However, to address those points anyway…

(1) Once you take the elementary civics course you need for that G.E.D you’re working on, you’ll know that the appropriations all come from Congressional legislation. It’s not like the President can simply run down to the B.E.P and have them run off a couple of hundred million when it’s needed.

(2) Thanks for the admission that the only way around the Dem’s little political gamesmanship is to reduce the funding for “training, maintenance, personnel, and procurement.” Now, in your world, that may not marginalize the effectiveness of the armed forces, but the rest of us know better. Here’s a test that might bring it home to you: try not eating for a week (that’s the ‘procurement’ part, see). And see if you’re up to full strength after that. And no, I don’t mean going on the Cindy Sheehan ice-cream diet.

Then tom pulls the tinfoil hat on tight:

And then your trot out the tired, simplistic mantra that we should fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here. What does this mean?

Jumped into the Wayback Machine and set the date for September 10, 2001, eh? Here’s what you clearly do not get: there are people out there with a 7th-century mentality who want us all dead. Not just me – you too, no matter how much you serve their useful idiot function. Your childlike faith that if we all just abandon Iraq and come home tomorrow, they’ll give up those ideas – well, it’s touching, but it’s also completely out of touch with reality.

And then your trot out the tired, simplistic mantra that we should fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here. What does this mean? They don’t know how to find us or are too busy “defending” their hated Shiite brethren from US occupation? Help me out here, wise one. Seems to me all we do is provide a recruiting tool and training opportunity for them. We already know them come and go in Iraq at-will.

So, I suppose your show of support for the troops boils down to slapping a magnet on your car or flying a flag from your porch. Oh- and you want them to WIN! Just like we did in all the other wars since WWII.

Yeah, you support them so much you want them to lose. I can differentiate nonsense when I see it, tom.

Quitting now is like quitting chemotherapy early. You want immediate relief, but you’re not thinking about really nasty consequences down the road. But you’re probably not concerned. You’ll dance around in your giant papier-mache heads – about the only thing the fringe left has managed to do well – right up to the time we have to fight the islamofascist lunatics here, thanks to you.

1) If the Bushies would treat the wars in their budget like on-going wars that they are, then they wouldn’t need to complaing about the timing of “emergency” supplemental bills.

2) As the CRS report states the DOD can move monies from training budgets (scheduled for later in the year) to fund current priorities. As the AP reported in the last week “The steps under consideration include borrowing from training, maintenance, personnel and procurement funds set to be spent later in the budget year, which runs through September.” “They have become routine in recent years.” In other words, that’s how the Pentagon did it last year when Bush signed the 2006 “emergency” supplemental on July 15! Suddenly the DOD need to keep straight books? Uh huh.

By the way GWR (aka Dirty Harry?), I personally would support a defunding of the troops. I know I’ll hear the shrill cries of “you’re not supporting our troops”, but I don’t buy it. I support the troops, I don’t support the war. It’s not my problem if you can’t differentiate.

Hunter – I see you’ve progressed to reading level 6. Congratulations!

“members of Congress need to stop making political statements”. Isn’t that why we have a Congress?

No tom this is not why we have a Congress. Maybe this’ll help.

If you want to end our work in Iraq, then have the guts to defund it, period. Go ahead. Make my day.

You say that this Congress is representing their constituents’ wishes? Fine…show me one congressman who ran last year on a platform of adding pork to a bill that unconstitutionally interferes with the Commander in Chief’s role regarding deployment. If you think this Congress was elected to get us out of Iraq, take some responsibility and advocate that they defund it completely. Or are they (and you) just too scared of the political repercussions when the impact of their cowardice becomes apparent?

Although it is true that a delay in passage of the FY2007 supplemental could require additional management actions, Congress has given DOD flexibility by providing transfer authority so that funds can be moved to meet more urgent requirements. In this case, because the transfers would presumably be temporary, the disruptions might also be less onerous.

Congress has passed legislation to fund the troops and efforts for the Iraqi Police Action, and more. If Bush vetoes, that’s his option – but he’s going to have a tough time convincing the public that the delay should be blamed on the Democrats.

I had to laugh at Bush’s statment that “members of Congress need to stop making political statements”. Isn’t that why we have a Congress? To represent their constituents wishes? Obviously he’s having a hard time transitioning from the rubber-stamp do-nothing congress of the past six years.