Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
unhappycamper
unhappycamper's Journal
unhappycamper's Journal
December 1, 2012
US defense department general counsel, Jeh Johnson, says responsibility for tackling al-Qaida should pass to the police and other law enforcement agencies when the 'tipping point' in pursuit of group is reached.
'Tipping Point': Obama Lawyer Talks About Ending 'Endless' US War
Published on Friday, November 30, 2012 by Common Dreams
- Common Dreams staff
If a global war declared by the world's sole military and economic superpower against a shadowy, fragmented, franchisable, and loosely-grouped band of erstwhile 'dangerous' but also 'ravaged' and 'largely dismantled' terror group was over, how would you know it?
You wouldn't, of course, which is the reason that few ask and almost none, especially members of the US government or military, talk about anything that resembles the "official" end of what has long become known as the "global war on terrorism," or GWOT.
Today, however, at a speech given at Oxford University, Jeh Johnson, a Pentagon lawyer and one of President Obama's top legal advisors, spoke openly about what it might mean for the US government to declare an end to its seemingly endless war against—what critics have sharply pointed out is a "tactic"—"terrorism".
~snip~
'Tipping Point': Obama Lawyer Talks About Ending 'Endless' US War
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/30-9US defense department general counsel, Jeh Johnson, says responsibility for tackling al-Qaida should pass to the police and other law enforcement agencies when the 'tipping point' in pursuit of group is reached.
'Tipping Point': Obama Lawyer Talks About Ending 'Endless' US War
Published on Friday, November 30, 2012 by Common Dreams
- Common Dreams staff
If a global war declared by the world's sole military and economic superpower against a shadowy, fragmented, franchisable, and loosely-grouped band of erstwhile 'dangerous' but also 'ravaged' and 'largely dismantled' terror group was over, how would you know it?
You wouldn't, of course, which is the reason that few ask and almost none, especially members of the US government or military, talk about anything that resembles the "official" end of what has long become known as the "global war on terrorism," or GWOT.
Today, however, at a speech given at Oxford University, Jeh Johnson, a Pentagon lawyer and one of President Obama's top legal advisors, spoke openly about what it might mean for the US government to declare an end to its seemingly endless war against—what critics have sharply pointed out is a "tactic"—"terrorism".
~snip~
I do believe that on the present course, there will come a tipping point – a tipping point at which so many of the leaders and operatives of al Qaeda and its affiliates have been killed or captured, and the group is no longer able to attempt or launch a strategic attack against the United States, such that al Qaeda as we know it, the organization that our Congress authorized the military to pursue in 2001, has been effectively destroyed.
December 1, 2012
The Sex Lives of US Generals Are More Important Than the Deaths of Thousands of Soldiers
Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland
By Mariusz Zawadzki
Translated By Maciej Lepka
19 November 2012
Edited by Mary Young
How did it happen that the Americans have come to treat their leaders with more lenience than they did 70 years ago? “We had no inhibitions. In a moment, our uniforms lay on the ground, all buttons undone. It was like a fever; we were overcome by lust. We really were! But it ended differently that I had expected. Gradually, we got hold of ourselves. He hid his face in my arm and said: ‘Oh God! I’m sorry but I’m not able to pleasure you tonight.’ It was a bit embarrassing, us putting our clothes back on. When he showed me to the door, I gave him a ‘Good night, General’ and left. You never know who can be hiding in the darkness, waiting for anything that might give you away.”*
~snip~
Confidentiality on the American Internet is merely an illusion, and the Petraeus affair should clearly illustrate that to all Gmail users.
Unrestrained browsing through the personal inboxes of the two most important American generals can be reasonably explained. For instance, the FBI has established that Allen and Kelley’s two-year correspondence takes up 20-30,000 pages of typescript. Currently, this case is being investigated by a commission that is trying to establish whether the Kelley-Allen relationship was of a slightly frivolous or inexcusably lewd nature. The verdict will be crucial for Allen’s nomination as NATO’s supreme allied commander.
That anyone at all is willing to read that correspondence, which is more abundant than Kelley’s breasts and fiercer than the war with the Taliban, is probably the most surprising aspect. There is one clear conclusion to be drawn from this story: If the supreme commander of the United States forces in Afghanistan and a housewife from Florida did indeed exchange tens of emails a day, the ensuing scandal will be much more serious than the CIA director’s affair, at least as far as the security of the United States and its soldiers are concerned.
The Sex Lives of US Generals Are More Important Than the Deaths of Thousands of Soldiers
http://watchingamerica.com/News/185595/the-sex-lives-of-u-s-generals-are-more-important-than-the-deaths-of-thousands-of-soldiers/The Sex Lives of US Generals Are More Important Than the Deaths of Thousands of Soldiers
Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland
By Mariusz Zawadzki
Translated By Maciej Lepka
19 November 2012
Edited by Mary Young
How did it happen that the Americans have come to treat their leaders with more lenience than they did 70 years ago? “We had no inhibitions. In a moment, our uniforms lay on the ground, all buttons undone. It was like a fever; we were overcome by lust. We really were! But it ended differently that I had expected. Gradually, we got hold of ourselves. He hid his face in my arm and said: ‘Oh God! I’m sorry but I’m not able to pleasure you tonight.’ It was a bit embarrassing, us putting our clothes back on. When he showed me to the door, I gave him a ‘Good night, General’ and left. You never know who can be hiding in the darkness, waiting for anything that might give you away.”*
~snip~
Confidentiality on the American Internet is merely an illusion, and the Petraeus affair should clearly illustrate that to all Gmail users.
Unrestrained browsing through the personal inboxes of the two most important American generals can be reasonably explained. For instance, the FBI has established that Allen and Kelley’s two-year correspondence takes up 20-30,000 pages of typescript. Currently, this case is being investigated by a commission that is trying to establish whether the Kelley-Allen relationship was of a slightly frivolous or inexcusably lewd nature. The verdict will be crucial for Allen’s nomination as NATO’s supreme allied commander.
That anyone at all is willing to read that correspondence, which is more abundant than Kelley’s breasts and fiercer than the war with the Taliban, is probably the most surprising aspect. There is one clear conclusion to be drawn from this story: If the supreme commander of the United States forces in Afghanistan and a housewife from Florida did indeed exchange tens of emails a day, the ensuing scandal will be much more serious than the CIA director’s affair, at least as far as the security of the United States and its soldiers are concerned.
December 1, 2012
Rep. Gohmert: GOP can ‘leverage’ debt ceiling to force concessions
By Samantha Kimmey
Friday, November 30, 2012 20:05 EST
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said on Friday that Republicans could use the debt ceiling as “leverage” in negotiations with the president on Sean Hannity’s radio show, reported the Huffington Post.
“We do have leverage because early next year the debt ceiling gets reached,” Gohmert explained.
“And this president has got to have more ceiling. He’s got to have it moved. Sean, we have leverage. And this is a good time to say that we’re the ones promoting fairness. We’re the ones that want everyone to pay their share. You talk a good game but put it up here where your mouth is.”
The Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, wants House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to turn over more control of establishing the U.S. debt ceiling to the president, in order to avoid a repeat of the 2011 partisan showdown. That year, it could have forced the country to default on payments. Now, Republicans have indicated that they can use the looming debt ceiling debate to their advantage.
unhappycamper comment: When I'm sad and need a pick-me-up, I look for something Louie did or said during the week. He never disappoints.
Rep. Gohmert: GOP can ‘leverage’ debt ceiling to force concessions
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/30/rep-gohmert-gop-can-leverage-debt-ceiling-to-force-concessions/Rep. Gohmert: GOP can ‘leverage’ debt ceiling to force concessions
By Samantha Kimmey
Friday, November 30, 2012 20:05 EST
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said on Friday that Republicans could use the debt ceiling as “leverage” in negotiations with the president on Sean Hannity’s radio show, reported the Huffington Post.
“We do have leverage because early next year the debt ceiling gets reached,” Gohmert explained.
“And this president has got to have more ceiling. He’s got to have it moved. Sean, we have leverage. And this is a good time to say that we’re the ones promoting fairness. We’re the ones that want everyone to pay their share. You talk a good game but put it up here where your mouth is.”
The Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, wants House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to turn over more control of establishing the U.S. debt ceiling to the president, in order to avoid a repeat of the 2011 partisan showdown. That year, it could have forced the country to default on payments. Now, Republicans have indicated that they can use the looming debt ceiling debate to their advantage.
unhappycamper comment: When I'm sad and need a pick-me-up, I look for something Louie did or said during the week. He never disappoints.
December 1, 2012
Maher on drones: we ‘visit death upon our enemies’ without ‘actual fight’
By Samantha Kimmey
Saturday, December 1, 2012 0:01 EST
On Bill Maher’s blog on Nov. 30, he takes aim at the U.S. drone program, writing, ” We can now visit death upon our enemies without having to show up in person, look them in the eye and have an actual fight. It just feels wrong — like breaking up with a girl via text message.”
Maher goes on to discuss the U.S drones that recently flew near Iranian air space, although it was technically in international air space according to the U.S. Iranians shot at it, although they didn’t shoot it down. “It’s like catching the neighbor you hate throwing a beer bottle at your parked car and missing. We had no idea what level of outrage to feign,” Maher wrote.
Iranian jets fired twice at the drone before it headed further from Iran and landed in an undisclosed location, reported Fox News. Pentagon spokesperson George Little would not at the time say exactly how or if the U.S. would respond, only that, “We have a wide range of options from diplomatic to military.”
~snip~
“We utilize the best means at our disposal to go into foreign lands and blow up the people we consider the bad guys even if that means collateral damage in the form of civilian casualties. When someone does that exact same thing to us, don’t we call it ‘terrorism’?” he concludes.
Maher on drones: we ‘visit death upon our enemies’ without ‘actual fight’
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/01/maher-on-drones-we-visit-death-upon-our-enemies-without-actual-fight/Maher on drones: we ‘visit death upon our enemies’ without ‘actual fight’
By Samantha Kimmey
Saturday, December 1, 2012 0:01 EST
On Bill Maher’s blog on Nov. 30, he takes aim at the U.S. drone program, writing, ” We can now visit death upon our enemies without having to show up in person, look them in the eye and have an actual fight. It just feels wrong — like breaking up with a girl via text message.”
Maher goes on to discuss the U.S drones that recently flew near Iranian air space, although it was technically in international air space according to the U.S. Iranians shot at it, although they didn’t shoot it down. “It’s like catching the neighbor you hate throwing a beer bottle at your parked car and missing. We had no idea what level of outrage to feign,” Maher wrote.
Iranian jets fired twice at the drone before it headed further from Iran and landed in an undisclosed location, reported Fox News. Pentagon spokesperson George Little would not at the time say exactly how or if the U.S. would respond, only that, “We have a wide range of options from diplomatic to military.”
~snip~
“We utilize the best means at our disposal to go into foreign lands and blow up the people we consider the bad guys even if that means collateral damage in the form of civilian casualties. When someone does that exact same thing to us, don’t we call it ‘terrorism’?” he concludes.
December 1, 2012
Senate strips ‘indefinite detention’ for Americans from 2012 NDAA
By Stephen C. Webster
Friday, November 30, 2012 13:14 EST
The U.S. Senate approved an amendment on Thursday that strips a controversial provision from the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that allows the “indefinite detention” of American citizens within the U.S. by the military.
The amendment passed by a vote of 67 to 29. All but four of the Senators who voted against civilian trials for Americans were Republicans. Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Mark Pryor (D-AR) crossed over to oppose the amendment, and they were joined by Joe Lieberman (I-CT).
The amendment reads: “An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.”
~snip~
“It is inconsistent with the Constitution, which makes clear that basic due process rights apply to everyone in the United States,” ACLU’s Chris Anders wrote. “No group of immigrants should be denied the most basic due process right of all — the right to be charged and tried before being imprisoned.”
Senate strips ‘indefinite detention’ for Americans from 2012 NDAA
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/30/senate-strips-indefinite-detention-from-2012-ndaa/Senate strips ‘indefinite detention’ for Americans from 2012 NDAA
By Stephen C. Webster
Friday, November 30, 2012 13:14 EST
The U.S. Senate approved an amendment on Thursday that strips a controversial provision from the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that allows the “indefinite detention” of American citizens within the U.S. by the military.
The amendment passed by a vote of 67 to 29. All but four of the Senators who voted against civilian trials for Americans were Republicans. Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Mark Pryor (D-AR) crossed over to oppose the amendment, and they were joined by Joe Lieberman (I-CT).
The amendment reads: “An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.”
~snip~
“It is inconsistent with the Constitution, which makes clear that basic due process rights apply to everyone in the United States,” ACLU’s Chris Anders wrote. “No group of immigrants should be denied the most basic due process right of all — the right to be charged and tried before being imprisoned.”
November 30, 2012
US Ending the War in Afghanistan? It Depends on the Meaning of the Word ‘War’
by Dave Lindorff | November 30, 2012 - 9:53am
It is amazing to watch politicians trying to weasel their way around their promises. President Obama is providing us with a good illustration of the art.
During the latest presidential campaign and in the final televised debates, both Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were adamant in asserting that the US would be leaving Afghanistan and ending the war in that country at the end of 2014--a goal most Americans profoundly want. Biden, in a heated debate with his Republican opponent Paul Ryan, said the US would “absolutely” be “out” of Afghanistan at the end of 2014. Obama, a week later, said, “By 2014, this process of transition will be complete and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security."
I’m reminded of President Clinton, a lawyer who, when pressed under oath by a special prosecutor hounding him over the details of whether he had had sex with a young White House intern, said that the answer hinged on “what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
This past weekend, it was reported that Obama and the generals at the Pentagon are planning on keeping at least 10,000 US troops stationed in Afghanistan indefinitely after that 2014 deadline for ending the war and withdrawing from that war-torn land.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war
?
war
1 [wawr] noun, verb, warred, war·ring, adjective.
noun
1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.
5. aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.
verb (used without object)
10. to make or carry on war; fight: to war with a neighboring nation.
11. to carry on active hostility or contention: Throughout her life she warred with sin and corruption.
12. to be in conflict or in a state of strong opposition: The temptation warred with his conscience.
US Ending the War in Afghanistan? It Depends on the Meaning of the Word ‘War’
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-lindorff/46821/us-ending-the-war-in-afghanistan-it-depends-on-the-meaning-of-the-word-warUS Ending the War in Afghanistan? It Depends on the Meaning of the Word ‘War’
by Dave Lindorff | November 30, 2012 - 9:53am
It is amazing to watch politicians trying to weasel their way around their promises. President Obama is providing us with a good illustration of the art.
During the latest presidential campaign and in the final televised debates, both Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were adamant in asserting that the US would be leaving Afghanistan and ending the war in that country at the end of 2014--a goal most Americans profoundly want. Biden, in a heated debate with his Republican opponent Paul Ryan, said the US would “absolutely” be “out” of Afghanistan at the end of 2014. Obama, a week later, said, “By 2014, this process of transition will be complete and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security."
I’m reminded of President Clinton, a lawyer who, when pressed under oath by a special prosecutor hounding him over the details of whether he had had sex with a young White House intern, said that the answer hinged on “what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
This past weekend, it was reported that Obama and the generals at the Pentagon are planning on keeping at least 10,000 US troops stationed in Afghanistan indefinitely after that 2014 deadline for ending the war and withdrawing from that war-torn land.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war
?
war
1 [wawr] noun, verb, warred, war·ring, adjective.
noun
1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.
5. aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.
verb (used without object)
10. to make or carry on war; fight: to war with a neighboring nation.
11. to carry on active hostility or contention: Throughout her life she warred with sin and corruption.
12. to be in conflict or in a state of strong opposition: The temptation warred with his conscience.
November 30, 2012
Okinawa Move, Key To Pacific Pivot, Will Cost More Than $10.6B: GAO
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
Published: November 29, 2012
WASHINGTON: Sloppy number-crunching at the Department of Defense means that the official price tag to move 9,000 Marines off Okinawa to Guam, Hawaii, and Australia – already estimated at a whopping $10.6 billion – is probably short of the real cost, according to a draft Government Accountability Office (GAO) report obtained by AOL Defense.
The U.S. plans to move 4,700 of 8,000 Marines to Guam and send the others elsewhere: 1,800 would go to Hawaii – far from the action in the Western Pacific – and the rest to Australia – where the US is building up a "rotational" presence of 2,500 Marines (not all of them relocated from Okinawa) rather than permanent bases. The Pentagon's cost estimate is $10.6 billion.
The draft GAO report suggests that figure is still too low. The Defense Department is not counting everything it needs to, according to GAO, whose name was "General Accounting Office" until 2004 and which is famous for its scrupulous, exhaustive cost studies of federal programs. For example, the DoD estimate simply assumed the cost of relocating one Marine to Hawaii or Australia would be the same as relocating one to Guam. But Hawaii is one of the most expensive states in the union, with existing bases already hemmed in by the civilian population, and there are no US military facilities in Australia, whereas 30 percent of the military housing already built on Guam is sitting empty. GAO also cited a host of other unknowns, from unfinished environmental impact studies to the Army Corps of Engineers' ability to supervise so many simultaneous projects to Japanese cost-sharing pledges on which Tokyo has now reneged.
Just coming up with the relocation plan has been a six-year ordeal. Military facilities on Okinawa are now starting to decay because of deferred maintenance, even as DoD pays to keep up facilities on Guam that stand empty awaiting the Marines and their familes, said the GAO report.
Okinawa Move, Key To Pacific Pivot, Will Cost More Than $10.6B: GAO
http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/29/okinawa-move-key-to-pacific-pivot-will-cost-more-than-10-6b/Okinawa Move, Key To Pacific Pivot, Will Cost More Than $10.6B: GAO
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
Published: November 29, 2012
WASHINGTON: Sloppy number-crunching at the Department of Defense means that the official price tag to move 9,000 Marines off Okinawa to Guam, Hawaii, and Australia – already estimated at a whopping $10.6 billion – is probably short of the real cost, according to a draft Government Accountability Office (GAO) report obtained by AOL Defense.
The U.S. plans to move 4,700 of 8,000 Marines to Guam and send the others elsewhere: 1,800 would go to Hawaii – far from the action in the Western Pacific – and the rest to Australia – where the US is building up a "rotational" presence of 2,500 Marines (not all of them relocated from Okinawa) rather than permanent bases. The Pentagon's cost estimate is $10.6 billion.
The draft GAO report suggests that figure is still too low. The Defense Department is not counting everything it needs to, according to GAO, whose name was "General Accounting Office" until 2004 and which is famous for its scrupulous, exhaustive cost studies of federal programs. For example, the DoD estimate simply assumed the cost of relocating one Marine to Hawaii or Australia would be the same as relocating one to Guam. But Hawaii is one of the most expensive states in the union, with existing bases already hemmed in by the civilian population, and there are no US military facilities in Australia, whereas 30 percent of the military housing already built on Guam is sitting empty. GAO also cited a host of other unknowns, from unfinished environmental impact studies to the Army Corps of Engineers' ability to supervise so many simultaneous projects to Japanese cost-sharing pledges on which Tokyo has now reneged.
Just coming up with the relocation plan has been a six-year ordeal. Military facilities on Okinawa are now starting to decay because of deferred maintenance, even as DoD pays to keep up facilities on Guam that stand empty awaiting the Marines and their familes, said the GAO report.
November 30, 2012
Sequestration deadline speeds F35 negotiations
By Michael Hoffman Thursday, November 29th, 2012 3:09 pm
Top Pentagon and Lockheed Martin leaders have confirmed the two sides are close to reaching a deal for the fifth, and possibly the sixth, production lots for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
unhappycamper comment: Lot five calls for 32 F-35s. $250,000 x 32 = $8 billion dollars.
WTF are these people thinking?
Be sure to read the comments at the end of the DoDBuzz article.
Sequestration deadline speeds F35 negotiations
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/11/29/sequestration-deadline-speeds-f-35-negotiations/?comp=1198882887570&rank=3Sequestration deadline speeds F35 negotiations
By Michael Hoffman Thursday, November 29th, 2012 3:09 pm
Top Pentagon and Lockheed Martin leaders have confirmed the two sides are close to reaching a deal for the fifth, and possibly the sixth, production lots for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
unhappycamper comment: Lot five calls for 32 F-35s. $250,000 x 32 = $8 billion dollars.
WTF are these people thinking?
Be sure to read the comments at the end of the DoDBuzz article.
November 30, 2012
Okinawans file noise lawsuit against US government
Stars and Stripes
Published: November 30, 2012
OKINAWA CITY, Okinawa — Residents around Kadena Air Base filed a lawsuit Friday against the U.S government over aircraft noise, seeking about $2.7 million in compensation and a halt to U.S. nighttime flights.
unhappycamper comment: There was a April 2011 noise lawsuit signed by more than 22,000 Okinawans against the Japanese government for "$544 million for physical and mental damage from the noise."
Okinawans file noise lawsuit against US government
http://www.stripes.com/news/okinawans-file-noise-lawsuit-against-us-government-1.198838Okinawans file noise lawsuit against US government
Stars and Stripes
Published: November 30, 2012
OKINAWA CITY, Okinawa — Residents around Kadena Air Base filed a lawsuit Friday against the U.S government over aircraft noise, seeking about $2.7 million in compensation and a halt to U.S. nighttime flights.
unhappycamper comment: There was a April 2011 noise lawsuit signed by more than 22,000 Okinawans against the Japanese government for "$544 million for physical and mental damage from the noise."
November 29, 2012
It's Too Late To Stop Sequester: HASC Rep. Randy Forbes EXCLUSIVE
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
Published: November 28, 2012
WASHINGTON: "I am fully expecting to see sequestration in some form beginning in January," Rep. Randy Forbes told AOL Defense in an exclusive interview. And those automatic cuts -- or even the more targeted cuts likely in any deal to avoid a sequester -- would undermine the nation's new Pacific-focused strategy and the military's AirSea Battle concept to win future ocean wars, said Forbes, who chairs the readiness panel of the House Armed Services Committee.
Congress could strike a deal in 2013 to stop the sequestration cuts before they take full effect -- presumably as part of a larger deal on the "fiscal cliff" to raise the debt ceiling and extend Bush-era tax cuts -- but "I think it will be sometime early spring before we see that," Forbes sighed. "It's going to be very, very difficult to reach that deal before January."
~snip~
Many Democrats believe they can get a better deal in 2013 -- something Sen. Patty Murray said publicly way back in July -- and they argue that the world won't end if sequestration takes effect on January 2nd. They may have a point, up to a point.
"Every day that goes by we're getting closer, [but] this is not like a government shutdown, it's not really like a cliff," said Todd Harrison the leading sequestration expert at the influential Center for Strategic and Policy Assessments speaking at CSBA's rollout of a new study on smarter ways to cut the budget. Sequestration is too complex to execute immediately on Jan. 2nd, especially since the administration has resolutely refused to plan ahead for how to execute required cuts.
Disconnect spoiler: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/11/28/defense-fades-from-fiscal-cliff-debate/ (Be sure to read comments at end of this article.)
It's Too Late To Stop Sequester: HASC Rep. Randy Forbes EXCLUSIVE
http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/28/its-too-late-to-stop-sequester-hasc-rep-randy-forbes-exclusi/It's Too Late To Stop Sequester: HASC Rep. Randy Forbes EXCLUSIVE
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
Published: November 28, 2012
WASHINGTON: "I am fully expecting to see sequestration in some form beginning in January," Rep. Randy Forbes told AOL Defense in an exclusive interview. And those automatic cuts -- or even the more targeted cuts likely in any deal to avoid a sequester -- would undermine the nation's new Pacific-focused strategy and the military's AirSea Battle concept to win future ocean wars, said Forbes, who chairs the readiness panel of the House Armed Services Committee.
Congress could strike a deal in 2013 to stop the sequestration cuts before they take full effect -- presumably as part of a larger deal on the "fiscal cliff" to raise the debt ceiling and extend Bush-era tax cuts -- but "I think it will be sometime early spring before we see that," Forbes sighed. "It's going to be very, very difficult to reach that deal before January."
~snip~
Many Democrats believe they can get a better deal in 2013 -- something Sen. Patty Murray said publicly way back in July -- and they argue that the world won't end if sequestration takes effect on January 2nd. They may have a point, up to a point.
"Every day that goes by we're getting closer, [but] this is not like a government shutdown, it's not really like a cliff," said Todd Harrison the leading sequestration expert at the influential Center for Strategic and Policy Assessments speaking at CSBA's rollout of a new study on smarter ways to cut the budget. Sequestration is too complex to execute immediately on Jan. 2nd, especially since the administration has resolutely refused to plan ahead for how to execute required cuts.
Disconnect spoiler: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/11/28/defense-fades-from-fiscal-cliff-debate/ (Be sure to read comments at end of this article.)
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 16, 2005, 11:12 AMNumber of posts: 60,364
