Perhaps a disgruntled former employee with a government-provided transition office in Arlington and seven Pentagon-paid staffers working for him? Rummy seems an obvious suspect, but given the admin’s dastardly intent here, I don’t think there’s a chance in hell of an investigation.
Heavens to Betsy, no! Goodness gracious, the idea is absurd!
Congress has passed a bill that fully funds the troops. You know, the one that you promise to veto. Dumbass!
The only way Rummy could do it is if he’d undergone a character transplant. I doubt that Rummy would be willing to do such a thing, though they probably have a steady supply of character from all the virgins they bleed to keep “Dead Eye Dick” Cheney going.
All in all, it is harder and harder to keep a secret nowadays. It is bad policy to plan on doing it.
I’ll take this piece by piece.
One line was taken from the President’s speech. Here’s the context:
"The reinforcements are having an impact, and as more reinforcements go in, it will have a greater impact. Remember, only about half of the folks we’ve asked to go in are there.
It’s now been 64 days since I have requested that Congress pass emergency funding for these troops. We don’t have all of them there. About half more are going to head in. We’re making some progress. And 64 days ago, I said to the United States Congress, these troops need funding. And instead of proving [sic] that vital funding, the Democrat leadership in Congress has spent the past 64 days pushing legislation that would undercut our troops, just as we’re beginning to make progress in Baghdad. In both the House and the Senate, majorities have passed bills that substitute the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our commanders on the ground. They set arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal from Iraq, and they spend billions of dollars on pork barrel projects and spending that are completely unrelated to this war.
Now, the Democrats who pass these bills know that I’ll veto them, and they know that this veto will be sustained. Yet they continue to pursue the legislation. And as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field. In other words, there are consequences for delaying this money. In the coming days, our military leaders will notify Congress that they will be forced to transfer $1.6 billion from other military accounts to cover the shortfall caused by Congress’s failure to fund our troops in the field. That means our military will have to take money from personnel accounts so they can continue to fund U.S. Army operations in Iraq and elsewhere.
This $1.6 billion in transfers come on top of another $1.7 billion in transfers that our military leaders notified Congress about last month. In March, Congress was told that the military would need to take money from military personnel accounts, weapons and communications systems so we can continue to fund programs to protect our soldiers and Marines from improvised explosive devices and send hundreds of mine-resistant vehicles to our troops on the front lines. These actions are only the beginning, and the longer Congress delays, the worse the impact on the men and women of the Armed Forces will be.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, recently testified that if Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-April, the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on equipment repair and quality of life initiatives for our Guard and Reserve forces. The Army will also be forced to consider curtailing some training for Guard and Reserve units here at home. This would reduce their readiness, and could delay their availability to mobilize for missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-May, the problems grow even more acute. The Army will be forced to consider slowing or even freezing funding for its depots, where the equipment our troops depend on is repaired. They will have to consider delaying or curtailing the training of some active duty forces, reducing the availability of those the force – of those forces to deploy overseas. And the Army may also have to delay the formation of new brigade combat teams, preventing us from getting those troops into the pool of forces that are available to deploy.
So what does that mean? These things happen: Some of our forces now deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq may need to be extended, because other units are not ready to take their places. In a letter to Congress, the Army Chief of Staff, Pete Shoemaker, recently warned, “Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures, which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families.”
The bottom line is this: Congress’s failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines"
From the link to thePresident’s speech at Thinkprogress
The next two links “had been leaked to the press” and “so that he could try to claim it was their (Democrats) fault” link to some sort of blog. I didn’t see the latter quote their from Gates. The link seems to be showing a quote where Gates is upset that it was linked before the commanders knew, not so that the Demcorats could be blamed.
“In terms of why we’re announcing it simultaneously with the unit commanders, I’ll be very blunt. Some very thoughtless person in this building made the unilateral decision yesterday to deny the army the opportunity to notify unit commanders who could then talk to their troops 48 hours before we made a public announcement. And, I can’t tell you how angry it makes many of us that one individual would create potentially so much hardship not only for our servicemen and women but their families, by letting them read about something like this in the newspapers”
from a link in a blog to a link in a blog to a link at Thinkprogress, no direct sourcing
Maybe it says something like is claimed somewhere on that blog, but I think they oughtta link to it directly.
Next we have a link to a press conference and some direct quotes, which is nice.
Summing these up, if I may, the gist is that some extensions of troop deployments are occuring, they were leaked before the commanders were fully informed, and it is claimed that Bush was not full informed of this specific measure. This last is an attempt to answer an allegation of whether Bush was announcing a hypothetical that already a fait accompli so that he could blame it on the Democrats.
The issue of whether or not it is the Democrats’ fault is one for debate that I won’t deal with presently.
The issue is whether or not Bush knew about the extension when he made the speech. He was arguing from the general and very shortly thereafter a specific example of that general occured. The White House seems to acknowledge that the possibility of it occuring was discussed but no firm decision had been made.
I really don’t see why the would lie, as it doesn’t seem to make a difference either way.
The President claimed problems would occur that would be the fault of Democrats. Problems occured.
If it is the fault of the Democrats, than I suppose the President’s argument is strong and accurate.
If it’s not then he is simply trying to blame somebody else for a problem which is either the fault of his administration, the government in general or inherent in the conditions.
I imagine people’s opinions on this will fall along predictable lines.
From what has been shown in the article the charge of deliberate disingenuous manipulation is contrived. I base this last on the fact that I can’t find the direct links to Gates saying that it shouldn’t have been leaked because Bush wanted to wait so he could claim it was the Democrats’ fault.
That appears to be a fabrication, and the argument of manipulation depends on it.
Can somebody find a direct link to such a statement?
If such a link is found I will concede the allegation is well-founded. If not, I will conclude that the argument is simply another partisan smear based on a lie.
Underline mine, natch.
I felt I should point out that “dastardly” is spelled with a B, not a D.
Upon further thought, the idea that the speech was timed to coincide with announcements and that timing was thrown off is also contrived and disingenuous. The speech was nothing new. He’s been making the Democrat-aren’t-dunding-the-troops-which-will-create-adverse-consequences-for-them, for the last two months.
I think the more accurate interpretation of events is that what the President was described is coming to pass. We are seeing consequences to the delay of the funding process. Rather than accept this simple fact Thinkprogress would prefer to claim “manipulation.”
The President saying something that turns out to be true isn’t manipulation. It’s accuracy.
Not to mention unique.
But there is no evidence that is anything other than trying to deflect accountability for the failure in Iraq. That is not accuracy, it is mendacity. If the troops run out of bullets, it is no one’s fault but the President’s. No one is forcing him to veto the funding bill.
You’re correct. The accuracy is simply that problems were likely to occur. Where the blame should be cast is a different argument.
Before moving on to more substantial matters, let me express my…well, admiration wouldn’t be precisely the word. Something along those lines, for such a nifty bit of stylistic manipulation. How primly you note the appalling lack of sourcing! Why, this could be anything! They might have made up the quotation from whole cloth, the typeface in the quote wasn’t available two weeks ago…
My point being that you deftly imply some hint of a shadow of dishonesty without actually being burdened with substantiation. Do you deny that the quote is an accurate rendering of Sec Gates? If you accept that the quote is accurate, whyever would you question its derivation, unless you are seeking to suggest something you don’t actually believe? Or, at the very least, cannot prove.
Shall we leave the rhetorical smoke and mirrors to the side? There’s a good fellow…
Cite that DOD’s actual cash flow has *already * been restricted? :dubious: Please.
Back the truck up. Bush has proclaimed that these would be the *future * consequences of Congress sending him a bill that, putting a *future * deadline in place, he would in the *future * be forced to veto, therefore leaving the war unfunded in the future, and all of it being the Democrats’ fault for putting that unacceptable deadline (even further in the future) in place.
But the decision is now already in place, in the present. Of what, pray tell, is it *actually * the consequence, in the present?
As to Gates’ anger, there are many reports that it was due to his wanting a 48-hour delay in order to inform the families privately (as if that confidentiality would have lasted past the *first * family being told). The clusterfuck you’re seeing the comments on aren’t about Gates, but about the WH’s not being on the same page with itself.
Clear now? Or are you still looking for a way to blame the other guys instead of your own?
To be strictly fair, friend Scylla has long since bailed on the Bushivik administration, hence they cannot truly be called his own. The thrust of his argument is not so much that they are right, as we are wrong. Our efforts to gently guide him from the paths of error have borne some fruit, early signs are encouraging, but the next six months will be crucial…
I was just watching Dick Cheney on “Face the Nation”, and, good news, we’re still making progress! That’s what they’ve said at every opportunity, over and over, since the invasion. Yep; four years of progress, as you can see by the fact that we’re still trying to secure the capital city.
Meanwhile, we’re being told that the President doesn’t know what his own policy is until somebody tells him. God’s in his Heaven and all’s right with the world.
George, and most of the Republican Party are doing the best they can. That is the very sad truth. And it rests upon the very sad truth that the American people generally wanted to enter the war, and wanted to do so for venal, stupid, jingoist reasons. So they elected a venal, stupid jingoist as their leader.
Citizens of a democracy have no right to blame things on their government. We are a venal, stupid, jingoist nation, and our leadership is exactly what we deserve. Liberals are not better. Go read the posts on this board starting on 9/11/2001. War was the rally cry, and damned few spoke out clearly that it was a bad idea.
If you participate in democracy once a every four years, you get what you worked for. When was the last time you attended a local party caucus? Did you count the number of folks who are deciding who will run the country? No, you didn’t. Because you were not there.
Tris
The Democrats ARE funding the troops, dipshit. The President’s very premise is a lie. The spending bill he wants to veto completely funds the troops. He’s the one who wants to fuck the troops, not the Dems. If Bush doesn’t want to “delay the funding process” he doesn’t have to.
Come on. War with Iraq was not even on most people’s minds before the Bush Admin presented them with the idea – and with non-venal (but fraudulent) reasons given to make it appear urgently necessary.
Bullshit, Triskademus. Half the nation voted against Bush in 2000 and 2004. Not exactly a strong pro-war vote.
As for the support for the Iraq War, you must have forgotten the total success the Bushiviks had in controlling the media in the run-up to the Iraq, convincing people that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and would use them. Maybe you forgot why Bush had that whole yellowcake thing in his speech. Maybe you forgot the total failure of the news media to point out the intelligence community’s concerns regarding the yellowcake clams, which were known well before the State of the Union speech. Maybe you forgot Judith Miller, who swallowed every bit of crap the Bushiviks spewed and printed it verbatim in the New York Times as if it were actual reporting.
The news media have been lazy and stupid of late, but during the run-up to the Iraq War they were total lapdogs for Bush. So I’m not gonna lay the blame on the endlessly lied-to American public, I’m gonna lay it on the Bushiviks and the lapdog traditional media.
Now the 2004 election, that’s different. Everybody who voted for Bush in that one had no excuse. Plenty of stuff had come out about what Bush was up to. They were fools. At least the public had figured out at least part of the picture by 2006.
I think GW’s complaint really is that the funding is couched in language that will require that planning will have to start now for how to withdraw troops according to deadlines. This planning will take up all of the staffs’ time and plans for “Victory in Iraq and the transformation of the MIddle East” will have to be scrapped.
Bush just plain will not accept that the majority of people no longer are interested in the nuances about future turmoil in the Middle East. Many people just want out without regard to possible consequences. Others are willing that the consequences bridge be crossed when we come to it and today’s job is to get the hell out. The feeling is that a stable and peaceful Iraq isn’t going to happen without a big domestic blowup there and in any case we aren’t the ones to achieve domestic harmony there.
The cork that kept sectarian strife and fiolence in the bottle in Iraq has been pulled. Is there anywhere in the Islaamic world where the two sects coexist where they cooperate in a unified government?