. I'm not at all surprised by this.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. Supporting murder is "smart" politics.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[BelgianMadCow]

39. This is Rummie's budget, right?

truly scary. The comparison to budgets of other nations puts it in perspective.

It is madness, in a country with 40 million without health coverage.