I apologize for the nytimes link, but it's an editorial.
Basically, American soldiers in Iraq are being undersupplied with many things, including food and water.
Outsourcing to private companies has been one major contributing factor in this, due to companies just not showing up.
Another major factor has been lack of funding by the DoD.
Krugman also cites several other areas where the Bush admin has cut other supported defense/homeland security priorities.
I have been talking about members of the military being a low priority to Bush since the campaign, when even Bush's proposed budget was lower in amount targeted for military salaries than Gore's.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
You actually read Krugman WITHOUT a grain of salt?
Sorry, but I really don't trust anything Krugman says on its face. I'll have to look at some reputable sources that corroborate his position before I believe it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
In other words, you can't disprove anything he's saying, so you're *assuming* that his bias equates to nothing in his column being true.
If bias really did make everything untrue, I ask you, who then would speak the truth? Who is unbiased in their opinion?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I have friends in the military. They are deeply Republican. Mainly, the firmly believe in the promises made that a bigger defense budget means more money for the troops.
Instead, all the new budgets show increases in spending for equipment, new toys, hi-tec lasers to shoot down missiles, etc. They have not shown any increase in pay for our soldiers, and have cut some funding to things like the VA and its medical offerings.
Yet attacking the military budget has been labeled unpatriotic. I always consider the idea of taking care of our soldiers, not thier suppliers, to be the hallmark of patriotism.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I haven't done it (edit to make it clear, I haven't done it for this piece), but the nytimes is always more than happy to provide sources for stories, including opinion pieces (which they do fact checking for).
If you doubt his sources, go ahead and check them.
[ August 12, 2003, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*shakes head*
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
It's odd, friends in the military I have spoken with recently who tended to support Bush early on are expressing doubts and outright dislike for him now. And from what they've said, those attitudes aren't uncommon in their professions.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
See, and two of my friends who just got back expressed frustration at the ones who are trying to pin this on Bush. They said most of the ones doing the whining are the kids, who somehow thought that serving in the military wouldn't actually involve any sacrifice on thier part. You know, sacrifices like "military service." Like being told you have to go off to another country, and not be told when you'll come back. Like having to go days without a shower.
Also, rumors seem to be spreading among the troops in Iraq that the troops in Kuwait have wonderful, heaven-on-earth-type living conditions, so a lot of the frustrations is over the lack of tour rotations--not realizing that the troops in Kuwait have it pretty much as bad as the troops in Iraq.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Birds of a feather, eh docmagik. Sittin' here comfortable in the US whinin' about the troops over there lack of enthusiasm. Course'n they might feel better if Dubya hadn't chosen to make them into assassination targets after the war to enrich Haliburton et al
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
Honestly Storm, I haven't read the column, nor the rebuttal. Krugman's MO is to take anything that can be remotely construed as negative, blow it all out of proportion, and blame it all on Bush -- no matter the issue. It got really old after the 4th or 5th time. So I don't bother to read him anymore.
I also didn't go looking for this rebuttal, I just ran across it in my daily news search. I haven't read it either, becuz there's no point in reading a rebuttal to something I've not read, ya knw?
My earler comment was made becuse Krugman's such a 1-trick pony I don't have to read him anymore to know what he'll say.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ok, I've read the rebuttal, and I consider it informed.
It's worth noting that it isn't a complete rebuttal; the author states that privatizing military operations is problematic/harmful, and implies that bad planning on the Bush admin's part led to the many of the supply reasons being experienced.
His rebuttal largely encompasses the details regarding water and reservist activation, pointing out how the food/water situation is not unusual (the soldiers get "tap" water in addition to bottled) and the reservist activation is very much in line with how a traditional war is fought, which he considers normal (understandably), though he does suggest that the Bush admin could have done a better job anticipating force deployments.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Magson, the problem is that it works in the opposite direction as well, particularly on various topics. My personal opinion is that it's kind of like a trial, motive is not enough to establish being guilty of bullshite. There has to be some evidence, too.
Thanks for the link to the rebuttal. (Edit: And it's a good one. )
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)