USAF chief of staff says troops will pay for war bill

[SPfloppy]

An associate of mine tried in vain to locate an article he had read last week about Gen Michael mosely the CSUSAF talking about the $1bil combat bill the air force is currently short to pay. My buddy said that in this article Mosely said that if the funds to pay were not found by august than every uniformed airman would pay out of thier checks to cover it. If this has any legs at all there will be such a mass exodus of active duty airmen they would have to stop loss the whole service for two years to catch up.

Has anyone here read anything about this? Furthermore if it is true and they take dime one from my check I swear by all that is holy I will never lend my vote or name to another conservative again.

[SPfloppy]

I just read something that says we are getting a raise and new facilities? So I guess this was an eronious report

[SPfloppy]

The Air Force’s top officer said Wednesday that if nearly $1 billion in personnel funds taken from the service to pay for combat in Iraq and Afghanistan isn’t restored by the end of the summer, Airmen and civilian employees might not get their pay (http://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay).

Due to a congressional delay in approving a wartime supplemental funding bill this year, the Pentagon pulled about $880 million from the Air Force’s personnel accounts to make up for a shortfall it warned lawmakers would come in mid-April.
Poll: Should Air Force personnel be used to man Army billets in Iraq? (http://www.military.com/)
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael “Buzz” Moseley said at a breakfast meeting with reporters today that the money is coming out of the military personnel account earmarked for the last four months of the year.
“Somebody’s going to have to pay us back,” Moseley said. “You have to pay people every day when they come to work.”
“A: it’s the right thing to do, and B: it’s kind of the law,” he added.
Alert: Tell your public officials how you feel about this issue. (http://capwiz.com/military/issues/alert/?alertid=9669451&type=CO)
The shortfall could delay permanent change of station moves, temporary duty expenses and other pays that “take care of people,” he said.
On April 15, the Army announced it would have to cut training, depot repair, and maintenance of non war-related gear because funding for the surge in Iraq, combat operations in Afghanistan and other Global War on Terrorism costs was running dry.
The Army also requested that about $1.6 billion be diverted from the Air Force and Navy personnel accounts to help put the wartime funding tab in the black.
With Congress (http://capwiz.com/military/home/) locked in a political battle with the Bush administration over withdrawal deadlines and troop rotation schedules, the $100 billion wartime spending bill to pay for operations through the end of the fiscal year has yet to be signed into law.
Though both the Senate and House have submitted the supplemental bill to the floor for a vote this week, President Bush (http://capwiz.com/military/bio/?id=20004&lvl=F) has vowed a veto over withdrawal deadlines inserted into the law.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace has said if the wartime funds aren’t in place by mid-May, even more drastic cuts will have to be made, including reductions in training for forces on their way to Iraq, which will force the Pentagon to extend the deployments of units already there.
“The comptroller now has a check that they’re going to have to give us back to pay for [personnel] as we get closer to the end of the summer,” Moseley explained, putting the screws to Pentagon and administration budgeteers to recoup the loss.
“I don’t want to have any concerns about getting that money back,” he said. “It would be a breach of faith to take mil-pers money out of a service and then fast forward a couple of quarters and then just say ‘eat it.’”
Moseley said he’ll resist providing Airmen to man jobs the Army and Marine Corps can’t fill due to high operational tempo and increased demand, insisting his service is “drawing some red lines” to deny ground commanders’ requests.
About 20,000 Air Force personnel have filled shortfalls in the ground services’ manning – dubbed “in lieu of taskings” – including convoy and base security operations and even detainee handling jobs. As early as 2005, Air Force security personnel began augmenting Army detainee-handling troops at Camp Bucca prison near Baghdad and have continued to man prison jobs in Iraq.
“We don’t guard prisoners, we don’t even have a prison,” Moseley said. “To take out people and train them to be a detainee-guarding entity requires time away from their normal job.”
Some U.S.-based Air Force commands have as many as 25 percent of their personnel deployed to Iraq and are still executing their home station duties. For example, the San Angelo, Texas-based 17th Training Wing has its crash, fire, and rescue teams and security force units deployed “and we’re still operating the wing,” Moseley said.
Moseley said he’s happy to provide personnel with job skills the Air Force has in abundance, including drivers and information technology specialists. But “I am less supportive of things outside of our competencies,” he said.
“We’ve drawn some red lines on some of the ‘in lieu of’ taskings to get away from the tasking of our folks that is incredibly outside the competencies.”

[Spider]

you know me , I am a democrat , but I seriously doubt any one in any party will allow this to happen ........Both sides dont want to leave the military hanging ......

[Cito Pelon]

GWB & Co. don't want rich people to have to pay taxes to fund the war.

[yavoon]

GWB & Co. don't want rich people to have to pay taxes to fund the war.

oh yes, those untaxed rich. they are evil, the workers should revolt.

[Rascal]

The Air Force’s top officer said Wednesday that if nearly $1 billion in personnel funds taken from the service to pay for combat in Iraq and Afghanistan isn’t restored by the end of the summer, Airmen and civilian employees might not get their pay (http://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay).


Yeah I heard at work this past week that the funding to pay for new hires, promotions, etc was simply gone and that the pay fund was about to dry up within 1-2 months tops. There were speculating that within a month we wouldn't be getting paid.

[yavoon]

Yeah I heard at work this past week that the funding to pay for new hires, promotions, etc was simply gone and that the pay fund was about to dry up within 1-2 months tops. There were speculating that within a month we wouldn't be getting paid.

that sux mad balls.

[heydensmom]

Won't happen. Something similar happened like this (not to this scale) back in 1995-1996 due to the defense bill not being signed. It was threatened but it never happened.

[SPfloppy]

When Bill Clinton shut down the gov for a couple of days a goodly number of active duty army didn't get paid (or at least so say a couple of old sgts I worked with). With this however I am inclined to believe we will get paid. They have been cutting money from the PCS fund (perminant change of station) for some time but we are still over by a few hundred mil. The fix for this is easy but I dunno if they will do it. Freeze all overseas returnees (not deployed folks, I am saying troops in Germany, Spain, Korea, Turkey ect.) for one fiscal quarter. That would save millions upon millions. If you did it for one year we'd actually end up with a surplus and be able to buy the new planes Mosely wants.

[defenseman]

An associate of mine tried in vain to locate an article he had read last week about Gen Michael mosely the CSUSAF talking about the $1bil combat bill the air force is currently short to pay. My buddy said that in this article Mosely said that if the funds to pay were not found by august than every uniformed airman would pay out of thier checks to cover it. If this has any legs at all there will be such a mass exodus of active duty airmen they would have to stop loss the whole service for two years to catch up.

Has anyone here read anything about this? Furthermore if it is true and they take dime one from my check I swear by all that is holy I will never lend my vote or name to another conservative again.

When president Carter was in office, the armed forces paycheck was delayed for a similar type reason. Back then there was no direct deposit and when I came home on payday, without a paycheck, talked about a pissed off wife. I'm thinking though, they won't let this happen again hopefully..dman

[clarkster]

Won't happen. Something similar happened like this (not to this scale) back in 1995-1996 due to the defense bill not being signed. It was threatened but it never happened.

yeah i remember that, i think it was the budget didnt get approved in time, and there was a small amount of folks that had delayed pay. it did kind of screw up some of the automatic bill paying folks though

[Bronco Bob]

It was interesting too that up until that point in time the Republicans in Congress
were in the catbird seat and Clinton wasn't very popular. But when Clinton
made his stand on the budget, his popularity grew and the Republicans
began to be viewed less favorably. Where-as now Bush has dropped even
more in the polls, down to 28%, after vetoeing this budget, and Democrats
have gotten even more popular in the polls.

[Rascal]

That's true bob, but I can tell you that if the military doesn't get paid they will overwhelmingly blame the dems in congress and not Bush (based on the people I've talked too).

[defenseman]

That's true bob, but I can tell you that if the military doesn't get paid they will overwhelmingly blame the dems in congress and not Bush (based on the people I've talked too).

That is, an absolute FOR SURE.......talking about losing the military vote...they'll lose it quick, that would be any dem who runs for anything...dman

[bendog]

I love this. And they bitched about WJC. roflmao

[Bronco Bob]

That is, an absolute FOR SURE.......talking about losing the military vote...they'll lose it quick, that would be any dem who runs for anything...dman

Odd, considering the Dems gave the military all the money it needed and it
was Bush who vetoed the bill and is denying the military the funding it needs.
So you are saying the majority of the military is hard core Bushies and
will never blame Bush for anything, even them not getting paid the money
the Dems allocated for them?

[TailgateNut]

Odd, considering the Dems gave the military all the money it needed and it
was Bush who vetoed the bill and is denying the military the funding it needs.
So you are saying the majority of the military is hard core Bushies and
will never blame Bush for anything, even them not getting paid the money
the Dems allocated for them?


That was way to much truth for Dman to respond to. It'll take a while for a talking point to be invented.

HEADLINE "BUSH VETOES MILITARY FUNDING BILL" because of reasonable timetables attached to bill!

[defenseman]

Odd, considering the Dems gave the military all the money it needed and it
was Bush who vetoed the bill and is denying the military the funding it needs.
So you are saying the majority of the military is hard core Bushies and
will never blame Bush for anything, even them not getting paid the money
the Dems allocated for them?

Surrender date aside right? You are guilty of telling only half the truth, try putting out all the info. then again, you publish that which meets your agenda. Pretty familiar tactic. Hide it better next time there lefty..dman

[Hotrod]

Hey, why dont we just print up some more $ if were running low?

[Hotrod]

Odd, considering the Dems gave the military all the money it needed and it
was Bush who vetoed the bill and is denying the military the funding it needs.
So you are saying the majority of the military is hard core Bushies and
will never blame Bush for anything, even them not getting paid the money
the Dems allocated for them?

LOL seriously talk about half a story wow

[Rascal]

Hey, why dont we just print up some more $ if were running low?

That's a running joke in my office.

"Were are we going to get money for that?" "Eh..we'll just print some more up."

[TailgateNut]

Surrender date aside right? You are guilty of telling only half the truth, try putting out all the info. then again, you publish that which meets your agenda. Pretty familiar tactic. Hide it better next time there lefty..dman


...which "surrender" date are you referring to??? we surrendered when this hor**** went from being an "attack" to being a police/ security/ training action.

...so IMO we already either won or surrendered, GWB just can't say the words because they are against his gung-ho cowboy mentality!

[Hotrod]

That was way to much truth for Dman to respond to. It'll take a while for a talking point to be invented.

HEADLINE "BUSH VETOES MILITARY FUNDING BILL" because of timetables attached to bill!

I think you added a word there which was well debateable at the very least.

Line Item Veto for me please.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

LOL seriously talk about half a story wowConsidering the large majority of American troops in Iraq think we shouldn't be there, it makes sense to start winding this Bush clusterf88k up and get em back home.

[Hotrod]

What the leftys dont understand or dont want to is the fact their tatic in this situation is see thru.

Its actually sad they think so little of todays military. Those men/women see right thru their BS

[Hotrod]

Considering the large majority of American troops in Iraq think we shouldn't be there, it makes sense to start winding this Bush clusterf88k up and get em back home.

Thats a reasonable debate.......but to try and force the issue with their paychecks is BS

[Rascal]

Odd, considering the Dems gave the military all the money it needed and it
was Bush who vetoed the bill and is denying the military the funding it needs.
So you are saying the majority of the military is hard core Bushies and
will never blame Bush for anything, even them not getting paid the money
the Dems allocated for them?

You can spin it that way if you want, but the feeling among the majority of the serviceman I've talked too is that if they don't get $$$ the blame will fall on the democrats not Bush. The Dems didn't give the military anything more then what the Repubs had given them in previous budgets. And no they were not Bushies.

The Dems knew Bush would never sign it, and they played politics by putting it in and wasting time.

[Hotrod]

You can spin it that way if you want, but the feeling among the majority of the serviceman I've talked too is that if they don't get $$$ the blame will fall on the democrats not Bush. The Dems didn't give the military anything more then what the Repubs had given them in previous budgets. And no they were not Bushies.

The Dems knew Bush would never sign it, and they played politics by putting it in and wasting time.

Thats what I was trying to say but didn't say it very well.

They are playing political games with the militarys funding..........thats pretty f***ing low.

[Crushaholic]

Bush vetoed the bill because it contained items that didn't need to be included. It's time for the Congress to pass a REAL funding bill.

[TailgateNut]

I think you added a word there which was well debateable at the very least.

Line Item Veto for me please.


If anything, I missed/ omitted a word, ie: (EMERGENCY). Bush is so clueless he constantly has to have "emergancy" bills passed, because he wasn't aware there's a war in Iraq which would need funding. He thought the "mission was accomplished" 4 years ago!

[TailgateNut]

Thats a reasonable debate.......but to try and force the issue with their paychecks is BS


This same type of paycheck "scare" happened several times while I was serving, but guess what? We always recieved our checks! It's all "hogwash".

[bendog]

Bush could have a bill tomorrow if he'd agree to what benchmarks the Iraqis will have to meet. Benchmarks have bipartisan support. The troops will get the money, unless Rove wants to try and beat the DIms over this, but I think Rove's a one trick poney at this point.

This actually is funny, imo. The Godfather would kiss you, before you got whacked. WJC would kiss someone when he ****ed them. Bushii does neither.

[Hotrod]

If anything, I missed/ omitted a word, ie: (EMERGENCY). Bush is so clueless he constantly has to have "emergancy" bills passed, because he wasn't aware there's a war in Iraq which would need funding. He thought the "mission was accomplished" 4 years ago!

That certainly can be argued and I'm over the Bush project.

Its not our fault IMO that Iraq has become a **** hole. Its the people who live there. We certainly tried to give them a shot at a better life and they pissed it away. So now IMO screw them. They can have the **** sandwich they want. Religion is scary.

Anyway these are seperate issues and the Dems are simly trying to look good and gather the anti-war vote. Sadly they underestimate the average military persons ability to see thru their BS

[Rascal]

This same type of paycheck "scare" happened several times while I was serving, but guess what? We always recieved our checks! It's all "hogwash".

Well explain to me then why I received an email from our wing commander telling us to make sure we have money saved up when we stop receiving pay checks? It's been the topic of discussion all day.

[Rascal]

Bush could have a bill tomorrow if he'd agree to what benchmarks the Iraqis will have to meet. Benchmarks have bipartisan support. The troops will get the money, unless Rove wants to try and beat the DIms over this, but I think Rove's a one trick poney at this point.

This actually is funny, imo. The Godfather would kiss you, before you got whacked. WJC would kiss someone when he ****ed them. Bushii does neither.

If they can get a budget with benchmarks and get enough votes to override his veto then go for it.

[TailgateNut]

Well explain to me then why I received an email from our wing commander telling us to make sure we have money saved up when we stop receiving pay checks? It's been the topic of discussion all day.

I can recall at least three times during my stint when it came down to the wire! But NEVER did we not receive our paychecks! NEVER!

Ask Dman, he's been in the service for "many more moons" than I was. I put in 8years!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

That certainly can be argued and I'm over the Bush project.

Its not our fault IMO that Iraq has become a **** hole. Its the people who live there. We certainly tried to give them a shot at a better life and they pissed it away. So now IMO screw them. They can have the **** sandwich they want. Religion is scary.

Anyway these are seperate issues and the Dems are simly trying to look good and gather the anti-war vote. Sadly they underestimate the average military persons ability to see thru their BSNo they're not. Their putting the onus on Republicans to either back Bush or not on this never ending cluster****. The Republicans already took a (secret) meeting and vote and gave Bush until August for the "Surge" to work. So who is being more "chikensh*t" about this, Democrats or Republicans?

[Hotrod]

No they're not. Their putting the onus on Republicans to either back Bush or not on this never ending cluster****. The Republicans already took a (secret) meeting and vote and gave Bush until August for the "Surge" to work. So who is being more "chikensh*t" about this, Democrats or Republicans?

Nothing changes the fact the Dems are using the wrong tool to try and get what they want. Attaching ANYTHING to a military funding bill is flat out BS.

[elsid13]

The article that you are referring to was Mosely was complaining that the AF was become the bill payer for the raise in troops level in Army and the MC (it in the early bird if you have access). That means he isn't going to get his new bomber or other major weapon systems.

It budget season in DC and each services it attempt to stake out it ground for a piece of the budget pie. And since there only so much money some of the services (Navy and AF) are going to be forced to pay for the higher troop levels the Army and the Corp want to support this type of conflict. A couple of months ago Army Chief of Staff did something similar in attempting to protect the FCS.

[TailgateNut]

Nothing changes the fact the Dems are using the wrong tool to try and get what they want. Attaching ANYTHING to a military funding bill is flat out BS.


BS, this is not you standard military funding bill, it's "another emergency funding bill" created by the "we have no clue" administration and their lack of accountability.
...and if those who constantly biatch about it would take an unbiased look at it, it didn't mention "SURRENDER". I only required progress and accountability.

In the "real world" if there is no progress, you damn sure aren't getting any more funding! Why should it be any different???

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Nothing changes the fact the Dems are using the wrong tool to try and get what they want. Attaching ANYTHING to a military funding bill is flat out BS.It's not military funding, it's Bush BS emergency spending!! Geeeezus!

[elsid13]

Nothing changes the fact the Dems are using the wrong tool to try and get what they want. Attaching ANYTHING to a military funding bill is flat out BS.

Man I wish folk understood the federal budget process. It was currently administration that was using to supplement war funding bills to fund regular acquisition programs (that aren't tied to Iraq or Afghanistan). Those things should have been done through regular process but tying it into the supplement ensured that no one questioned the spending. They (admin) were/are attempting to bypass the power of the purse assigned to Congress by the Constitution.

Byrd and the rest of Democrats were pushing to only use the supplements for a couple of years then return to the correct regular budgeting process so all committees would have a chance to vote on the programs and funding. CBO spent a lot of time arguing with OMB on the correct procedure. Don't get caught up in the Political BS that surround the money

[Bronco Bob]

You can spin it that way if you want, but the feeling among the majority of the serviceman I've talked too is that if they don't get $$$ the blame will fall on the democrats not Bush.



So you are saying that the servicemen are part of that 28% that go along
with Bush no matter what? I would like to give them a little more credit than
that. Just because you have talked to a few like minded people doesn't
prove EVERYONE in the military agrees with Bush lockstep. I'd be willing
to bet the ones that don't agree just prefer to keep their mouth shut
about it around you.


The Dems didn't give the military anything more then what the Repubs had given them in previous budgets.

Nor did they give them anything less in regards to funding.


The Dems knew Bush would never sign it, and they played politics by putting it in and wasting time.

And Bush is just playing politics by not signing it. If I were Congress I
would just keep sending him the same bill over and over again until he
does sign it.

Besides, it's not the Dems that you have to worry about in regards to
ending the war. They don't have the votes. It's the Pubs, who are
also seeing the writing on the wall. In September watch the chit hit
the fan. Even Gates in starting to make noises about Iraq being a
lost cause.

[Rascal]

So you are saying that the servicemen are part of that 28% that go along with Bush no matter what? I would like to give them a little more credit than that. Just because you have talked to a few like minded people doesn't prove EVERYONE in the military agrees with Bush lockstep. I'd be willing to bet the ones that don't agree just prefer to keep their mouth shut about it around you.

Nor did they give them anything less in regards to funding.

And Bush is just playing politics by not signing it. If I were Congress I
would just keep sending him the same bill over and over again until he
does sign it.

Besides, it's not the Dems that you have to worry about in regards to
ending the war. They don't have the votes. It's the Pubs, who are
also seeing the writing on the wall. In September watch the chit hit
the fan. Even Gates in starting to make noises about Iraq being a
lost cause.

I never said they were the 28%, in fact the majority of people I talked to were registered democrats who hate Bush. Any other assumptions you would like to make?

If Congress keeps sending the same bill they will lose the support of the military I guarantee it. Like it or not they will and the congresional democrats know it.

If they want to end the war, and can do by getting enough votes to override Bush's veto then go ahead. But at this juncture they can't, and they don't have enough time to wait till they do because the DoD will run out of money and they will lose their support with the military very quickly.

I've said what I'm going to say on the subject. You want believe otherwise that's fine, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise. Have a good day.

[TailgateNut]

I never said they were the 28%, in fact the majority of people I talked to were registered democrats who hate Bush. Any other assumptions you would like to make?

If Congress keeps sending the same bill they will lose the support of the military I guarantee it. Like it or not they will and the congresional democrats know it.

If they want to end the war, and can do by getting enough votes to override Bush's veto then go ahead. But at this juncture they can't, and they don't have enough time to wait till they do because the DoD will run out of money and they will lose their support with the military very quickly.

I've said what I'm going to say on the subject. You want believe otherwise that's fine, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise. Have a good day.



So do you start out a conversation with: " Are you a registered Democrat, or an Idiot"?

[bendog]

If they can get a budget with benchmarks and get enough votes to override his veto then go for it.

Bushii sent guys over to the hill last weekend to negotiate what benchmarks he'll take. I suppose the sticking point is what are the consequences for not meeting the benchmarks. Not all gopers are opposed, and not all DIms support a consequence of withdrawing troops. One consequence that's been floated is making bushii state on set dates what benchmark has, or hasn't, been met. Just sort of a public humiliation that his war is a total fubar. Then the Dims can hold press conferences and say he should pull the troops.

I don' tknow if you saw it, and I didn't link it, but last week there was a story about the Iraqi parliment planning a TWO MONTH vacation is summer. Even goper congress guys were saying WTF!?

Today in my local paper, trent loot was quoted as saying he was giving it till fall, and if the troop surge hadn't shown a lessening of violence, the senate would take a different tack.

[Spider]

Man I wish folk understood the federal budget process. It was currently administration that was using to supplement war funding bills to fund regular acquisition programs (that aren't tied to Iraq or Afghanistan). Those things should have been done through regular process but tying it into the supplement ensured that no one questioned the spending. They (admin) were/are attempting to bypass the power of the purse assigned to Congress by the Constitution.

Byrd and the rest of Democrats were pushing to only use the supplements for a couple of years then return to the correct regular budgeting process so all committees would have a chance to vote on the programs and funding. CBO spent a lot of time arguing with OMB on the correct procedure. Don't get caught up in the Political BS that surround the money

move to france ........ your new terrorist name is I sheet mi Drawrz ...... ;D
what do you know ? you just hate Bush ......you hate America , you want terrorist to win .... you have 8 kids , 2 that dont live with you , you dont pay child support deadbeat , all your kids look like the milkman ........... I think i covered all the right wing responses ;D ...if I missed any please feel free to add em

[bendog]

move to france ........ your new terrorist name is I sheet mi Drawrz ...... ;D
what do you know ? you just hate Bush ......you hate America , you want terrorist to win .... you have 8 kids , 2 that dont live with you , you dont pay child support deadbeat , all your kids look like the milkman ........... I think i covered all the right wing responses ;D ...if I missed any please feel free to add em

He's prolly a pedophile too

[Bronco Bob]

I never said they were the 28%, in fact the majority of people I talked to were registered democrats who hate Bush. Any other assumptions you would like to make?

If Congress keeps sending the same bill they will lose the support of the military I guarantee it. Like it or not they will and the congresional democrats know it.



Let me see if I follow your logic:

1. The majority of servicemen are registered Democrats.
2. They hate Bush.
3. Congress passes a bill to fund the servicemen.
4. Bush vetoes the bill to fund the servicemen.
5. The servicemen blame the Democrats for not getting funding.

With that kind of fuzzy logic no wonder so many people blamed Iraq for 9/11.
Kind of sad, really.

[Hotrod]

Let me see if I follow your logic:

1. The majority of servicemen are registered Democrats.
2. They hate Bush.
3. Congress passes a bill to fund the servicemen.
4. Bush vetoes the bill to fund the servicemen.
5. The servicemen blame the Democrats for not getting funding.

With that kind of fuzzy logic no wonder so many people blamed Iraq for 9/11.
Kind of sad, really.

Yep they could have gotten funding had they not added a bunch of "look at us" items to the bill.

[defenseman]

Yep they could have gotten funding had they not added a bunch of "look at us" items to the bill.

And if they hadn't included a "raise the white flag in surrender" date. They KNEW he would veto it and still they put it on his desk. Freaking idiots. Do they not understand english? The time it took to draft that bill was a total waste of taxpayer money, total. And, if they continue to add the fodder to the bill, he'll freaking veto it again. And, again it will be the dems fault, he's told them what he won't sign, why put it up there.....dman

[bendog]

After all the pork the gop congresses loaded onto supplemental approps, I doubt even bushii could summon the hypocrisy to veto it over that. But, D-Man, the voters who elected the anti-war congress people WANTED that bill, so who are you to call it a waste. The people spoke. Bushii didn't listen.

Back to the drawing board.

ps,
Negotiations on New Bill
In a meeting with Bush on Wednesday, Democratic congressional leaders agreed to exclude domestic spending provisions from a new version of the supplemental appropriations bill until they can reach an agreement with the White House on provisions related to the war in Iraq. Bush has opposed the inclusion of the domestic spending provisions in the legislation. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said, "I said to the president that it's very clear that the No. 1 issue is Iraq -- don't talk about the other things in this emergency spending bill. Iraq is the issue we must be concerned about."

Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said that lawmakers will discuss the domestic spending provisions later in negotiations with the White House (Ferrechio, CQ Today, 5/2). According to CQ Today, "Democrats have said they are ready to fight" for the inclusion of the domestic spending provisions in the bill (Ferrechio/Clark, CQ Today, 5/2). House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said that Congress should approve the legislation by Memorial Day (Koffler, CongressDaily, 5/3).

[Rohirrim]

And if they hadn't included a "raise the white flag in surrender" date. They KNEW he would veto it and still they put it on his desk. Freaking idiots. Do they not understand english? The time it took to draft that bill was a total waste of taxpayer money, total. And, if they continue to add the fodder to the bill, he'll freaking veto it again. And, again it will be the dems fault, he's told them what he won't sign, why put it up there.....dman

Because he's not the ****ing king of America. Congress is serving the will of the people, the overwhelming majority of whom want this war over now. I don't know whose will Bush is serving. If his past is any indication, he serves only himself, and his cronies.

[defenseman]

After all the pork the gop congresses loaded onto supplemental approps, I doubt even bushii could summon the hypocrisy to veto it over that. But, D-Man, the voters who elected the anti-war congress people WANTED that bill, so who are you to call it a waste. The people spoke. Bushii didn't listen.

Back to the drawing board.

ps,
Negotiations on New Bill
In a meeting with Bush on Wednesday, Democratic congressional leaders agreed to exclude domestic spending provisions from a new version of the supplemental appropriations bill until they can reach an agreement with the White House on provisions related to the war in Iraq. Bush has opposed the inclusion of the domestic spending provisions in the legislation. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said, "I said to the president that it's very clear that the No. 1 issue is Iraq -- don't talk about the other things in this emergency spending bill. Iraq is the issue we must be concerned about."

Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said that lawmakers will discuss the domestic spending provisions later in negotiations with the White House (Ferrechio, CQ Today, 5/2). According to CQ Today, "Democrats have said they are ready to fight" for the inclusion of the domestic spending provisions in the bill (Ferrechio/Clark, CQ Today, 5/2). House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said that Congress should approve the legislation by Memorial Day (Koffler, CongressDaily, 5/3).

Really? whatever dude, the president said he wouldn't sign it, they wasted their time..dman

[defenseman]

Because he's not the ****ing king of America. Congress is serving the will of the people, the overwhelming majority of whom want this war over now. I don't know whose will Bush is serving. If his past is any indication, he serves only himself, and his cronies.

Really? that's why the dems were voted in? pull out of iraq, now, to hell with the consequences? Sorry, that dog don't hunt dude. Ain't happenin that way, won't happen that way, can't happen that way...dman

[defenseman]

Because he's not the ****ing king of America. Congress is serving the will of the people, the overwhelming majority of whom want this war over now. I don't know whose will Bush is serving. If his past is any indication, he serves only himself, and his cronies.

Saving the senate/congress from making a huge mistake is why the pres. has veto power. He told them he'd do it, he did. I have no problem with that..dman

[defenseman]

Because he's not the ****ing king of America. Congress is serving the will of the people, the overwhelming majority of whom want this war over now. I don't know whose will Bush is serving. If his past is any indication, he serves only himself, and his cronies.

Sure, whatever you say...dman

[bendog]

Really? that's why the dems were voted in? pull out of iraq, now, to hell with the consequences? Sorry, that dog don't hunt dude. Ain't happenin that way, won't happen that way, can't happen that way...dman

Are you somehow disputing that the election of 06 didn't turn on the anti-war vote? IF so, put up.

[elsid13]

move to france ........ your new terrorist name is I sheet mi Drawrz ...... ;D
what do you know ? you just hate Bush ......you hate America , you want terrorist to win .... you have 8 kids , 2 that dont live with you , you dont pay child support deadbeat , all your kids look like the milkman ........... I think i covered all the right wing responses ;D ...if I missed any please feel free to add em

Just wait I will have my friends on the left calling me a Goose Stepping Bu****e in couple of posts. ;D

PS - all those kids are claimed for tax purposes only.

[Spider]

Just wait I will have my friends on the left calling me a Goose Stepping Bu****e in couple of posts. ;D

PS - all those kids are claimed for tax purposes only.

:~ohyah!:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Really? that's why the dems were voted in? pull out of iraq, now, to hell with the consequences? Sorry, that dog don't hunt dude. Ain't happenin that way, won't happen that way, can't happen that way...dmanYou just don't quite understand, do you? The American public has had enough of this BS Bush Iraqi grudge match.

[W*GS]

Congress is serving the will of the people, the overwhelming majority of whom want this war over now.

What legitimate poll says that the "overwhelming majority" want the troops out ASAP?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

What legitimate poll says that the "overwhelming majority" want the troops out ASAP?

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year (http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075)

Public Backs Iraq Timetable
59% Support September 2008 Deadline For Removing U.S. Troops (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/28/opinion/polls/main2619034.shtml)

More than half of Americans support the U.S. House provision setting a timetable that calls for most U.S. troops to be out of Iraq by September, 2008. According to a new CBS News poll, 59% of those surveyed favored the provision while 37% are opposed.

71 Percent Of Iraqis Want U.S. Forces To Withdraw Within A Year (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/)

57% Favor Immediate Troop Withdrawal or Firm Deadline (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/57_favor_immediate_troop_withdrawal_or_firm_deadli ne)

[bendog]

They all speak French and approve of pedophelia.

[Spider]

pretty much took care of that question

[TailgateNut]

pretty much took care of that question

...while dman searches his archive of republican talking points for a legit response which btw he will guarantee!:wiggle:

[Spider]

...while dman searches his archive of republican talking points for a legit response which btw he will guarantee!:wiggle:

LOL

[W*GS]

Remember, Ro said: "Congress is serving the will of the people, the overwhelming majority of whom want this war over now."

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year

Not quite the same - only 29% said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately".

Public Backs Iraq Timetable
59% Support September 2008 Deadline For Removing U.S. Troops

Is 59% an "overwhelming majority"? Is Sep 2008 "now"?

71 Percent Of Iraqis Want U.S. Forces To Withdraw Within A Year

Iraqis aren't Americans, nor is "within a year" the same as "now".

57% Favor Immediate Troop Withdrawal or Firm Deadline

The story says:

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of American voters now favor either an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq (37%) or a firm deadline for their withdrawal (20%).

I don't see evidence of "[...]the overwhelming majority of [the people] want this war over now".

[ant1999e]

I never said they were the 28%, in fact the majority of people I talked to were registered democrats who hate Bush. Any other assumptions you would like to make?

If Congress keeps sending the same bill they will lose the support of the military I guarantee it. Like it or not they will and the congresional democrats know it.

If they want to end the war, and can do by getting enough votes to override Bush's veto then go ahead. But at this juncture they can't, and they don't have enough time to wait till they do because the DoD will run out of money and they will lose their support with the military very quickly.

I've said what I'm going to say on the subject. You want believe otherwise that's fine, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise. Have a good day.

What idiots like him don't understand about those of us in the military is we don't have time to bitch about politics. We have a job to get done and need to finish. The last thing wanted is for all the fallen servicemen to have died in vain because we played politics with the war and left early. I have an uncle, two cousins and a best friend that just volunteered to go to Iraq. You tell them that US soldiers don't want to fight this war.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Not quite the same - only 29% said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately".
Is 59% an "overwhelming majority"? Is Sep 2008 "now"?
Iraqis aren't Americans, nor is "within a year" the same as "now".
The story says:
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of American voters now favor either an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq (37%) or a firm deadline for their withdrawal (20%).
I don't see evidence of "[...]the overwhelming majority of [the people] want this war over now" .You didn't say "now" or "immediately" (you said ASAP) but the point of the polls and the last election is clear enough for most people to understand.

[W*GS]

You didn't say "now" or "immediately" (you said ASAP) but the point of the polls and the last election is clear enough for most people to understand.

Ro's comment isn't supported by the polls you offered. That's all.

[Bronco Bob]

And if they hadn't included a "raise the white flag in surrender" date. They KNEW he would veto it and still they put it on his desk. Freaking idiots. Do they not understand english? The time it took to draft that bill was a total waste of taxpayer money, total. And, if they continue to add the fodder to the bill, he'll freaking veto it again. And, again it will be the dems fault, he's told them what he won't sign, why put it up there.....dman

Can it really be considered surrender when it is already lost?
Dubya reminds me of the coach who kicks a field goal when
the team is aleady down 38 to 7 in the 4th quarter.
Face it, dman, all Bush is doing is riding this thing
out until January 20, 2009 so the next guy (or gal)
will have to deal with it. I doubt even Bush is stupid
enough to think this thing can still be won.
Where Bush is being stupid is in that he is dragging
the whole Republican party down to sure defeat
in Nov. 2008.

[Bronco Bob]

What idiots like him don't understand about those of us in the military is we don't have time to b**** about politics.

So what you are saying is that the idiots who claim the servicemen
will blame the Democrats for not getting the funding, are, well, idiots.


We have a job to get done and need to finish.

Define the job and define when it will be finished.


The last thing wanted is for all the fallen servicemen to have died in vain because we played politics with the war and left early.

So basically we have one hundred servicemen dying a month so that
the ones who died before them won't have died in vain, and next
month one hundred more die so those one hundred plus the ones
before them won't have died in vain, and next month one hundred
more die so those one hundred plus the ones before them won't have
died in vain. Meanwhile the Sunnis and Shi'ites continue killing
each other and the US servicemen are stuck in the middle.


I have an uncle, two cousins and a best friend that just volunteered to go to Iraq. You tell them that US soldiers don't want to fight this war.

I wish them luck.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Because he's not the ****ing king of America. Congress is serving the will of the people, the overwhelming majority of whom want this war over now.

:yep:

You'd think the '06 election results (not to mention poll after poll after poll) would've driven the point home by now, no? :welcome:

I don't know whose will Bush is serving.

http://www.greatdreams.com/political/bush_saudi.jpg

http://www.nyse.com/images/press/xom-l.gif

http://www.burlesoncountytx.com/members%20images/Halliburton.jpg

To name just a few...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/haircut-trouble.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/veto-pullout.jpg

[TailgateNut]

http://www.bartcop.com/veto-pullout.jpg


Hammer, Nail, Head!

[defenseman]

Here's the real bag. the dems have no intention of pulling the troops out, none. Ain't happenin folks...dman

*They don't want responsibility for the fallout after we leave iraq hi and dry, it will be hung around their neck, they know it, ain't happenin...

[Spider]

Here's the real bag. the dems have no intention of pulling the troops out, none. Ain't happenin folks...dman

*They don't want responsibility for the fallout after we leave iraq hi and dry, it will be hung around their neck, they know it, ain't happenin...

I think you are right , but wrong reasoning ..............No one on either side of the isle gives 2 shíts about Iraq or the people , but the oil on the other hand ......

[defenseman]

I think you are right , but wrong reasoning ..............No one on either side of the isle gives 2 shíts about Iraq or the people , but the oil on the other hand ......

that may be part of it also...dman

[TailgateNut]

Here's the real bag. the dems have no intention of pulling the troops out, none. Ain't happenin folks...dman

*They don't want responsibility for the fallout after we leave iraq hi and dry, it will be hung around their neck, they know it, ain't happenin...



BS, the Dems, as you so eloquently put it, DO intend to pull the troops, and intend to hold Iraq to a predetermined progress schedule.

Either way the "fallout" of Bushs' ****up will be realized after the chimp leaves office (one way or the other) because he has never nor will he ever take responsibilty for his legacy which will be "that he always fails at everything he puts his hands on".

If you dispute my claim, tell me, when has he not failed?

[Spider]

that may be part of it also...dman

LOL that maybe part of it ? Hilarious! ........ yeah a minor part ROFL!

[Spider]

BS, the Dems, as you so eloquently put it, DO intend to pull the troops, and intend to hold Iraq to a predetermined progress schedule.

Either way the "fallout" of Bushs' ****up will be realized after the chimp leaves office (one way or the other) because he has never nor will he ever take responsibilty for his legacy which will be "that he always fails at everything he puts his hands on".

If you dispute my claim, tell me, when has he not failed?
I hope you are right and i am wrong .........
as for the rest ..........right on the money

[Rohirrim]

BS, the Dems, as you so eloquently put it, DO intend to pull the troops, and intend to hold Iraq to a predetermined progress schedule.

Either way the "fallout" of Bushs' ****up will be realized after the chimp leaves office (one way or the other) because he has never nor will he ever take responsibilty for his legacy which will be "that he always fails at everything he puts his hands on".

If you dispute my claim, tell me, when has he not failed?

He didn't fail when it came to naming his oil company: Ar-BUST-o.

Hell, if not for daddies friends and a bunch of Saudis, including bin Laden's brother, Bush would have gone under numerous times. George Bush has never been anything more than daddies little cheerleader.

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushmoney.htm

[defenseman]

BS, the Dems, as you so eloquently put it, DO intend to pull the troops, and intend to hold Iraq to a predetermined progress schedule.

Either way the "fallout" of Bushs' ****up will be realized after the chimp leaves office (one way or the other) because he has never nor will he ever take responsibilty for his legacy which will be "that he always fails at everything he puts his hands on".

If you dispute my claim, tell me, when has he not failed?

Surrender is progress? Congrats on redefining success. And, my vote is they won't. They won't meet that gut check and take responsibility for the mess left if they just pull up stakes and run. Bottom line, they do not have the courage of their convictions...dman

[Bronco Bob]

Here's the real bag. the dems have no intention of pulling the troops out, none. Ain't happenin folks...dman

*They don't want responsibility for the fallout after we leave iraq hi and dry, it will be hung around their neck, they know it, ain't happenin...

Sort of the same reason Dubya is leaving the Iraq mess for the next president to clean up.

[TailgateNut]

Surrender is progress? Congrats on redefining success. And, my vote is they won't. They won't meet that gut check and take responsibility for the mess left if they just pull up stakes and run. Bottom line, they do not have the courage of their convictions...dman

Why in ****ing hell should they take responsibility for Bushs' ****-up? ...or should we in your opinion just continue to "feed" our young men and women to the lost cause. YES, LOST CAUSE, from day one!

It's akin to blaming the neighbors dog for **** in your own back yard were your dog lives!

What a tool!

[TailgateNut]

Sort of the same reason Dubya is leaving the Iraq mess for the next president to clean up.


TaTa!^5

[Spider]

thats just silly talk , no way in Hell is Iraq Bush's fault ....... It is Clintons fault , not sure how yet , but somethin will come up

[Rohirrim]

Surrender is progress? Congrats on redefining success. And, my vote is they won't. They won't meet that gut check and take responsibility for the mess left if they just pull up stakes and run. Bottom line, they do not have the courage of their convictions...dman

Sometimes, I read your posts and it reminds me of Sgt. Rock comic books.

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/asstd2/sgt-rock2.jpg

[bendog]

I'm curious on this "surrender" notion D-man. What's bushii's vision of victory? Seriously, I've never really been clear on this. He initially described some notion of a secular, unified, republican Iraq. But our troops are propping up a shiaa dominated govt, with death squads imbedded in its security services. Got any constructive suggestions on how to get to victory?

Similarly, I'm confused on the logical basis for "the surge." I think the rationale was that more troops would lead to a decrease in sectarian violence. Yet, now Pretreous is saying deaths will increase.

I believe there's some rationale for our continued stay on the basis that our presense allows the ethnic cleansing of dividing the shiaa from the sunni to continue. Biden put that one out there. Yet, the admin rejected that notion as being contrary to their unified Iraq gambit.

So, given your concern over the Dims surrendering, I think it reasonable to ask you to have some definition of victory and how that will be achieved.

Moreover, when Trent Lott is saying there has to be progress by fall, or he'll pull the plug, are you planning on calling him a surrender monkee too?

[TailgateNut]

I'm curious on this "surrender" notion D-man. What's bushii's vision of victory? Seriously, I've never really been clear on this. He initially described some notion of a secular, unified, republican Iraq. But our troops are propping up a shiaa dominated govt, with death squads imbedded in its security services. Got any constructive suggestions on how to get to victory?

Similarly, I'm confused on the logical basis for "the surge." I think the rationale was that more troops would lead to a decrease in sectarian violence. Yet, now Pretreous is saying deaths will increase.

I believe there's some rationale for our continued stay on the basis that our presense allows the ethnic cleansing of dividing the shiaa from the sunni to continue. Biden put that one out there. Yet, the admin rejected that notion as being contrary to their unified Iraq gambit.

So, given your concern over the Dims surrendering, I think it reasonable to ask you to have some definition of victory and how that will be achieved.

Moreover, when Trent Lott is saying there has to be progress by fall, or he'll pull the plug, are you planning on calling him a surrender monkee too?


Bushs' vision of "victory" is when he is able to wash his hands of the mess he created, and is able to turn his back on DC as he heads back to Texass!

....Oh, just my 5 cents: The Bubbleblower is no SGT Rock! No way, guaranteed!

[Bronco Bob]

thats just silly talk , no way in Hell is Iraq Bush's fault ....... It is Clintons fault , not sure how yet , but somethin will come up

Heard a good explanation on Boston Legal last night by Denny Crane.
Not sure of the exact wording, but it went something like this:
It's Hillary's fault. Men have to lie to women. Bill got a blow job.
Now if he were single he would have just admitted it in court.
But because he didn't want Hillary to find out, he lied about it.
This eventually led to Bill's impeachment. Because so many
people were angry with Bill, they took it out on Al Gore.
This caused Gore to lose an election he should have easily
won against the moron running againt him.
And that is why Bush is president and we are in Iraq.
If men could be honest to women, Gore would be president.

[Spider]

Heard a good explanation on Boston Legal last night by Denny Crane.
Not sure of the exact wording, but it went something like this:
It's Hillary's fault. Men have to lie to women. Bill got a blow job.
Now if he were single he would have just admitted it in court.
But because he didn't want Hillary to find out, he lied about it.
This eventually led to Bill's impeachment. Because so many
people were angry with Bill, they took it out on Al Gore.
This caused Gore to lose an election he should have easily
won against the moron running againt him.
And that is why Bush is president and we are in Iraq.
If men could be honest to women, Gore would be president.
LOL.........

[Rohirrim]

Heard a good explanation on Boston Legal last night by Denny Crane.
Not sure of the exact wording, but it went something like this:
It's Hillary's fault. Men have to lie to women. Bill got a blow job.
Now if he were single he would have just admitted it in court.
But because he didn't want Hillary to find out, he lied about it.
This eventually led to Bill's impeachment. Because so many
people were angry with Bill, they took it out on Al Gore.
This caused Gore to lose an election he should have easily
won against the moron running againt him.
And that is why Bush is president and we are in Iraq.
If men could be honest to women, Gore would be president.

I think you're on to something there.

[TailgateNut]

I think you're on to something there.


So that's why Dman hates the Clintons. It's all clear now.

[bendog]

Anybody remember the old doonsebury cartoon that came out during the 00 election? It had the white house drawn and the voices coming out. WJC, "Al, you're just not connecting. Voters see you as a guy who figures he knows so much more than they do." Al, "but I do." WJC, "of course you do, but look at me, I'm one of the smartest people in the world, and they like me. Know why? Cause ever once in awhile I go out and so something just mindnumbing stupid."

[bendog]

btw, looks like the Sen Dems want to fund this thing at surge levels through fall, and they, like Bushii, aren't gonna go with the House plan to fund through summer. And bushii is planning to continue the surge through at least April 08.

[defenseman]

Sort of the same reason Dubya is leaving the Iraq mess for the next president to clean up.

I have know idea what he's thinking, nor will I try. But, I don't believe he's wanting to leave it for anyone..dman

[TailgateNut]

I have know idea what he's thinking, nor will I try. But, I don't believe he's wanting to leave it for anyone..dman


...but yet you always seem to "know" what the "Dems" are up to........You are so FOS!

[defenseman]

I think you're on to something there.

I watched that last night, I laughed my arse off. David E. Kelly is getting political again. Too bad such an interesting and entertaining show can be ruined with only one point of view. Reminds me of the media...dman

[defenseman]

...but yet you always seem to "know" what the "Dems" are up to........You are so FOS!

Right back at ya , SFB's? Feel better now?...dman

[Rohirrim]

I watched that last night, I laughed my arse off. David E. Kelly is getting political again. Too bad such an interesting and entertaining show can be ruined with only one point of view. Reminds me of the media...dman

Do you ever lighten up? ;D

[defenseman]

Why in ****ing hell should they take responsibility for Bushs' ****-up? ...or should we in your opinion just continue to "feed" our young men and women to the lost cause. YES, LOST CAUSE, from day one!

It's akin to blaming the neighbors dog for **** in your own back yard were your dog lives!

What a tool!

Everyone has an opinion, even you. Are we off our meds these days? Appears so. My,my you are easy to spin up these days...dman

[bendog]

Do you ever lighten up? ;D

I feel a ballast joke coming on.

[TailgateNut]

Everyone has an opinion, even you. Are we off our meds these days? Appears so. My,my you are easy to spin up these days...dman


Let me use a different example. About a decade ago we hired a mgr. with an outstanding resume. He was supposed to manage the contruction of a multi-million $ treatment facility. At first the VP (not very well versed in field operations) would conduct periodic site visits, until he felt confident the mgr was doing well.

One day I had to stop by his site to pick up some special tools he had in his tool trailer. When I arrived I couldn't believe how many Safety policies had not been adhered to. I called the office, informed them of what I had seen, and by that afternoon he was fired.

Then (lucky me) I was tasked to correct the issues and complete the project. When all was said and done, we lost 10s of thousands of $$$ on that project in lieu of a $120k profit.

Was THIS MY FAULT?

No!


OH, BTW, I never take my meds!

[ant1999e]

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,135058,00.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl

Airmen not to Worry About Pay
Stars and Stripes | Scott Schonauer | May 08, 2007

Air Force to Airmen: Don’t Worry About Pay
Official says service has other means for making up millions shifted to Army for war

KAISERSLAUTERN, Germany — The Air Force is trying to allay fears that it might dip into airmen’s pay as a result of millions of dollars being shifted to the Army to help fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“We would never do that and that’s not what we’re going to do,” said Maj. Morshe Araujo, an Air Force spokeswoman at the Pentagon.

The Air Force is looking at such things as delaying personnel hiring, limiting training exercises and holding off on maintenance projects, but withholding airmen’s pay is not something being considered, she said.

The Pentagon has requested to move $1.6 billion in funds from the Navy and Air Force to the Army to pay operating costs. The Air Force is hoping that Congress will restore the money.

“We’re going to take care of our people,” Araujo said. “No matter what, we’re going to take care of our people. Mil pay is not going to be affected.”

But a statement released by the Air Force in an e-mail sent to Stars and Stripes by Araujo on Monday hinted that much of what the service can or will do hinges on Congress’ supplemental bill. The Air Force has requested the $800 million shifted from its budget to the Army be replaced.

“The Air Force remains optimistic that funding previously provided to the Army will be quickly restored,” the statement said. “We are confident Congress will quickly provide the supplemental funding to fight the war on terrorism, pay our military and civilian Airmen, and sustain the readiness levels of our combat forces.”

When asked whether payroll would be impacted if the money were not returned, Araujo said it would not.

“We would never dip into mil pay,” she said. “Our first and primary concern is going to be our personnel.”

When the Pentagon requested to divert the funds from the Navy and Air Force, many airmen thought the worst.

“It scared a lot of people,” she said. But, she added, “Our position is that we will not impact military payroll.”