The $87 billion dollar war appropriations act... [Archive] - The Orange Mane

View Full Version : The $87 billion dollar war appropriations act...

Taco John

07-29-2004, 11:37 PM

I've been looking for an answer to this for awhile, and have come up empty. I'm hoping someone here might know.

We're hearing a lot about an $87 billion dollar war appropriations act... and we're hearing about Kerry's so-called "flip flop" because he said he voted for the first one, but didn't vote for the second one.

That's bewildering to me. So here are my questions:

1. What in the first $87 billion appropriations act, the one John Kerry DID vote for, that was different in the second act?

2. Why did the first $87 billion act that Kerry voted for not pass?

Anybody know? I'd like to understand what changed in the second act that changed Kerry's support for it. I have a feeling it has to do with where the money came from but can't be certain.

I'd like to know the facts behind all this rhetoric.

Anybody know?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-29-2004, 11:43 PM

Taco John

07-30-2004, 01:10 AM

And the counter?

Is this true?

RaiderH8r

07-30-2004, 08:07 AM

The answer is simple:

When the bill included an amendment to pay
for the cost, Senator Kerry voted for it.

When the Republicans blocked the first vote, removed the amendment and charged the $87 billion dollar cost to our children, Kerry voted against
the bill.
Simple answer for a simple mind. Unfortunately...incorrect.

The reference is to the fact that Kerry voted in favor of S.J. Res 45-107th session of Congress, to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Cosponsored in the Senate by Daschle and Lott. Hastert and Gephart sponsored the House version (H.J Res. 114). Then when the time came to appropriate the funds necessary for the armed forces in Iraq (S. 1689) he voted Nay, along with ONLY 11 other Senators. Those voting nay listed below:
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Edwards (D-NC)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Sarbanes (D-MD)

At any rate. There it is, for what it's worth TJ. You can look all of this up. Cut out the middle man and read the bills yourself and decide your own position.

Rohirrim

07-30-2004, 08:10 AM

Old Dude

07-30-2004, 08:20 AM

Here is a pretty good site that seems to be fairly objective. With all the negative ads we've had from both sides so far, and with many more to be expected, this site could come in very handy.

http://www.factcheck.org/archive.aspx

Regarding the so-called "flip-flop" on military spending, here's the story:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155

You'll find this particular issue discussed in the update section near the botom of the page.

The appropriations that Kerry voted "for" were in an alternate version that included a provision that would have funded them by suspending the Bush tax cuts. That measure was rejected.

RaiderH8r

07-30-2004, 09:21 AM

The bill passed. But troops still didn't get the body armor for months. How many died while waiting for it? Of course, they should have had it coming out of the gate - along with armored vehicles. It would be interesting to know where the bulk of that 87 billion went.
I've contemplated the best way to answer your question of how the $87 Bil. was to be spent. The bill provides the guidelines and budgetary constraints for each of the expendetures. I've listed a brief summary (as brief as it gets with an approps bill) listing the expendetures. This is going to get a bit "Robb-ish" but it is the best way I could find to answer your question. The following is excerpted from the Library of Congress' bill summary of S. 1689, for more detailed information see visit the Library of Congress Website and use the bill lookup for the 108th Congress. Here goes:

Title I: National Security - Chapter 1: Department of Defense - Makes appropriations for the Department of Defense (DOD) for: (1) military personnel; (2) operation and maintenance (O&M); (3) overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civic aid; (4) the Iraq Freedom Fund; (5) procurement; (6) research, development, test and evaluation; (7) the Working Capital Fund and the National Defense Sealift Fund; (8) the Defense Health Program; (9) drug interdiction and counter-drug activities related to Afghanistan; and (10) the Intelligence Community Management Account.

Chapter 2: Military Construction - Makes appropriations for military construction for the Army and Air Force.

Chapter 3: General Provisions, This Title - (Sec. 301) Amends the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002 to increase from $300 million to $450 million the aggregate value of authorized assistance to the Government of Afghanistan and eligible foreign countries and international organizations to direct the drawdown of defense articles and services and military education and training.

(Sec. 306) Increases during FY 2004 the: (1) rates of hostile fire or imminent danger special pay; and (2) family separation allowance for military personnel.

(Sec. 308) Requires a report from the Secretary of Defense to the congressional appropriations committees on progress in sending quarterly classified reports required under the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2004.

(Sec. 310) Allows DOD O&M funds to be used to: (1) provide logistical support to coalition forces supporting military and stability operations in Iraq; and (2) enhance the capability of the New Iraqi Army and Afghan National Army to combat terrorism and support U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(Sec. 312) Requires a report from the Secretary on the military readiness implications of the participation of U.S. ground combat forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

(Sec. 313) Exempts from the payment of subsistence charges while being hospitalized in a military medical facility an officer, former officer, an enlisted member, or former enlisted member who is hospitalized because of an injury or disease incurred: (1) as a direct result of armed conflict; (2) while engaged in hazardous service; (3) in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war; or (4) through an instrumentality of war.

(Sec. 314) Authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to $150 million of funds appropriated to the contingency construction account to carry out military construction projects not otherwise authorized by law, after notifying the appropriate congressional committees that the transfer is necessary to respond to, or protect against, acts or threatened acts of terrorism or to support DOD operations in Iraq.

(Sec. 315) Expresses the sense of the Senate recognizing and commending: (1) members of the U.S. armed forces and the allies of the United States and their ground forces who participated in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq; and (2) the military families, employers, defense civilians and contractors, and communities and patriotic organizations that lent their support to the armed forces during such Operations.

(Sec. 316) Makes funds from the Iraq Freedom Fund available to reimburse military personnel for costs of air fare incurred for travel within the United States in FY 2003 or 2004 while the member is on rest and recuperation leave from deployment overseas in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, but only for one round trip by air between two locations within the United States. Expresses the sense of Congress that the commercial airline industry should charge such members and their families specially discounted, lowest available air fares for travel in connection with such leave, and that any restrictions and limitations imposed in connection with such fares should be minimal.

(Sec. 317) Allows the administering Secretaries, at any time after notifying members of the Ready Reserve that they are to be called or ordered to active duty, to provide to each such member any medical and dental screening and care necessary to meet applicable standards for deployment. Requires the Secretary concerned to promptly notify such members of their eligibility for such screening and care. Terminates such authority on September 30, 2004.

(Sec. 318) Makes each member of the Selected Reserve and Individual Ready Reserve who is placed in a mobilization category (subject to being ordered to active duty involuntarily) eligible to enroll in TRICARE and receive benefits for any period that such member: (1) is an eligible unemployment compensation recipient; or (2) is not eligible for health-care benefits under an employer-sponsored health benefits plan. Allows either self alone or self and family TRICARE coverage. Directs the Secretary to: (1) provide for at least one open enrollment period each year; and (2) charge appropriate premiums for such coverage. Prohibits a member from enrolling in the TRICARE program while entitled to DOD transitional health care.

(Sec. 319) Authorizes the Secretary concerned to pay the applicable premium to continue in force any qualified health plan coverage for a reserve member (and his or her dependents) while the member is serving on active duty pursuant to a call or order issued during a war or national emergency declared by the President or Congress. Limits DOD premium payment amounts and provides a conditional coverage period. Requires the continuation of COBRA coverage during such period. Prohibits simultaneous coverage under both the qualified health plan and TRICARE.

(Sec. 320) Sets forth conditions under which a member of the reserves who is issued a delayed-effective-date active duty order shall be treated as being on active duty for more than 30 days and therefore eligible for medical and dental care for active-duty personnel. Terminates such authority at the end of FY 2004.

(Sec. 321) Revises transitional health care benefits authorized for members separated from active duty for specified periods (with higher authorized separation periods for those with higher periods of total active-duty service).

(Sec. 322) Earmarks specified Iraq Freedom Fund amounts for the procurement of additional Up-Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles. Directs the Secretary of the Army to reevaluate requirements and options for armored security vehicles.

(Sec. 323) Earmarks specified Army O&M funds for operating expenses of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Requires the Office of Inspector General of the CPA to be established within 30 days after enactment of this Act.

(Sec. 324) Requires a monthly report from the President or his designee to Congress detailing: (1) the areas of Iraq determined to be largely secure and stable; and (2) the extent to which U.S. troops have been replaced in such areas by non-U.S. coalition forces, United Nations forces, or Iraqi forces.

(Sec. 325) Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) any U.S. citizen who was a prisoner of war or who was used by the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq as a so-called human shield during the First Gulf War (Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm) should have the opportunity to have any claim for damages caused by Saddam Hussein and Iraq fully adjudicated in the appropriate U.S. district court; (2) any judgment obtained therefrom should be fully enforced; and (3) the Attorney General should enter into negotiations with each such citizen or his or her family to develop a method of providing compensation for such damages, including the use of seized assets of the Hussein regime.

(Sec. 326) Directs: (1) the Secretary to report to the defense committees on the utilization of the National Guard and reserves in support of contingency operations during FY 2004; and (2) the Secretary of Homeland Security to report to Congress on the effects of the deployments of the National Guard and reserves on law enforcement and homeland security in the United States.

(Sec. 327) Requires quarterly reports, through FY 2004, from the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence for Strategy and Iraq to the intelligence committees and specified defense subcommittees on the status of efforts of the Iraq Survey Group to account for the programs of Iraq on weapons of mass destruction and related delivery systems.

(Sec. 328) Provides for the determination of the initial deployment date for members called or ordered to active duty and deployed outside the United States.

(Sec. 329) Earmarks specified funds appropriated under this title for the Family Readiness Program of the National Guard.

(Sec. 330) Requires a report from the Secretary to the defense and appropriations committees on Navy plans for basing aircraft carriers through 2020.

(Sec. 331) Authorizes an additional 10,000 Army personnel as of September 30, 2004, to be trained in, and to perform, constabulary duty in such specialties as military police, light infantry, civil affairs, and special forces. Earmarks funds from the Iraq Freedom Fund for the additional personnel costs.

(Sec. 332) - Reservists Pay Security Act of 2003 - Entitles a person who is absent from his or her position of Federal employment in order to perform active duty under a call or order to active duty to receive from his or her agency an amount that, when added to the pay and allowances for such service, equals the basic pay which would have been payable to such employee for the period of service for which such employee is not otherwise compensated. Requires the application of Federal reemployment rights for such individuals. Terminates such authority at the end of FY 2004.

(Sec. 333) Expresses the sense of the Senate that the Secretary should, on an expedited basis, issue necessary regulations to implement the award of the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal (based on deployment abroad for 30 days or more in support of Global War on Terrorism operations on or after September 11, 2001) and to ensure that any person who renders qualifying service with the armed forces, including Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, and Noble Eagle, promptly receives such award.

(Sec. 334) Places at 90 percent the Federal share of the cost of any disaster relief payment made under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act for damage caused by Hurricane Isabel.

(Sec. 335) Earmarks specified funds appropriated by this Act for repair and replacement of DOD and National Aeronautics and Space Administration infrastructure damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Isabel, related flooding, or other related natural forces.

Title II: International Affairs - Chapter 1: Department of State - Makes appropriations for the Department of State for: (1) the administration of foreign affairs; (2) emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service; (3) international narcotics control and law enforcement; and (4) nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining, and related programs.

Chapter 2: Bilateral Economic Assistance - Makes appropriations for the Iraqi Relief and Reconstruction Fund for security, rehabilitation, and reconstruction in Iraq.

Makes appropriations for: (1) the United States Agency for International Development, including for the Capital Investment Fund ; (2) the Economic Support Fund; (3) the U.S. Emergency Fund for Complex Foreign Crises; (4) the Foreign Military Financing Program; and (5) peacekeeping operations to support the global war on terrorism.

RaiderH8r

07-30-2004, 09:22 AM

And it continues:

Chapter 3: General Provisions, This Title - (Sec. 2304) Amends the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 to extend through FY 2005 the authority of the President to: (1) suspend the application of any provision of the Iraq Sanctions Act of 1990; and (2) export to Iraq, under certain circumstances, lethal military equipment designated by the Secretary of State for use by a reconstituted (or interim) Iraqi military or private security force, other official Iraqi security forces or police forces, or forces from other countries in Iraq that support U.S. efforts there.
(Sec. 2306) Extends through FY 2004 an exemption with respect to Pakistan on the prohibition of direct assistance to a country whose duly elected head of government was deposed by decree or military coup.
(Sec. 2309) Requires monthly reports from the CPA on Iraqi oil production and revenues.
(Sec. 2310) Requires quarterly reports from the CPA Administrator to the appropriations and defense committees on all obligations, expenditures, and revenues associated with reconstruction, rehabilitation, and security activities in Iraq during the preceding 90 days. Directs the Comptroller General (CG) to conduct an ongoing audit of the CPA, and authorizes the CG to conduct additional investigations as appropriate, to evaluate such activities. Requires a report from the CG to the appropriations committees on all audit and investigation results.
(Sec. 2311) Prohibits the use of available funds from this Act or the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 for paying any costs associated with debts incurred by the former government of Saddam Hussein.
(Sec. 2312) Amends the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002 to require the Secretary of State to submit to specified committees reports on progress made in accomplishing the "Purposes of Assistance" set forth under such Act with respect to assistance provided for Afghanistan.
(Sec. 2313) Provides criminal penalties for war profiteering or fraud committed against the United States or Iraq in connection with military action, relief, and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
(Sec. 2314) Requires a report from the President to Congress on U.S. efforts to increase the resources contributed by foreign countries and international organizations to the reconstruction of Iraq and the feasibility of repayment by Iraq of funds contributed for infrastructure projects.
(Sec. 2315) Directs the Secretary to certify to Congress the amount that Iraq will pay, or that will be paid on its behalf, during FY 2004 to a foreign country to service a debt incurred by Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein. Requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to reserve, out of certain unobligated funds appropriated under this Act, the amount so certified. Expresses the sense of Congress that each country that is owed such a debt by Iraq should forgive it.
(Sec. 2316) Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) arbitrary deadlines should not be set for the dissolution of the CPA or the transfer of its authority to an Iraqi governing authority; and (2) no such dissolution or transfer should occur until the ratification of an Iraqi constitution and the establishment of an elected Iraqi government.
(Sec. 2317) Directs the CG to: (1) review the effectiveness of relief and reconstruction activities conducted by the CPA with the use of funds made available from the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRR Fund); and (2) report quarterly to specified congressional committees on review results.
(Sec. 2318) Prohibits funds under this Act from being obligated or expended for arming, training, or employing individuals under 18 years of age for the Facilities Protection Service or any other security force.
(Sec. 2319) Earmarks specified funds from the IRR Fund for: (1) rebuilding Iraq's security services; (2) Iraq purposes other than security; and (3) loans for Iraqi security, rehabilitation, and reconstruction (as long as the President certifies to Congress that at least 90 percent of the bilateral debt incurred by the regime of Saddam Hussein has been forgiven by the countries owed such debt). Directs the President to notify Congress if, out of the first two amounts earmarked, more than $250 million is used for any single purpose in Iraq. Requires the head of the CPA to ensure that amounts appropriated under the IRR Fund are expended for appropriate purposes and in a manner that the head of CPA does not find objectionable. Expresses the sense of Congress that each country owed a bilateral debt by Iraq that was incurred by the regime of Saddam Hussein should: (1) forgive such debt; and (2) provide robust amounts of reconstruction aid to Iraq during the conference of donors scheduled to begin on October 23, 2003, in Madrid, Spain, and during other conferences of donors of foreign aid.
(Sec. 2320) Expresses the sense of Congress that the President should: (1) make every effort to increase the level of financial commitment from other nations to improve the physical, political, economic, and social infrastructure of Iraq; and (2) seek to provide aid from the United States to Iraq in a manner that promotes economic growth in Iraq and limits the long-term cost to U.S. taxpayers.
(Sec. 2321) Directs the President to report to Congress every 60 days on U.S. strategy related to post-conflict security, humanitarian assistance, governance, and reconstruction undertaken as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
(Sec. 2322) Requires activities carried out by the United States with respect to: (1) the civilian governance of Afghanistan to include advice from women's organizations, promote inclusion of women in future legislative bodiesand encourage the appointment of women to high-level positions; (2) post-conflict stability in those countries to include partnerships with Afghan and Iraqi organizations, access of women to and ownership by women of productive assets, financial assistance for education for women and girls, and education and training programs for former combatants; and (3) training for military and police forces in those countries to include training on the protection, rights, and particular needs of women.
Title III: Leave for Military Families - Military Families Leave Act of 2003 - (Sec. 3002) Amends: (1) the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to entitle an eligible employee to 12 work weeks of leave during any 12-month period because a spouse, son, daughter, or parent of the employee is a member of the armed forces who either is on active duty in support of a contingency operation or has been notified of an impending call or order to such status. Allows such leave only for issues relating to or resulting from such family member's military duty; and (2) Federal law to grant such leave, under the same conditions, to civil service employees.
Title IV: Department of Veterans Affairs - Makes appropriations for medical care and related activities of the Veterans Health Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Title V: General Provisions, This Act - (Sec. 5001) Directs the President to submit quarterly reports to each Member of Congress on the projected total costs of U.S. operations in Iraq, including military operations and reconstruction efforts, through FY 2008.
(Sec. 5002)Designates each amount provided in this Act as an emergency requirement pursuant to emergency legislation provisions of the congressional budget resolution for FY 2004 (H.Con.Res. 95).
(Sec. 5003) Prohibits the obligation or expenditure of funds appropriated by this Act by the head of an executive agency for payments under certain contracts or agreements relating to Iraq that are not entered into under full and open competition, unless within 30 days after entering into such a contract or agreement, such official: (1) reports the contract or agreement to specified congressional committees; and (2) publishes such report in the Federal Register and Commerce Business Daily. Makes such requirement applicable to any contract or agreement in excess of $1 million entered into with any public or private sector entity to: (1) build or rebuild physical infrastructure of Iraq; (2) establish or reestablish a political or societal institution of Iraq; (3) provide products or services to the people of Iraq; or (4) perform personnel support services in Iraq. Provides an exception with respect to classified information. Authorizes the Secretary or the Director of Central Intelligence to waive such requirement on a case-by-case basis in the interests of national security (requiring notice and justification to such committees).
(Sec. 5004) Expresses the sense of Congress that the removal of the Government of Iraq under Saddam Hussein enhanced the security of Israel and other U.S. allies.
(Sec. 5005) Directs the CG to conduct studies on the effectiveness and efficiency of contracts in excess of $40 million performed or to be performed in or relating to Iraq and paid from funds made available in this Act or the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003, with a special emphasis on profits, overhead, management fees, and related expenditures. Requires two reports to the appropriations committees evaluating such studies and recommending improvements of such contracting process.
(Sec. 5006) Provides that any U.S. citizen held hostage during the period between 1979 and 1981, and their spouses and children at the time, shall have a claim for money damages against a foreign state for personal injury caused by such state's act of torture or hostage taking. Abrogates any conflicting provisions, including those under the Algiers Accord.
(Sec. 5007) Expresses the sense of the Senate that all countries that hold debt from loans to the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein should be urged to forgive such debt.
(Sec. 5008) Mandates that when countermeasures against the threat of shoulder-fired missiles are deployed, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretaries of Defense and Transportation, shall make it a priority to so equip aircraft enrolled in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet.

Taco John

07-30-2004, 09:32 AM

So as I understand it... It was a battle about who pays for it... The rich now, or future generations later.

RaiderH8r

07-30-2004, 09:39 AM

So as I understand it... It was a battle about who pays for it... The rich now, or future generations later.
That was not how Kerry defended it. His defense was that he wanted to send a message about the war and the US need to build a broader coalition. Thus making it a political football rather than an issue of who pays. However, an examination of the bill shows a number of good policy decisions in regards to the Leave for military families, increased funding to the Dept. of Vet. Affairs, rebuilding Iraq's security services and infrastructure, demining, anti-terrorism activity in the region, and many others. Furthermore, the bill also made provisions as to the involvement of community groups in the region that, until now, had never had a place at the table. One in particular (pay attention women's rights advocates): requires activities carried out by the United States with respect to: (1) the civilian governance of Afghanistan to include advice from women's organizations, promote inclusion of women in future legislative bodiesand encourage the appointment of women to high-level positions; (2) post-conflict stability in those countries to include partnerships with Afghan and Iraqi organizations, access of women to and ownership by women of productive assets, financial assistance for education for women and girls, and education and training programs for former combatants; and (3) training for military and police forces in those countries to include training on the protection, rights, and particular needs of women.

At any rate, there is much, much more in the bill that does many good things for the region. And these endeavors are having success in the area.

Old Dude

07-30-2004, 09:51 AM

So as I understand it... It was a battle about who pays for it... The rich now, or future generations later.

Well, sort of. That would certainly be Kerry's position. "Pay as you go" is one of the standard planks in his platform, and in this sense, the democrats are actually more fiscally tight-fisted than the republicans - a big turnaround since the days of FDR, Kennedy & Johnson.

However, the republican position (which prevailed in the vote) was that the tax cut would stimulate the economy & hasten the recovery, in such a manner that the bill could be paid off fairly soon. The republicans generally view tax cuts as an "investment" in the economy.

The truth is probably somewhere between. There is no doubt that tax cuts do provide some economic stimulus. The parties don't agree, though, on how much of a stimulus they provide, or how much of it really trickles down. Also, greater national debt tends to eventually increase interest rates, which, in turn, tend to slow down some sectors of the economy. And trumping all of that right now are the gas prices, which did slow the economy in the spring.

Old Dude

07-30-2004, 10:23 AM

Budget gap grows to $445B

Shortfall for 2004 far above 2003 but falls below estimates; White House says growth, employment up.
July 30, 2004: 12:53 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said Friday the federal budget deficit will grow to $445 billion this fiscal year, a new record likely to fuel election-year fights about President Bush's economic policies.

The figure, released in the White House's mid-session budget review, is well above the 2003 shortfall of $374 billion, which set the previous record in dollar terms. But it is $76 billion below the $521 billion forecast for this year by the White House in February.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/30/news/economy/bush_budget.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

patteeu

07-30-2004, 02:29 PM

Well, sort of. That would certainly be Kerry's position. "Pay as you go" is one of the standard planks in his platform, and in this sense, the democrats are actually more fiscally tight-fisted than the republicans - a big turnaround since the days of FDR, Kennedy & Johnson.

However, the republican position (which prevailed in the vote) was that the tax cut would stimulate the economy & hasten the recovery, in such a manner that the bill could be paid off fairly soon. The republicans generally view tax cuts as an "investment" in the economy.

The truth is probably somewhere between. There is no doubt that tax cuts do provide some economic stimulus. The parties don't agree, though, on how much of a stimulus they provide, or how much of it really trickles down. Also, greater national debt tends to eventually increase interest rates, which, in turn, tend to slow down some sectors of the economy. And trumping all of that right now are the gas prices, which did slow the economy in the spring.

Good post, Old Dude.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-30-2004, 04:18 PM

The appropriations that Kerry voted "for" were in an alternate version that included a provision that would have funded them by suspending the Bush tax cuts. That measure was rejected.

Exactly my point.

So as I understand it... It was a battle about who pays for it... The rich now, or future generations later.

Bingo.

Just like everything else where bush's economic policies are concerned.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-30-2004, 10:31 PM

Bush himself threatened to veto the $87 billion Kerry voted for because it limited
millionaires' tax cuts. What Kerry voted against was financing the war with borrowed
money. Maybe that's too complicated for a 30-second TV spot. It's when Kerry says these things to Bush's face that they're apt to sting.

It would be interesting to know where the bulk of that 87 billion went.

Funny you should ask...

Another Billion in Iraq Spending Missing

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040729/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_audit_2

U.S. civilian authorities in Baghdad failed to keep good track of nearly $1 billion in Iraqi money spent for reconstruction projects and can't produce records to show whether they got some services and products they paid for, anew audit concludes.

The Coalition Provisional Authority paid nearly $200,000 for 15 police trucks without
confirming they were delivered, and auditors have not located them, the report from the CPA's Inspector General said. Officials also didn't have records to justify the $24.7 million for replacing Iraqi currency which used to carry Saddam's portrait, the report said.

The report, released in Iraq late Wednesday, is the first formal audit of contracting procedures under the CPA, which oversaw billions in reconstruction spending that critics say was doled out without proper controls. The agency's defenders say it did the best it could given the pressure of operating in a war zone and trying to get reconstruction going quickly.

Blueflame

07-31-2004, 12:56 PM

Rohirrim

07-31-2004, 01:09 PM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-31-2004, 03:54 PM

watermock

07-31-2004, 11:46 PM

I still say the most important question to ask is not about this bill and Kerry's dealings with it, but why was it necessary to add the provision for armored vehicles and body armor? Our soldiers were already in combat - fighting and dying - when that bill was being voted on. Instead of nailing Kerry for how he voted on it, why not ask this: Why didn't our soldiers have those armored vehicles and body armor coming out of the gate?

Well, two reasons. The Stryker is a POS when the 113 was just as good or better. Humvees are simply not capable of warding off improvised roadside bombs.

Before you cave on me, I agree there have been mistakes, but how many weapons systems has Kerry voted for again?

Leave it up to the Israelis to modify American weapons and make them more effective in actual combat. What would you want protecting your ass?

This:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/stryker1.jpg
Stryker IAV, in its heavy armor role, fires its main gun.

Or this old style 113 with tracks and reactive armor?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/mudpull.jpg
M-113 Gavin pulls out an Army Humvee stuck in deep mud.

Israeli Derivitave to compensate for thin skin with reactive armor:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/idf113.jpg

We need some of these babies. Notice the armor on the top for the machine gun nest. We we need something that can lay down covering fire and be able to fight off RPG's.

We have a need for both IMO. The old design is only 300k not 1.4 m

watermock

07-31-2004, 11:47 PM

By Jon Dougherty
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

The U.S. Army's newest armored vehicle is fraught with operational problems and physical limitations that make its predecessor not only a much better choice for soldiers, but one that may be more deployable and have better battlefield survivability, say weapon-systems analysts and military critics who have studied the issue.

According to sources familiar with the Army's "Stryker" Interim Armored Vehicle the vehicle is too heavy to be transported fully combat ready by the Air Force's most numerous transport aircraft, the C-130, despite numerous attempts to lighten it, and despite an initial congressional mandate the vehicle be C-130-deliverable to the battlefield combat ready.

Stryker IAV, in its heavy armor role, fires its main gun.

Also, critics claim, the Stryker's eight large rubber wheels make it more vulnerable to weapons fire and less maneuverable in rough or mucky terrain than its predecessor, the M-113 Gavin, the U.S. military's most prevalent tracked armored personnel carrier.

Army officials deny such allegations, but analysts who have studied and used both wheeled and tracked armored vehicles during operations – such as the Marine Corps' LAV-25 vehicles – have discovered wheeled vehicles have difficulty transiting soft sand, mud, snow and other rough terrain, a problem that makes them more vulnerable to enemy fire.

At the same time, critics point out, tracked vehicles like the Army's Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and the Gavins have far fewer mobility problems and, taking into account the differences in firepower, are more survivable on the field of battle.

M-113 Gavin pulls out an Army Humvee stuck in deep mud.

"It would be fine if we could park [the Stryker] on a highway and have our enemies come to us to fight," says Lonnie Shoultz, a former member of the Army's elite 101st Airborne Division, a retired U.S. Treasury Department special agent and an established military historian. "But if you can't get to the battle, you can't win the war."

"From a super highway to dirt roads to chewed-up and muddy terrain, the Stryker is at a disadvantage" to the Gavin, Shoultz told WorldNetDaily.

Failed tests?

Such discrepancies were even noted during field-testing at Fort Irwin, Calif., last fall, according to an Army Times report.

"The biggest problem was difficulty loading the 107-inch-wide vehicle on a C-130 Hercules transport plane," said the Times, a conclusion also reached in an August 2002 document entitled "Stryker Findings," which was produced by observers from the Army Test and Evaluation Command, or ATEC, in Alexandria, Va.

Stryker rolls off a C-130 transport plane.

"Very little can be stowed in its proper place due to C-130 loading restrictions," said the findings. ATEC is monitoring the Stryker's weapon-system acquisition and development.

Also, the military paper said, a total of 13 tires on the 16 Strykers involved in the 96-hour war games needed replacing. The ATEC team also noted that troops inside the Strykers were so cramped they "found it difficult to drink from their canteens," said the Times.

Army officials nonetheless have dismissed the problems, saying the vehicle is performing well and will serve U.S. ground forces acceptably during combat.

"We've been able to fly [the Strykers] on combat missions across a full spectrum of potential threats and operational scenarios [during testing] at Fort Irwin and Fort Polk, Louisiana," Maj. Amy Hannah, an Army spokesperson, told WorldNetDaily. "Part of the certification process encompassed the different types of exercises and evaluations."

For instance, she said, in California the testing focused on "a desert environment under mid- to high-intensity combat conditions," while at Polk, "testing focused on mid- to low-intensity … including urban operations."

Throughout the process, Army brigades that will be accepting the new Strykers were "able to deploy strategically by rail, sea and air," Hannah said.

But critics maintain staying with the Gavins is a much better choice for the Army's new lighter-forces vision, even though they have been around for more than four decades.

For one, they say, the Gavin is proven and has an established line of supply. The M-113s are also in use with U.S. allies most likely to take the field alongside U.S. forces in the near future.

Also, sources said, the newest version of the Gavin, the M-113A3 – which is manufactured in York, Pa. – will more reliably carry troops and equipment into a fight anywhere, regardless of the terrain. And, they said the tracked Gavin with its upgrades is more battle-worthy, maneuverable and cheaper to procure. Plus, its tracked configuration and better armor make it more survivable on the battlefield.

Finally, says Shoultz , the M-113s now can be fitted with "band tracks," rubberized track fittings that make for a smoother ride and less wear and tear on the tracks themselves.

The Gavin, which was introduced in 1960 and has been upgraded a number of times, has been proven in action in over 50 countries. The Stryker, meanwhile, is little more than an "oversized armored car," mounted on large inflated tires "that make great driving vehicles on super highways but cannot traverse a bog or rough terrain to get to a fight," Shoultz said.

"You cannot overemphasize that," he added.

"The Stryker program has been a fraud. Billions have been wasted on a vehicle that can't do the job as well as the vehicles that the Army has had in its inventory for over four decades," said Don Loughlin, a former Army ordnance specialist, in an October 2002 critique of the Stryker. "It is time to pull the plug' on it."

'No difference'

One report said there was no difference between the Stryker and the Gavin.

"There is no significant performance difference between the Stryker and M113 armored personnel carriers, according to the Pentagon official who oversaw testing between the two U.S. Army vehicles in September," said the Feb. 7 report in Defense News.

"Based on our review of the data from the Medium Armored Vehicle Comparison Evaluation, we conclude that the Stryker and the M113A3 were equally effective and suitable," said Tom Christie, the Department of Defense's director of operational test and evaluation. "The operational portions of the MAV CE showed no differences in unit effectiveness, weapon-system lethality or operational suitability."

Defense News reported that ATEC "compared Stryker to the M113 from April to October, using primarily instrumentation and computer modeling. The comparison evaluation culminated in the live field study in September and October, where a platoon of soldiers used both vehicles to conduct reconnaissance and attack missions."

So why spend $1.4 million on each new Stryker when the M-113 costs $300,000 per unit, has a distinguished battlefield record, a well-established supply line, is familiar to troops and has interoperability with scores of other armed forces with which the U.S. could deploy?

"The Stryker family of vehicles are considered less vulnerable to small arms and weapons fire than the M113 family of vehicles," said the Army, in an official written response to questions posed by WorldNetDaily.

"The crew and engine compartments of the Strykers are fully protected up to 14.5mm armor piercing (AP) rounds while the crew and engine compartments of the M113s are protected only up to 7.62mm AP rounds," said defense officials. "Although a 14.5mm armor design was developed for the M113s, the armor was never produced and fielded."

Also, said the Army, "in addition to greater small-arms protection, an add-on armor is currently being developed for six of the 10 Stryker vehicle configurations to protect the crews against RPG-7 munitions. Although a study was conducted to investigate the application of the Bradley RPG armor tiles to the M113s, mounting provisions and RPG armor designs were never developed for the M113s."

Finally, the Army said while Gavin tracks "are less vulnerable to small arms fire," the Stryker's wheels contain "a run-flat device consisting of a solid core of rubber that allows the tire to be driven 30 miles without replacement when punctured."

Regarding its mobility, the Army admitted that "for vehicles weighing 10-20 tons, tracked vehicles have better cross-country mobility in sand, mud and snow than wheeled vehicles," while "wheeled vehicles were found to have much better speed and ride quality over primary and secondary roads than tracked vehicles."

"To improve its overall mobility, especially for cross-country operation, the Stryker employs a Central Tire Inflation System (CTIS) to increase its tire pressure for operation over primary as well as secondary roads and to reduce its tire pressure for improved mobility over soft and sandy soils," Army officials said.

But critics were unfazed.

Stanley Crist, a former tank crewman, armor training NCO and author who served in Vietnam, said General Dynamics was developing armor for the Stryker that would repel RPGs – rocket propelled grenades – but "I imagine it will only cover the hull above the wheels, in front of the front wheels and perhaps behind the rear wheels, since the front four wheels are used for steering."

"It is unlikely [the front wheels] could have armor skirts, but it is possible to design armor skirts to protect the four rear (non-steering) wheels," he told WorldNetDaily.

"It is true that add-on armor of various protection levels has been developed for M113, but not fielded by the US Army," Crist said. However, he said such "appliqué" armor "is used in Israel, New Zealand, Switzerland and some other armies" that use the Gavins.

And, he said, "the Army's claim that RPG armor has not been developed for M113 is definitely not true. The Israeli company Rafael developed reactive armor several years ago that was seen fitted to some IDF M113s during the 1996 incursion into Lebanon."

Israel Defense Forces M-113 with reactive 'appliqué' armor.

Shoultz also questioned the Army's deployment requirements for the Stryker. He says the mandate was to "deploy the [Stryker] brigade in 96 hours by C-130s."

"Using choo-choo trains cannot do that," he said.

Mike Sparks, Army Reserve officer and co-author of the book "Air-Mech-Strike: Asymmetric Maneuver Warfare for the 21st Century," told Defense News, "Twenty-four Army programs will be canceled in 2004, all for wheeled peacekeeping brigades the service doesn't need and are too impotent to play a vital role" in the war against Iraq.

The Pentagon also confirmed April 1 that weight is still a problem for the Stryker, though officially the Army is denying it, according to an Anniston Star newspaper report last month.

In March, the Air Force certified eight versions of the Stryker to fly in C-130s, said the paper, but Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and another committee member said those versions can only be transported by C-130s under a narrow range of altitude and weather conditions. Shoultz confirmed that.

And Pete Aldridge, under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, acknowledged April 1 the Defense Department was aware of that problem and was working to get it solved.

"I think the most important thing here is that we can move the Stryker with the C-130 under certain conditions," Aldridge said. "We can also move the Stryker – three Strykers – with C-17s under other conditions. So, depending on where you want to go and what mission you want to accomplish, we will have to adapt our deployment to that capability that will exist."

The Anniston paper also said the C-17 transport can carry three Strykers but needed a longer, paved runway.

Hunter said the Stryker's advertised ability to be transported by C-130 aircraft was a big reason why Congress went for it.

"When Saddam Hussein came marching south with seven Iraqi divisions, we had only a light infantry, that is the 82nd Airborne, to throw in his way, and we needed to have something that was semi-hard to get in there quickly. And we were sold a good deal of this on C-130 transportability," he said last month.

"It did not start out to be the same weight that we have now," Aldridge said. "It still is on a diet, as a matter of fact. The Army's still looking for ways to carry it."

In a recent military exercise, "the Infantry Carrier Vehicle variant required multiple alterations to fit into a C-130," said an assessment of the Stryker by GlobalSecurity.org. "The crew removed two smoke grenade launchers, all antennas, a left rear bracket that blocked egress over the top of the vehicle, the Remote Weapons System and the third-row wheel's bump-stop. Reassembly upon landing took as long as 17 minutes."

watermock

07-31-2004, 11:54 PM

Taco, the Stryker wasn't ready yet. I imagine they pushed to speed production, some are there now. I am sure they are decent, but there are real problems with them.

Bronco Yoda

08-01-2004, 04:08 AM

It's ridiculous that our soldiers had to take their own armor with them. Parents forced to purchase police grade jackets and shipping them over there as a last measure... I saw a couple reports where home town metalwork shops were making metal plates (for the Hummers) and sending them over with their home town soldiers.

What... our military budget isn't already enough to provide these basic essentials?

None of it suprises me. Pretty sad when the Israelis feel the need to and justifiably so modify (upgrade) all the weapons systems we sell them. The very same ones we use for combat.

Remember the Bradley fighting vehicle.... 20 some years and billions of dollars and still a death trap. Isralis took one look at the ones they ordered and had them completely overhauled. It's been this way for so long now.

hell, instead of us sending all that money over there so they can turn around and buy weapons from us we should just switch roles. Let THEM build all weapons and we buy em from them. We'd probably save money in the long run and have better weapon systems too.

watermock

08-02-2004, 12:25 AM

Speaking of Armor.

How amusing how many of my responsed go unanswered.

They just go off in LaLa land.

Well this is in direct response to why there is "Wild in the Streets" which I am sure Hogan would reckognize. Ha!