Where Is YOUR Righteous Indignation?

Yesterday, another casualty was recorded. This brave Soldier lost her battle.

Andrea Collins Smith.

That's her name. Pay attention, and remember, because you won't see her name on any protest signs.

No mock gravestones.

No bracelets.

No one will interrupt a Presidential speech, Congressional hearing, or a nominee's stump speech asking what they'll do to stop the tragedy.


And why not?

She died of cancer.

No, it's not as sexy a "cause death" as an American Soldier dying in Iraq. She died at home, with her husband, leaving behind five children.

I don't begrudge the "Code Pink" folks, or others, as they exercise their right to protest. Go for it.

I wonder what it'd be like if we put all that energy and effort into fighting a bigger battle.

(Bigger battle?! Bigger than... how do they put it???... an unjust war for oil where Bush lied so _____ died? Yeah, bigger than that.)

So far this year, 208 American Soldiers have died in Iraq (source: Iraq Coalition Casualty Count). That's a little over a Soldier per day, or extrapolated to the year, at the current rate, that'd be approximately 408 Soldiers.

Whereas, it is forecast that 565,650 Americans will die of cancer this year. (Source: American Cancer Society) 1,385 times the number in Iraq. Or, put another way... 1549 EACH DAY! Including holidays... Cancer doesn't take a day off.

Code Pink, you've already got the right color... let's put an end to this daily death count... Everyone, where is YOUR outrage? We must end this. So many needless deaths...

Insurgents Target Recruiting Station

In a scene all too familiar, insurgents against the United States being involved in Iraq targeted a recruiting station. Fortunately, no one was injured by the explosive blast.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

We've read these headlines so often coming out of Iraq that we don't really read them anymore.

But this time, it's different.

The dateline for this isn't a dusty city corner in Iraq... It was Times Square, New York City. And the target was a United States military recruiting station.

Presumably, we are to still believe that those who oppose the war "Support the Troops" (while targeting their workplace with explosive devices) and we should never "question their patriotism" (because blowing up your homeland is a protected form of free speech?)...

It's time for people who lead the genuine anti-war movement to repudiate (and for Senator Clinton's benefit, also reject) the vitriolic attitude and actions that lead to the thought processes where motivated people think setting bombs is a justifiable way to protest.

There are ways.

Ways that express your disagreement, while not lending one to question your patriotism (or sanity, or criminal intent).

And for future reference, when you want to say, "We support the troops", item number one on the checklist is "Don't blow them up."



The insurgents are here, and they are amongst us. Take note, America.

Which War Are They Protesting?

(h/t to Michelle Malkin)

Which war are people protesting? Is it the Global War on Terrorism - Iraqi Theater or... perhaps this is an opportunity to relive their past "glories" and recall protesting the war in Viet Nam?

From the Raleigh News and Observer:

CHAPEL HILL -- For John Heuer, burning a fake draft card on the UNC-Chapel Hill campus was a sort of deja vu.

Heuer said he burned draft cards in 1971 while refusing to be part of President Nixon's army. He put his cigarette lighter to a symbolic card Thursday to support a student group's anti-war rally.

"It's important to get the word out in a creative way," said Heuer, a retired UNC facilities designer.

Burning draft cards. Ok. Was there a draft that I didn't know about? America's army (not the President's, Soldiers follow the President's orders, but they serve America) is an all-volunteer force, and has been since the 1970s.

So, why burn a draft card? The only mention of having a draft lately has come from President Bush, er... no... it was Democrat Representative Charles Rangel.

Anyone who's protesting... if your argument is strong and convincing, then you don't need "creativity" (note: it's not creative if it was used forty years ago)... your argument will speak for itself.

American Alienation

I've seen this on a few other blogs, and it is SPOT on. Frighteningly enough, it sounds like a few things I've been known to say.

Warning, strong, strong language. And some images that should bother you to no end.

Please, watch.

Reaction to Press Coverage of Heath Ledger

From Michael Ramirez at Investor's Business Daily.

Says it pretty well, I think.

Credibility and Reliability in Reporting

There are many bloggers out there commenting on recent New York Times reporting that is quickly proving to be... less than accurate.

I don't want to duplicate the efforts of those who've written so well on the subject, so let me suggest one particular column that struck me as being particularly eloquent.

Please, take a look at Mark Steyn's column on the subject.

Some Died to Give You Freedom

To people throughout the country, our war in Iraq is many things: a noble struggle of Good versus Evil; an example of government or a President run amuck; or many other things... to everyone, it's something different.

And now, apparently it's a way to get free tickets to a Hannah Montana concert.

???

Yes, a winning essay in a contest for free tickets was submitted by a six year old girl (and likely with substantial help from mother). It's opening line was suitably gripping - "My daddy died this year in Iraq."

Just one little tiny, niggling detail. It wasn't true.

While many families, and particularly children, have lost their loved ones in Iraq - this little girl had not.

Her mother is quoted as saying, "We did whatever we could to win."

She taught her daughter how to lie, to sacrifice her integrity for the temporary joy and thrill (and what a thrill for the young girls) of a HM concert.

She taught her daughter that the real sacrifices of those who aren't coming home, and their families left behind, is something to be exploited, the emotions to be be manipulated.

Sigh.

Here's a link to the article in USA Today.

There is good news: the girl lost her tickets when the truth was discovered. And while it's possible that she'll get another chance to get tickets to HM, whether purchased or otherwise... there are some little girls (and boys) who can write "My Daddy died this year in Iraq." And nothing will change that truth for them, no matter how many HM tickets come their way.

Protection From Highly Offensive Material

We, as a nation, are blessed. We know this. And now, we've been happily saved from having to endure some extremely offensive material on our public airwaves.

Yes, NBC has refused to sell ad space to a despicable organization known for obscene and vile hate-filled material.

However, in the interest of free speech, I will be happy to enlighten you to those materials right here.

Click below to watch the rejected ads, foolishly submitted to NBC for airing to the nation. Be warned, this is SICK stuff.

See? Disgusting.

Oh wait, maybe it's just disgusting that NBC wouldn't want this material to air on their networks. Just so you know who you're watching...

Support Our Troops

We continually here about how everyone "supports the troops". Right.

The "troops" need money. The Democrats are again playing with the funding bills trying to forestall them getting the money in hopes of convincing President Bush to pull them out.

He's said he has no intention of doing so.

They've made over one hundred attempts, all of which have failed.

And the troops still don't have their money.

But, they support the troops.

So, Senator Reid, while you're doing your political maneuvering to keep the Senate in session over Thanksgiving break (so the President doesn't sneak a recess appointment by you), how about PASSING THE APPROPRIATION BILLS?

Before the troops start running out of money.

Idle threat? Yeah, there are bottomless funds. Read here.

Support the troops. Put the money where your mouths are.

Great Action Heroes

This summer, there are quite a few action movies out, including another installment in the 20 year old "Die Hard" series (which I'm looking forward to seeing).

What you're not likely to hear about is an incredible tale of heroism coming out of Iraq.

These fine pilots are from a unit based out of Illeshiem, who just deployed to Iraq for their fifteen months.

They just got there.

From Blackfive:

Apache pilots evacuate critically-wounded Soldier, kill several extremists in Ramadi firefight
Staff Sgt. Lorin T. Smith
36th Combat Aviation Brigade Public Affairs Office

LSA ANACONDA, Iraq – Apache pilots from Company B, 1st Battalion, 149th Aviation Regiment (Attack), 36th Combat Aviation Brigade and Company A, 2nd Battalion, 159th Aviation Regiment, 12th Combat Aviation Brigade, engaged extremists and saved a critically-wounded Soldier’s life during a firefight in Ar Ramadi, Iraq, on June 30, 2007.

Two attack weapons teams (with two AH-64 helicopters making up a team) flew to Ramadi in support of Coalition Forces in search of insurgents and weapons caches.

The teams reached Ramadi and received notice that Coalition Forces were taking heavy small arms fire. To maximize the helicopters’ time over a potential target, one team immediately went to the Ramadi forward arming and refueling point and the other attack weapons team flew into the fight.

They engaged extremists with 30 millimeter cannon fire neutralizing them. The team then supported other Coalition Forces engaging extremists using two tractor trailers as cover. The crew took small arms fire and multiple enemy rounds to their aircraft.

Despite the small arms fire, the attack weapons team destroyed the tractor trailers, causing secondary explosions, indicating to the crew that the trailers were possibly used as vehicle-born improvised explosive devices.

The crew stayed on station with the Coalition Forces until fuel levels became low, and returned to the FARP to refuel. Due to battle damage sustained, the Apache team performed a battle handoff to the second attack weapons team and flew back to LSA Anaconda.

The second team entered the engagement area in Ramadi. Coalition Forces were still taking heavy enemy fire. The attack weapons team shot hundreds of cannon rounds and rockets, expending their ammunition. As the team returned to the FARP to rearm and refuel, the ground forces commander informed the crews that he was coordinating a medical evacuation of wounded Soldiers including one critically-wounded.

Approximately 40 minutes later, after rearming and refueling, the team went back to the area and learned that the MEDEVAC aircraft had not arrived. Due to the critically-wounded Soldier and despite continued enemy activity, the Company B aviators landed and extracted the critically-wounded casualty with the Apache helicopter. While the Company A crew provided overhead security, the Company B crew landed within two kilometers of the enemy position.

Upon landing, the co-pilot/gunner helped load the injured Soldier into the front seat without further injury. Despite the heavy small arms fire and surface-to-air fire events in the area, the co-pilot/gunner strapped himself onto the left side of the aircraft and hunkered down on the wing. The pilot flew to Camp Ar Ramadi medical pad, where emergency medical personnel provided treatment. The team went back to the fight and continued to provide support for Coalition Forces. Upon neutralizing the extremists, the crew returned to LSA Anaconda.

Due to the extent of the battle damage, one extremists was confirmed killed in action, but multiple extremists were killed in conjunction with ground forces. The wounded Soldier has been transferred to LSA Anaconda and is in stable condition.


Chief Warrant Officer 2 Allen Crist and Chief Warrant Officer 4 Kevin Purtee, Company B, 1st Battalion, 149th Aviation Regiment (Attack), 36th Combat Aviation Brigade, checks on the medical condition of Spc. Jeffrey Jamaleldine, Company C, 1st Battalion, 77th Armor, after an unusual Casualty Evacuation (CASEVAC) in Ar Ramadi, Iraq, on June 30, 2007. (U.S. Army photos by Maj. Gregory T. O’Connor)

Operation Arrowhead Ripper

From where I sit, I have no greater access to information than most of you reading this (and let's be honest, by the counters, there aren't that many coming to my corner of the world.)

Anyway, this shows great promise. It seems that the gloves are off and our Soldiers are being unleashed. Fewer restrictions.

In other words, our Soldiers are being allowed to fight as Soldiers.

Wish I could be there to help support the fight.

Let's continue to pray for our Soldiers, and that the enemy either has the brains to surrender OR at least die quick deaths. And civilians... please stay down or away.

Hooah!

Why Our Enemy LOVES Fighting US

Courtesy of Military Motivator.

Take a look.

After the Goodbye

I was traveling this past weekend, and on my return, I came across a scene in the airport. It's a common scene that's played out in airports all around the country, and one that I'm painfully familiar with.

And sadly, it's likely one that the majority of people are (blissfully) unaware of.

I watched the whole scene, as it played out, from beginning to end. I recognized it, and was captivated, not so much by what was happening, but the surrounding action in the airport.

What was it?

I spotted a Soldier on his way back from his R&R. From reading his uniform, I could tell he's serving in Iraq. His wife was there, as they clung to every last second they could. Trying to avoid the inevitable.

She looked spectacular - having dressed well for this last time together. He was in his uniform. (Hint: Generally speaking, Soldiers travel in civilian clothes, so when you see one in uniform... odds are good they're enroute to/from the war zone. There are exceptions, but... odds are.)

Surrounding them was a boisterous crowd of folks going easily amongst their lives, unaware of the drama unfolding before them. Literally completely surrounding them, lives were going on, while theirs was coming back to a skidding halt. The two weeks of bliss in the midst of their (now) fifteen plus month hell having come down to the final minutes.

I recognized the emotions. They both were quiet, not saying much if anything at all. And then, the decision was made. It happens to all. Whether it's the urge to exert some control over something they have so little control over, or just the desire to stop putting off the inevitable, it's the same every time. Sometime before it's actually necessary to say goodbye, the couple suddenly stiffen up, share a last goodbye, a kiss, maybe a tight hug. And then, as this wife did, the spouse will exit. Quickly.

I watched her leave. She couldn't have walked any faster, any more deliberately, unless she'd broken out into a run.

And he... he went and sat down. I took the picture below. I was moved to take it as the contrast between the Soldier as his world has crashed down, and he's trying to transition his mind back to where he's going, and seal off the feelings from his R&R, and the crowd around him.

I admit, it's a poor quality picture. It was on my cell phone. But, if you look in the center, you'll see this Soldier.

This scene plays out very often, too often. I remember playing the part myself.

Just wanted to share something that happened in one corner of the world today.

With Support Like This

It's now after 15 April. And the money is getting tight, as the military is awaiting the supplemental appropriations bill to pass through the government.

The Army is Delaying Maintenance in order to ensure that the operating forces in Iraq and Afghanistan (and elsewhere) receive the money they need to meet mission.

Last thing we need to do is ensure all of the equipment is repaired and in working order.

Think the Democrats in Congress would mind supporting us just a little less? Because at this rate, their Supporting the Troops (But Not the Mission) will get people killed.

$20 Billion Isn't Just Peanuts

Pointless Maneuvering

I would be negligent if I didn't comment (again) on the Iraq Supplemental vote.

Both the House and the Senate have now passed, albeit just barely, their own versions of the bill. Two notable qualities of the bills - they both set a deadline for our surrender and they fund more than the military needs, although Popeye does love his spinach.

What stood out today was the Honorable Rep. Pelosi's comments to the President (side-note: some of you may notice that one of the features of my posts is that I will ALWAYS use respect to those in their various positions, personal feelings aside. I feel it's lacking in today's discourse, and that lack is hindering debate. Compare with other blogs - you know where...).

"On this very important matter, I would extend a hand of friendship to the president, just say to him, 'Calm down with the threats, there's a new Congress in town. We respect your constitutional role. We want you to respect ours.' This war must end. The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of the war. Let's see how we can work together."

"I just wish the president would take a deep breath, recognize again that we each have our constitutional role and we should respect that in terms of each other."

Oh really. She wants respect. And, she wants the Commander-in-Chief to respect Congress' Constitutional role (please, show me where, Madame Speaker) in restricting the military conduct of our military.

Respect.

Wow.

The Democrats are insisting on pursuing a piece of legislation that is doomed to a veto, and is not veto-proof. For what purpose?

Why is the Democrat leadership going to the mat for this?

The naive view would be that the House would do two bills, one to fund the military, and then one bill, perhaps a very short one, saying that the Congress is curtailing the Commander-in-Chief's authority to deploy troops to Iraq. That way, the troops get their funding (see: "We Support the Troops") AND they get a very clean, no manipulation, vote.

But, that's not happening here. There's all kinds of bait, bribes, pork laden into this bill. If the principle were so clear, and from what I read in the MSM, and hear from the Democrats, there is a loud hue and cry from the American people demanding the Democrats take action (and to think, it's almost April... I'm glad it's something important.)

So, with 18 days remaining before the military starts running out of funds, according to a projection by the Defense chiefs... the money is tied up in political game-playing.

And Rep. Pelosi wants respect.

Madame Speaker, will that respect come when the military must begin curtailing training flying hours for its pilots? Or, will it be when deploying units can't practice live fire ranges because there's an ammunition shortage, and the troops downrange need the bullets? Maybe we'll respect you more when the fitness centers, family centers, Yellow Ribbon Rooms, and other MWR facilities are forced to reduce their hours due to lack of funds?

Speaker Pelosi does have a response to the concern about the military running out of money:

"The fact is the president of United States as the Commander-In-Chief has weakened our military. Why would he be saying to us we're running out of money when it's only a few weeks. Leadership would have required for him to have anticipated these needs."

'It's only a few weeks.' (For a Congress that historically has never been known for it's speed.) My favorite: 'Leadership would have required for him to have anticipated these needs.' Madame Speaker, earlier you were quoted referring to your Constitutional roles. In the quote, you mistakenly alluded to a role governing the military. Here, you again make a Constitutional mistake. You say the President had the Leadership responsibility to authorize the funding. How? In the Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, paragraph 1, "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives...".

Madame Speaker, the President has no Constitutional role to introduce a spending bill in the US House. Exactly how would you have preferred he demonstrate the leadership you felt he lacked?



In short, today Congress failed the troops. They announced our willingness to surrender, or run away within a set period of time, to our enemy. They announced that the Congress no longer supports the mission. And, I'm sure that message was not lost upon the enemy - either our known enemy now, or future enemies we haven't met yet.

Finally, I'd like to share where some other folks have posted their views.

Tanker Brothers

The Iraq Vote

Today, as the Democrat leadership has long promised, the US House of Representatives held a vote on the continued funding of the Armed Forces during this war against Islamo-fascism.

No doubt, you've heard by now the result. You can see how your representative voted here.

Perhaps, you'd like to exercise a passing familiarity with the representing that your Representatives have been doing. You can read the entire bill.

I want to let you know that what happened today hurts the troops. It's surprising, but the military needs money. Lots of it. Soon. The bill today had a lot of that money in it (not all of it, mind you, but a good start.)

Let's take a step here, and remove ourselves from whether or not the House should have voted to give a deadline for withdrawal. There are plenty of columnists, talking heads, and bloggers like myself who will discuss that into the ground. Fact is, whichever way your opinion goes on that, no one is likely to budge it even a smidgen.

However, everyone - Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, and excepting a few folks who've gotten carried away - says they "Support the Troops".

This bill, amongst other things (including the Minimum Wage, surprisingly enough), provided funding to Support the Troops. There are no other bills in the House that have that goal.

This bill is also loaded with enough items, whether it's non-related funding directives (aka "pork"), or the aforementioned mandated timetable for withdrawal, that it faces a guaranteed VETO from the President.

In other words, no money for the troops at all.

The Army has already indicated that it will need to extend tours, reduce training, and other cost-cutting measures will be implemented, to weather the funding shortfall.


The Democrat leadership tried to do it all. Tried to cover the wide base of their party, and ultimately, failed. Even members of their own party voted against the bill because they didn't like what was in it (or rather, what was missing - they wanted it to end the war now). Thus, they guaranteed not having enough votes to survive a VETO threat.


What should they have done? If they truly take America first, and Support the Troops? Politics aside? Propose, and quickly pass, a bill that is strictly military funding - what the troops asked for - and nothing else.

Separately, have the vote for the early withdrawal. You campaigned on it, so vote on it. But, don't tie plans for a withdrawal next year to money the troops need right now.


And, as long as we're talking about doing it right, lets not tie other things into a military appropriations bill that have nothing to do with the military. It's called Pork, and while it IS a time-honored tradition in Congress, we can always hope.

A friend sent this along to me:

What Democrats Could Have Funded:

Listed below are programs and equipment that could be purchased and delivered sooner than planned if they were funded in the Democratic War Supplemental for Fiscal year 2007.

• $4.75 billion: Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (USMC & Army)
• $2.6 billion: Aircraft Recapitalization and Modernization (Air Force)
• $1.84 billion: Medium Tactical Vehicles, such as 5-Ton Trucks (Army)
• $775.1 million: STRYKER Combat Vehicles and Armor Upgrades (Army)
• $452.2 million: Upgrade 3 Patriot Anti-Missile Battalions (Army)
• $324.2 million: Heavy Tactical Trucks, such as 10-Ton Tractor-Trailers (Army)
• $250 million: Force Protection Equipment (Air Force)
• $207.4 million: Aircraft/Helicopter Survivability Equipment (Army)
• $187.2 million: Javelin Portable Anti-Tank Missile (Army)
• $152.9 million: Counter-IED Systems (Army)
• $33 million: Night Vision Equipment (Army)
• $24 million: Combat Search and Rescue Capability Enhancement (Air Force)
• $10 million: Electronic Attack Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (USMC)
• $9 million: Joint IED Defeat Sustainment (Navy)

Additional Cuts:

• Combating Violent Militias. House Democrats strip $155.5 million from the military effort to disarm and demobilize violent militias. Since no alternative exists to combat violent militias, armed groups will be left to roam the streets of Baghdad and civil unrest will continue. This senseless funding cut would undermine the U.S. military effort in Iraq and endanger U.S. troops.

• Combatant Commander Initiative Fund. House Democrats cut $25 million from the Combatant Commander Initiative Fund, which will deny military commanders a valuable regional engagement tool for “building partner nation capacity” in the Global War on Terrorism.

Defense Security Cooperation Agency. House Democrats cut $350 million from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which would harm America’s ability to build foreign capacity to counter instability and security problems.

• Special Operations Command. House Democrats cut $14 million from the Special Operations Command, limiting one of the most engaged forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as one of the most effective forces outside of Iraq and Afghanistan in support of the Global War on Terrorism and regional stability.

• IED Counter-Measures. House Democrats cut $13.25 million for Warlock electronic jammers and $27.63 million for the Army’s Soldier Support and Survivability System.

• Helicopters. House Democrats cut $90 million for three additional CH-47 helicopter airframes, denying the Army three Chinook helicopters. House Democrats also cut $75 million for UH-60’s, denying the Army five Blackhawk helicopters.

• Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. House Democrats cut $31.5 million for unmanned aerial vehicles, which are vital force protection equipment and effective counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism tools.




What Democrats Chose to Fund Instead:

• Peanut Storage Subsidies: Provides $74 million to extend peanut storage payments through 2007. The Peanut Subsidy Storage program, which is set to expire this year, pays farmers for the storage, handling, and other costs for peanuts voluntarily placed in the marketing loan program.
• Spinach: Provides $25 million for payments to spinach producers that were unable to market spinach crops as a result of the FDA Public Health Advisory issued on September 14, 2006.
• Shrimp: Provides $120 million to the shrimp industry for expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina.
• Frozen Farmland: Provides $20 million for the cleanup and restoration of farmland damaged by freezing temperatures during a time period beginning on January 1, 2007 through the date of enactment.
• Hurricane Citrus Program: Provides $100 million to provide assistance to citrus producers (such as orange producers) in the area declared a disaster related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
• HUD Indian Housing: Provides $80 million in tenant-based rental assistance for public and Indian housing under HUD.
• Crop Disaster Assistance: Provides roughly $3 billion in agriculture assistance to crop producers and livestock owners experiencing losses in 2005, 2006, or 2007 due to bad weather.
• Payment to Widow of Rep. Norwood: Provides $165,200 to Gloria W. Norwood, the widow of former Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA), an RSC Member, who passed away last month. In the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2005 (H.R. 1268), Congress provided $162,100 to Doris Matsui, the widow of former Rep. Robert Matsui.
• Capitol Power Plant: Provides $50 million to the Capitol Power Plant for asbestos abatement and safety improvements.
• Liberia: Provides that money appropriated for FY 2007 for the Bilateral Economic Assistance program at the Department of Treasury may be used to assist Liberia in retiring its debt arrearages to the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the African Development Bank.
• Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program: Provides $283 million for payments under the MILC program, to extend the life of the program for one year, through September 30, 2008. MILC provides payments to dairy farmers when milk prices fall below a certain rate.
• Aquaculture Operations: Provides $5 million for payments to “aquaculture operations and other persons in the U.S. engaged in the business of breeding, rearing, or transporting live fish” (such as shellfish, oysters and clams) to cover economic losses incurred as a result of an emergency order issued by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service on October 24, 2006.
• FDA Office of Women’s Health: Provides $4 million for the Office of Women’s Health at the Food and Drug Administration.
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Provides $60.4 million for fishing communities, Indian tribes, individuals, small businesses, including fishermen, fish processors, and related businesses for assistance related to “the commercial fishery failure.” According to the Committee Report, this funding is to be used to provide disaster relief for those along the California and Oregon coast affected by the “2006 salmon fishery disaster in the Klamath River.”
• Avian Flu: Provides $969 million for the Department of HHS to continue to prepare and respond to an avian flu pandemic. Of this funding, $870 million is to be used for the development of vaccines.
• Secure Rural Schools Act (Forest County Payments): Provides $400 million to be used for one-time payments to be allocated to states under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. This program provides a funding stream (known as forest county payments) to counties with large amounts of Bureau of Land Management land, in order to compensate for the loss of receipt-sharing payments on this land caused by decreased revenue from timber sales due to environmental protections for endangered species. The authorization for these forest county payments expired at the end of FY 2006, and counties received their last payment under the Act in December 2006.
• NASA: Provides $35 million to NASA, under the “exploration capabilities” account, for “expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina.”
• Corps of Engineers: Provides $1.3 billion to Corps of Engineers for continued repairs on the levee system in New Orleans.
• FEMA: Provides $4.3 billion for disaster relief at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The bill would eliminate the state and local matching requirements for certain FEMA assistance (in connection with Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Dennis) in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Florida, and provides that the federal portion of these costs will be 100%.
• LIHEAP: Provides $400 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).
• Vaccine Compensation: Provides $50 million to compensate individuals for injuries caused by the H5N1 vaccine, which is a flu vaccine.
• SCHIP: Provides $750 million to the Secretary of HHS to provide assistance to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) “shortfall states,”, in the form of an amount “as the Secretary determines will eliminate the estimated shortfall.” This provision is direct spending that is essentially capped at $750 million and designated as an emergency to avoid PAYGO constraints.
• Minimum Wage Increase: Increases the federal minimum wage from $5.15-per-hour to $7.25-per-hour over two-plus years—a 41% increase. Yields $16.5 billion in private-sector costs over five years.
• Tax Increases and Shifts: Implements several tax increases and shifts, including: denying the lowest maximum capital gains tax rate for certain minors and adults, extending the suspension of interest payments due to the IRS, and adjusting the deadlines for corporate estimated tax payments. Costs taxpayers $1.380 billion over the FY2007-FY2017 period.

Sen. Feingold Wants To Use Power of the Purse

By clicking on the link, you'll be able to read Sen. Feingold's op-ed calling for Congress to use the power of the purse to bring the troops out of Iraq.

In it, he says that Congress will still support the troops, yet doesn't say how they'll use the "power of the purse" yet still provide the resources troops need.

But, that's not my question.

What I'm curious about is this: If Sen. Feingold is serious about opposing the war, as he has every right to be... why does he want to cut funding to our side?

What about cutting our funding (through foreign aid and military assistance) to various other governments and organizations throughout the world? Can we say, accurately and with confidence, that we know for sure that the money is NOT going to support terrorists and those who want us dead?

I don't mind if someone is principled and opposed to the war. Fine. But, don't say you support the troops when you want to continue funding the other side and not the troops.