Miller Would Cut Off Funds for Our Troops

By: Lowell
Published On: 6/9/2006 2:40:10 PM

Whether or not you support the Iraq War, you've got to support our brave fighting men and women over in Iraq.  Yet Harris Miller, who SUPPORTED THE INVASION OF IRAQ, now says he "would support moving quickly to cut off funds" for the war.  As the Webb campaign points out, correctly:

Troop safety is already underfunded.  Miller+óGé¼Gäós advocacy is a slap in the face to all American troops who have courageously volunteered to fight and defend America in Iraq.  Miller has previously advocated a withdrawal plan that leaves American soldiers in Iraq until Iraqi soldiers are trained to replace them.  A combination of Miller+óGé¼Gäós 2 Iraq plans means American troops will remain in Iraq for the indefinite future with no funding.

That's Harris Miller.  And now he's trying to buy himself the nomination.  We must stop him.  This weekend, your job is to get at least 10, 20 voters besides yourself to commit to going to the polls on Tuesday for Jim Webb.  If you do that, we win, no matter how much money Miller throws at us.  Thanks.

Comments



Harris' Royal Blunder (kevinceckowski - 6/9/2006 2:51:47 PM)
I thought I was hearing things when he said it on WTOP.

Did the folks around Norfolk and Hampton Roads have an MI on that one? 

He said it almost in passing like it was not an issue.  I gasped above the volume of the radio.  Did he say what I thought he said? And at this time of the war?  What a mess....get some sleep Harris or some coffee!!!  He must not have meant it???!?!?!?!

It came out in the press release from the Webb campaign sure enough, I posted under WTOP and now your story to focus on it.

A royal blunder on the part of Harris.  Why would you cut the funds?  Give me a good reason?  Was it a sound bite? Did it sound good?  How irresponsible to say it and not give some rationale.  kc



Outrageously Ignorant (rjl - 6/9/2006 2:59:35 PM)
If, in fact, the Webb campaign has issued such a statement as you highlight in blue above, I would suggest that you take this down and call over there to see if Webb is aware of this.  That is a statement completely ignorant of how federal funding works.  There is no possible way in hell that a cut-off of funds for Iraq would "mean American troops will remain in Iraq for the indefinite future with no funding." 

That is a lie.  If Webb is aware of this statement, he knows it's a lie and would not tolerate it.



Read the disclaimer. (phriendlyjaime - 6/9/2006 3:00:45 PM)
Webb is not affiliated with RK.  It's not his fault he is popular with the best of the best in VA.  :)


It's from the following (Lowell - 6/9/2006 3:16:01 PM)
press release by the Webb campaign. 

Oh, and why don't you enlighten us all on what Harris Miller's talking about when he says he "would support moving quickly to cut off funds?"  Where does all that money go, anyway?  Uh, mostly to our troops.  So, if we don't pull the troops out but funds are cut off, what happens exactly? 



This (rjl - 6/9/2006 3:37:29 PM)
First, the discussion was a hypothetical one this morning as regards Congressional power to either change the direction of the Iraq war or end it.  Congress controls the purse.  In a hypothetical battle between a Democratic Congress and Bush over the future of the war, one way of bringing that debate to a head is through appropriations.

Any such action would involve both the annual DOD appropriations bill/debate and likely one or more supplementals.

The language would look something like this:

"An additional appropriation of $42B is made and restricted to application by the Department for the orderly transition and redeployment of personnel and assets from Iraq.."

Thus, any such restricted appropriation by definition means the troops are pulled out (redeployed).  Much of what Murtha has advocated involves this process.

Just as a war of this magnitude requires a lengthy build-up, a lengthly drawn-down is required and could involve restricted funding.



Yes Miller is outrageously ignorant... (kevinceckowski - 6/9/2006 3:37:34 PM)
....you got that part right.

We just remind you all of what Miller says, word for word; day after day; sound bite after sound bite.

Maybe Harris is just tired.

I for one do NOT want a nominee for my party who is tired now.........what about the fight ahead with Allen?  kc



It's an exageration to be true . . . (JC - 6/9/2006 3:29:02 PM)
Of course no one would seriously advocate leaving American troops in Iraq without funding--Lowell is just trying to be provocative.

What this post really points to is that Harris Miller has flip-flopped on this issue endlessly and has taken multiple, mutually exclusive, contradictory positions. He clearly does not understand military issues or organizations.

Webb clearly does understand the military, having served as a Marine in combat, as Assistant Secretary of Defense, and as Secretary of the Navy. Webb is a living legend in the military, and deservedly so.

I don't care what Claudia Kennedy says: Harris Miller is not competent on defense issues.



Here's the entire Webb campaign press release on the subject (Lowell - 6/9/2006 3:34:49 PM)
Harris Miller supported the war in Iraq; doesn’t support American troops.

Harris Miller has completed his total disregard for the safety of U.S. soldiers. Yesterday on Hardball, Miller said he supported the Iraq war, then in what has come to be his normal tactic, shifted blame, saying he was tricked into supporting the war by George Bush, Colin Powell and some unnamed State Department official who promised Miller there was an exit plan. (Hardball With Chris Matthews, 6/8/2006)

Today he announced his plan to totally abandon American soldiers in Iraq saying he “would support moving quickly to cut off funds†for the war. (The Politics program with mark Plotkin, 6/9/2006) Troop safety is already underfunded. Miller’s advocacy is a slap in the face to all American troops who have courageously volunteered to fight and defend America in Iraq. Miller has previously advocated a withdrawal plan that leaves American soldiers in Iraq until Iraqi soldiers are trained to replace them. The combination of Miller’s two Iraq plans means that American troops will remain in Iraq for the indefinite future with no funding. “This is clearly the words of a man who doesn’t know how to best protect American troops in a combat environment,†said Todd.

Jim Webb has opposed the Iraq war from the start. Jim wrote an editorial in the Washington Post in September 2002 warning of the dangers of invading. (Washington Post, 9/4/2002) Webb’s son will be deployed to Ramadi later this summer.



whew (TurnVirginiaBlue - 6/9/2006 3:37:40 PM)
That is particularly damning to me on Miller, excellent job campaign.


JC - I don't disagree (va.walter - 6/9/2006 3:40:11 PM)
but I'd make one general point about your logic.  You say Webb knows about the military because of his history.  No doubt.  However, assuming that Miller doesn't know because of his history allows for the assumption that Webb doesn't know about education, social security, crime, taxes, etc because of his history.  Obviously those assumptions would be dumb.  If your point is that you don't trust Miller because his position has changed it's a valid one except that every candidate, including Webb, changes lots of positions.

All that said, I think we can all agree (even tepid Miller supporters like myself) that Webb is the better prepared to make military decisions.  I just don't think that makes him better prepared to be my Senator.

Now, all of you can "troll rate" away.



I gave you a 4 (phriendlyjaime - 6/9/2006 3:49:43 PM)
bc I don't think you are a troll.  I think you are supporting the wrong person for Senate, but that doesn't make you a troll.  Calling names and giving arrogant Webb heads (some of us are, and we know it's wrong-we just adore webb) troll ratings does make one a troll.

:)



PLUS (phriendlyjaime - 6/9/2006 3:53:03 PM)
LCD and I are pretty much ratings whores who are on each other's backs like white on rice, so....

:)

I hit you up in the old KEVIN SCHMIDT OF STERLING VA BLAH BLAH BLAH I NEED ATTENTION thread, LCD.  Just lookin out for ya.  ;)



I'm there for you Jaime!!! (Loudoun County Dem - 6/9/2006 4:09:49 PM)
I got your back...


Jaime (va.walter - 6/9/2006 4:08:00 PM)
You may have missed my post on an earlier thread where I told you that my giving you a troll rating was a mistake.  I intended to rate an Arturo post that was nothing more than a flame and I accidentally rated your post.  A mistake I will try not to make again.


Nope, I saw your apology and I thanked you. (phriendlyjaime - 6/9/2006 4:10:29 PM)
You can always change ratings here on RK, too, so no worries.  :)


That's a trick I haven't learned yet. (va.walter - 6/9/2006 4:16:00 PM)
Good thing I rarely rate.  I'm still shocked by the "vindictive ratings" given by 2 or 3 folks on this board.  God forbid you try to have real honest dialogue.  The funny thing is that certain peoples' overuse of the "troll" rating has rendered their ratings completely meaningless.  Of course they'll never catch the irony.


Well let's extend your logic to Miller (JC - 6/9/2006 4:00:26 PM)
Miller's basically been a lobbyist for most of his adult life: how does that make him an expert on education, social security, crime, taxes, etc.?

Listen, I'm a tax attorney myself, and I don't consider either of these guys experts on tax policy. The number one issue confronting us is National Security.

Webb has been or is: a military man, a lawyer, a legislative aide, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Navy, a literature teacher, a journalist, a fiction writer, a screen writer, and a historian.  Quick Lowell, am I leaving anything out?

Miller has been: a legislative aide and a lobbyist. Period.

Whose resume matches the job description?



You completely missed my point. (va.walter - 6/9/2006 4:09:51 PM)
That wasn't my logic.  My point was that it is BAD LOGIC to assume someone is illequipped to handle a substantive area just because of their history.  In fact, sometimes the best politicians in a given area are the ones that come to it without any history.  The logic you're attributing to me is the exact opposite of what I said.


I disagree with your point, however you construe it (JC - 6/9/2006 4:21:42 PM)
Consider the primary as a job interview.

What are the requirements of the job?

Whose resume suggests they would be more effective?

When I interviewed for my past professional positions, the interview always included going to lunch with the people who would be my peers/co-workers and immediate supervisors and/or reports.  If Miller or Webb were to beat George Allen, their peers would be the current Democratic U.S. Senators.

Which of the two candidates has been overwhelmingly endorsed by the people who would be their peer/co-worker?

Given these purely objective criteria and knowing what you know, can you really look me in the eye and say that Harris Miller is the better candidate?

Let's extend the job interview a bit further. All of Miller's arguments for why he should be the candidate amount to nepotism.  I want a candidate chosen on the basis of merit, not on who he knows and whose back he's scratched.

I choose Jim Webb.



Purely objective criteria? (va.walter - 6/9/2006 4:27:16 PM)
How is that purely objective?  You don't think those folks have an agenda?  You think Schumer gives a crap about working with Webb?  Schumer wants to nationalize the race and raise money.  Even the language of those endorsements makes it clear they're about electability, not governance.


I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you! (Lowell - 6/9/2006 4:40:56 PM)
Truly shocked that mixture of Machiavellian and other motives might enter into politics.  Breaking News: Politicians Look Out for Self Interest, Read All About It!!

Ha. :)



JC, it was said (kevinceckowski - 6/9/2006 3:51:02 PM)
....that is all, not exaggerated (to make something greater than it already is).  Miller's statement is already greater than it already is. 


Allen WILL use it at Miller (kevinceckowski - 6/9/2006 4:54:26 PM)
I guess it is good to flush this out now for Allen WILL use it in November should Miller win.

Allen is probably already making plane tickets to Iowa, SC, NH, Ohio, PA, oh heck, FL and TX (great vacatio spot with a friend named George).

There is already a threat of closing Oceana which WEBB vowed to fight, and loosing all the jobs in NOVA.

Allen is going to use this and use it good. Who needs a video man following you around when you go on radio and say it to the whole state for free.



If Mille rhas his way (JC - 6/9/2006 4:58:29 PM)
The Navy will be outsourced.