In answer to Armando, via email:
Why I Will Not Vote Against Funding
Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.)It is time for our troops to come home. And it’s time for us to bring them home swiftly. But we have a moral obligation and a constitutional
obligation to bring them home safely.I’m not new to this position. I never wanted to go to war in the first place. I was one of the 23 who voted against this war four years ago,
on October 11, 2002. I did not believe the administration’s arguments then, and I do not believe them now.In the last few weeks, I’ve had protesters sit-in my office four times who want me to vote against the spending bill for the war. Some come to
protest. Some come to get arrested. All have a right to speak out.Yet, there is no way that a responsible Senator can vote against spending. There is no one line item that says “war, yes or no.” That’s
not the way the supplemental Appropriations bill works.So I say to the protesters, know I am on your side, but what are you asking us to vote against? Do you want us to vote against the pay for the Soldiers and for their spouses and for their children? I won’t vote ‘no’ against their benefits. What do you want us to vote against? The bullets and what they need to fight? I won’t vote against that. Do you want us to vote against the body armor and the armored Humvees they need
for survival? I won’t vote against that. What about if they are injured? One of the things that saves lives are the tourniquets on the battlefield. When they are injured, jet fuel gets the helicopters and the planes from Baghdad to Germany to Walter Reed and Bethesda. We’ll
fix Walter Reed. We’ll fix Bethesda. But we have to get them there.I cannot and will not vote against funding. I will not vote to in any way to harm the men and women in the U.S. military, nor will I cut off
the support to their families. And if you want to picket, you want to protest, you want to disrupt my life – better my life is disrupted than the lives of these men and women in uniform. It is time to stop the finger-pointing and it’s time to pinpoint a new way forward.Melissa Schwartz
Communications Director
Office of Senator Barbara Mikulski
(202) 228-1122 (phone)
(202) 224-3892 (fax)
It sounds to me like Sen. Mikulski is getting a bit exasperated with anti-war demonstrators. At least she listens to them. Now, Armando will respond to this by saying that he doesn’t want her to vote against this bill, he wants no bill put forward for her to vote on.
Here is my question for Armando. If no bill is put forward, does that not have the exact same effect as failing to pass the bill? Can you list a single concern raised by Sen. Mikulski that goes away if the bill is withheld? No? Well, neither can I.
For those that want to do a full court press to get Congress to not bring up a supplemental, consider the fact that even the brave 23 that voted against this war are not going to do it.
They will not do it.
It’s a dumb strategy to ask them to do something that they will not do.
What we need to do is work on the Democrats and Republicans that are resisting putting hard deadlines in the supplemental. This idea that we can prevent any supplemental at all is retarded, and insulting those of us that have realized this is juvenile.
Wishes are not ponies. On the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, I thought we’d realized that by now.
just watching these people spin.
A vote to fund the war is a vote for the war. It’s that simple.
Write a defense appropriations supplemental with funds for one way bus tickets out of Iraq for all the troops.
Let’s see where Senator Mikulski stands on that.
“the troops” don’t need bullets or body armor or Humvees if they’re not in Iraq killing people. They don’t need tourniquets or evacuation helicopters if they’re out of shooting range.
A vote to fund the war is a vote for the war. That’s reality. To think otherwise is retarded. To think that the American people don’t know that is insulting. It’s Kosspeak. I can’t even call it “juvenile” . . . all the kids I know have sense enough to understand that if mom doesn’t want them to drink she’s not going to buy them beer. OTOH if she gives them a bottle of Jack Daniels for Christmas they’re not going to take “but I don’t want you to drink it” too seriously . . .
At the risk of getting buried under righteous indgination, let me try to give Mikulski the benefit of the doubt and of trying to do the right thing. She said.
She sounds to me to like she is trying to bring our troops out of the shithole in which Bush and his neocon idiots have put them. She voted against the war in the first place. It’s different when one is actually responsible for other peoples’ lives as Senators are. Mikulski acts as if she knows this, while too many other Senators and Members of Congress have acted in the past as if they do not.
Things are never as simple as you wish to make them by asserting that “it’s that simple.” Sorry, it’s not. Things are actually completely and utterly fucked up. Remember who fucked them up, and save your anger for them; for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell because he allowed himself to be used, Rove, Frist, Hastert, and all the other Senators and Members of Congress who gave up their constitutional duty to check the Executive.
When the Democrats took back the House and the Senate, the adults came to town to fix the mess created by the infantile Republicans. It won’t happen in a day. The blame for all the lives that will be lost until the Democrats can fix Bush’s nightmare belongs with Bush not with Barbara Mikulski.
No, it would take about a week. The words are:
Disengage
Stand down
Withdraw
Now I don’t have to. Mikulski’s reasoning buys completely into the way the Republicans have spun the debate, and if you do that you’ve lost the debate before it starts. The fact is that if the supplemental doesn’t pass, if it’s filibustered to death, Bush has to withdraw from Iraq. Or, if he wants to keep inadequately funded troops in Iraq even though he doesn’t have the money to do so, THAT’S ON HIM!
perhaps sen. Mikulski can enlighten all us dirty hippy, commislamsist sympathizers as to where this new pinpoint might be and how it might have an effect…ya think
same old shit on a different day…..waaaaaaaaah….it’s hard work…bah!
ITMF’sA
it is once again a study in theory. Every day that this bullshit is debated, more of the troops that the senator claims that she cares so deeply about are dying!! Dear senator- get your head out of your ass, shut down the senate if need be, strip on the floor on the senate, just do what ever it takes to start the ball rolling. Bring them home asap.
The liars in the wh are just stalling– thgeir target date is Jan 9 2008! then they walk away. Is that the senators legacy? For gods sake, stop bullshitting about armor, bandages or anything else cause the one thing ya can’t ever replace is the human beings that have been lost as a direct of the criminal behavior of these war criminals!
enuf!
Ahhh – the ever-popular false dichotomy.
All branches of the military have *many, **many* programs that are NOT NECCESSARY for their immediate survival.
Let those programs be defunded to pay for troop salaries, bullets, body armor & Humvees.
The US Military Budget for 2005 was $419 Billion, this year it is much larger (a minimum of $439 Billion proposed), even without the supplemental appropriation. Just as funds have been robbed from ground level troops for years to fund some wacky “War in Space” black program – the funds could be “found” to bring the troops home.
And bringing the troops home is all the (major) spending that Congress & Senator Mikulski should be allowing the President to do.
Someone should tell Senator Mikulski to grow a spine – because, yes, the Republicans ARE going to accuse her of “abandoning the troops” (they’re going to do that regardless of whether she votes for or against this appropriation).
She should respond that, with a budget of nearly $450 billion, the President has all the funds he requires to bring the troops home and, after 4 years of gross mismanagement of what was a morally repugnant war in the 1st place, Congress is NOT ASKING, BUT TELLING him to bring the troops home.
Next, she should stop regurgitating Republican talking point – we know what they are, & we know that they are lies & damned lies.
I am a Vietnam-era ex-Navy vet – I was one of “the troops” & I heartily recommend to Senator Mikulski that she not hide behind the troops (and their 4-year-old lack of body armor & bullets) for her missing political courage.
(BTW – for more on our runaway military budget, look here – http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=24614 )
like that. Nobody’s yet tried to impeach him for what he’s already done, because of the cabal of 40+ crooked Senators backing him up. But in the event of funding cancellation, he’ll have no reason to break the Constitution. He just leaves the troops in Iraq and says the Dems are leaving them to starve. The political consequences will be catastrophic. Brand Republican will be saved and for 20 years they’ll be able to start any war they wish. Do you really want them to be able to bomb Iran and Venezuela with impunity?
Funding for withdrawal won’t work because that sure won’t ever pass. It’s simple political reality that one way or another we’ll end up with a resolution funding more war. Our choices are a) get one passed with some restrictive riders, somewhat like what we have or b) see the Republicans pass an unrestricted appropriation with a few defectors (they don’t need that many). Is hope for political gain enough to excuse giving Bush a 100% free hand?
Let me see if I have this right – if Bush were to defund, for example, his missile defense initiative for 2007 & use those fund to bring the troops home, the Dems would throw the book at him – is that what you’re trying to sell me, Sunshine?
OTOH, if Dems show some spine & defund the war & Bush says “I’d bring em home, but the mean old Dems wouldn’t give me my 70 billion & only left me with a measly $439 Billion to fund everything else in the DOD budget, but I can’t use that to bring the troops home ‘cuz it’s against the law. Heh-heh” – you think the People would turn against the Dems??? And “Brand Republican” is “saved” for another 20 years?? Sadly, I have to conclude that you & Mikulski are drinking the same Kool-Aid.
curtadams writes, “The president can’t legally move funds around like that.”
Now I have no idea if that is true or not – seems it takes a legal shaman to figure out how this government works.
You suggest Bush might defund his missile defense initiative and use the money to bring the troops home. A sensible idea, yet it is important to follow the money.
For example, you might want to check out the Raytheon website. They sell and presumably design and manufacture missile systems among other things. (Interesting “mission statement” considering what they offer: Customer Success Is Our Mission)
If you follow the links – “Jobs”, to “Featured Opportunities,” you’ll find this: “Offices in the Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania make up Raytheon’s Mid-Atlantic region, which is one of the fast growing parts of the country.” And there are some job openings in MD – Landover.
Tell me again where Mikulski’s constituents live? Maryland?
So, you think Bush might decide to cut funding for missile systems in Landover, MD?
And what might Raytheon do or threaten to do? Move from the area?
So how deep is the desire of those in Landover, MD to “bring the troops home now?” Deep enough to give up their jobs? Deep enough to watch a local employer pack up?
The blood money runs through many communities – few are untouched.
Are we willing to change? How can we not?
very nice catch – yep, the twists & turns are dizzying, aren’ they?
defund his missile initiative (or any of a kazillion other corporate welfare projects). If the Dems cut off funding to Iraq, Bush will leave every dime with the missle initiatives and chortle as we get clobbered politically for leaving the Army starving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody will blame him for leaving the money in the missile initiatives because legally, he’s not even allowed to move it to Iraq.
Y’all might be interested in this diary that’s currently on the rec list over at Big Orange. It puts forward the mantra:
The more people saying this, the better. The more Congressmen saying this, the better.
What you are asking this Senator to do is as stupid as thinking that an embargo on Saddam Hussein’s ability to obtain weapons would not hurt the Iraqi people.
My strategy:
Don’t focus on the supplemental, focus on the 2008 budget. Just don’t fund more than one presidential aide. Don’t fund any political appointments in an agency, including the Vice-President’s office. Cut the salaries of the President and Vice-President. Freeze the pay of the upper level flag officers in the military to enlisted personnel levels. Use the power of the purse on the “deciders”, not the troops.
Slow down the pace of the supplemental. Get it done maybe by July. But have the cuts of the deciders done before the October start of the fiscal year.
I’m sure that Barbara Mikulski doesn’t know who the hell “Armando” is. Armando might be a big noise in the blogging world, but he’s a great big fat nobody in the arena of real movers and shakers like Senator Mikulski.
Why are we debating Armando’s strategy (at least he claims authorship…the idea actually originated elsewhere) of “defunding” when clearly it’s not going to happen?
Face the political reality: if the Democrats cut off war funding, they will provide a golden opportunity to claim that the Democrats are depriving the soldiers of benefits and pay.
If you want the troops home, then start impeachment proceedings against Dick “Go Fuck Yourself” Cheney in the House of Representatives, or at least hold hearings that expose his misdeeds to the public. That would turn up the political heat and strenghten the Democrats’ hand. With Cheney gone (either through resignation or impeachment), a new
Vice-PresidentReichschancellor might be able to persuade Bush to accept a well-crafted withdrawal plan.But let’s be perfectly honest: it will left to Bush’s successor to clean up the mess in Iraq. It’s the pattern of Bush’s entire adult life: swagger into a situation he has neither the intelligence to grasp nor the patience to understand, fuck it up beyond all recognition, and then swagger to the exit, stepping over the wreckage and leaving others to clean up the wreckage he leaves in his foul wake.
Bush has been doing this since he was a young man. It’s always worked for him. Why should he change now?