Right War, Right Time? Kerry backs Bush's $82bn request

Looks like The Waffler continues his Eggo ways....

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=7637317

 

Bush is stealing kerry's ideas? Maybe I don't know all the information, but this sounds like Kerry trying to tout his own horn...

 

I don't know about Kerry but this is Bush's right hand man. This article is depressing for all who read it. The guy is crazy. He used an automatic ink machine to sign letters to the families of the dead troops. That is lazy and wrong. He asked to step down 2 times, that means he wants to quit after getting America and Bush involved with this war. IM glad Bush wouldn't let him walk away. I don't know what to think of Rums anymore. I think the guy has hit rock bottom.

Rumsfeld selling $500 billion military budget
Tuesday, February 15, 2005 Posted: 12:00 PM EST (1700 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, in his second consecutive tour of duty, has to sell a half-trillion dollar military budget to a skeptical Congress this week.

It won't be easy; his political capital with lawmakers has found new limits.

Old Europe, hillbilly armor and his use of an automatic pen to sign condolence letters were among the Pentagon chief's first-term missteps that have alienated longtime allies, frustrated soldiers and angered military families.

Democrats called for Rumsfeld's resignation after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.

Even some Republicans expressed little confidence in the defense secretary. Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi said in December: "I'm not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld."

In his second act as Bush's defense chief, Rumsfeld, a divisive figure kept under wraps for much of the 2004 presidential campaign, has been the Bush administration's point man in talking up the Iraqi elections on the Sunday talk shows.

He recently traveled to countries that strongly opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq -- France and Germany -- made a surprise visit to Iraq and attended an international security conference in Munich where in a rare moment of self-deprecation and rapprochement sought to explain his "Old Europe" jab with a quip.

"That was old Rumsfeld," said the Pentagon chief, who also served as defense secretary and U.S. ambassador to NATO in the '70s.

This week, Rumsfeld will try to sell Bush's military blueprint -- some $500 billion, including about $82 billion for a new supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan -- to lawmakers at back-to-back hearings. It will be his first public testimony before Congress since September.

While Republican critics grumble about Rumsfeld quietly and Democrats have stopped calling for his ouster, lawmakers say it's not that they support him more than they did before. Rather, they are resigned to the fact that they're stuck with him, whether they like it or not, because Bush asked him to stay.

Rumsfeld recently said he offered to resign twice; Bush turned him down.

"Look, the president chooses who he wants in that position," said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the No. 2 Republican on the Armed Services Committee. In December, it was McCain who said he had "no confidence" in the Pentagon chief.

As for the calls for Rumsfeld's resignation, "The water's under that bridge," said Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.

"He's carrying out policy, essentially," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Those are administration and presidential policies."

Still, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the former Democratic presidential candidate, said Tuesday he stands by his long-held position that Rumsfeld should resign, saying "the miscalculations are of an unprecedented level."

When he testifies this week, Rumsfeld also will face questions about proposed cuts in weapons programs, including a reduction in the number of aircraft carriers; an exit strategy for U.S. forces in Iraq and the demands on National Guard and reserve units already stretched thin.

"His stock has gone up and down over time," said John Pike, a military expert with globule. "It's about at even keel. On one hand, he's got a bunch of explaining to do. On the other hand, it's clear he's going to be around for some time and they're going to have to deal with him."

Rumsfeld's stock was near the bottom last November. In Kuwait, he told U.S. troops who questioned him about vehicles that lacked armor -- and said they used scraps of metal from a junkyard to outfit Humvee's -- that, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have."

His political enemies seized on the comment, in part of a longer response, and the lethal post-invasion insurgency to claim that Rumsfeld was unnecessarily putting U.S. forces in harm's way.

Adding to Rumsfeld's problems was the disclosure that he used an automatic ink machine to put his name on condolence letters sent to families of troops killed in Iraq. He quickly announced he would personally sign all such future letters.

More than 1,450 U.S. troops have died in Iraq -- more than 1,110 died in combat since March 2003.

"His relationship on Capitol Hill is going to be mediocre for as long as he stays in the job," said Michael Johansson, a foreign policy scholar at the Brooking's Institution.

Still, Rumsfeld has an obvious trump card in negotiating the budget.

In May, the Pentagon chief will strike fear in congressional districts as he offers his proposed list of military base closings to an independent commission, the first process in 10 years.

 

He's crazy because he was using an ink machine to sign letters? Not the classiest thing ever, but crazy because of it?

 

I don't understand how he segues from my post over to what Rumsfeld is or isn't doing.

I'm really looking for anyone who voted Kerry to explain this to me. Gradin99, Rex, red55, Crawfish...have any answers? The silence from those who agreed with Kerry's stance during the election is baffling. If it was the wrong war, wrong time, why is he backing the request?

 

Maybe he is understanding and sympathetic to those thousands upon thousands of outstanding men and women over there and elsewhere abroad that are fighting the war. Maybe he realizes that they truly need this funding to continue to do their jobs.
I say maybe because, well, I of course can only speculate.

The past bills which he voted against actually included a lot of non-war appropriations. Ya know, the sort of stuff tacked on to the bottom of a bill. Typical Washington politics...

Really though.... It appears as though he is in agreement with this new funding bill and all the terms of it. He is backing it and Bush by voting for it. Where is the problem here?

 

Kerry has the waffles, Dean has the sauce...maybe they can start a restaurant?

 

The problem is that, if he were truly against this war, he would be sounding off against it daily. He would continue to make news about how he will NOT support increased funding and try to use his platform to get the troops back home.

 

Why?

 

Because that would be a consistent position.

Because that would be believable.

Because that would further his and his party's agenda of increasing funding to social programs.

Why not?