house votes to withdraw troops from iraq by sep 2008 - Page 3

Lewd Ferrigno · 03-27-2007, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ty454

I'm sure you were complaining

I hate spendy government. The only reason I am willing to accept this is if it pushes through the larger issue of ending the war. If it was just attached to a farm bill or something like that, I would be bitching up a storm.

Punkwood2k · 03-27-2007, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim schmidt

Do you just make up whatever explanation suits your views? On what, exactly, do you base your assertion?

His statement is EXACTLY what it is meant to be. Its common practice to tack extra shit on a bill just to either get it passed, or use it as ammunition if they vote against it..
There was a bill in Colorado not long ago that tacked "domestic surveillance" onto a school funding bill. The bill was mostly about adding lots of money on to public school funding.. But one of the riders was allowing police to use electronic surveillance on anyone they chose, WITHOUT a warrant.. One of the republican representatives voted against it for that reason, and during the next election campaign, it was all over the TV. "Campbell voted AGAINST funding for public schools".

It happens on every bill, every day, of every year.. for you to claim it is made up shows your biased opinions.

P.s. I know it happens on both sides of the Congress.. Each is as bad as the other..

Choco · 03-27-2007, 09:54 PM

lets see...

21bil / 521bil x 100% = 4.03%

big fuckin deal....perhaps its punishment for not including this request (as it should have been) into the defense spending bill for the year. instead, its another "emergency" bill to continue our occupation of foreign land....

who really cares anyway...china's footing the bill.....

twister216 · 03-29-2007, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coronadozx

The Senate bill sets a March 31, 2008, goal for withdrawing all combat troops out of Iraq. The legislation, which also gobs on billions in special projects at home, now heads to the Senate floor for a vote by the full chamber.

This is the problem with everything that goes on inside I-495. You'll have the lobbyists pushing crap about the "special projects". Most of those Senators votes will be for the "special projects". Senator Joe Blow will say "I thought I was voting on repaving the driveway at the library in anytown, USA".

jim schmidt · 03-29-2007, 10:07 AM

For that viewpoint to be valid, these domestic projects would have to be a waste of money. I'm sure some are, but I wouldn't put weather-related disaster relief or farm-related disaster relief in that category and I wouldn't automatically put "Homeland Defense" in that category.

The main inside-the-beltway problem is really the willingness of so many Americans to accept the soundbite as the last word. Bush is actually counting on this. That's why he told you who to blame for his veto.

If Bush were honest, he'd say "I'm the Veto-er!" ;-)

psudy · 03-29-2007, 11:16 AM

Bush said he was going to Veto it from the get go.

Choco · 03-29-2007, 11:18 AM

great idea if he does....doesn't congress take a 2 week recess here soon? kinda puts him in a pinch....

get the money under undesireable terms, or dont get it at all.

PhilB · 03-29-2007, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim schmidt

For that viewpoint to be valid, these domestic projects would have to be a waste of money. I'm sure some are, but I wouldn't put weather-related disaster relief or farm-related disaster relief in that category and I wouldn't automatically put "Homeland Defense" in that category.

The main inside-the-beltway problem is really the willingness of so many Americans to accept the soundbite as the last word. Bush is actually counting on this. That's why he told you who to blame for his veto.

If Bush were honest, he'd say "I'm the Veto-er!" ;-)

Many of those projects *are* a waste of money inherently. Many more might be well-intended but will wind up as a waste of money because government is rarely competent. Nearly all of them are none of the government's business, and not authorized in the enumerated powers of the Constitution for the Federal government to be involved in.

Veto-er? That's funny. It would be only the second veto of his entire presidency.

PhilB

jim schmidt · 03-29-2007, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilB

...because government is rarely competent. ...
PhilB

Well at least your theory about government explains why Iraq is such a cluster-fuck. I suppose we can assume then, that you are not for the war funding either.

PhilB · 03-30-2007, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim schmidt

Well at least your theory about government explains why Iraq is such a cluster-fuck. I suppose we can assume then, that you are not for the war funding either.

Yes, correct. It's well past time to get out of there. I understand why we went in. In retrospect it was a mistake, but given what we knew at the time, it was a reasonable choice. But once going in was decided, it *might* have been a good idea to go in with a f*****g clue, and maybe a plan for what to do in case we won.

PhilB

jim schmidt · 03-30-2007, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilB

Yes, correct. It's well past time to get out of there. I understand why we went in. In retrospect it was a mistake, but given what we knew at the time, it was a reasonable choice. But once going in was decided, it *might* have been a good idea to go in with a f*****g clue, and maybe a plan for what to do in case we won.

PhilB

No it wasn't. What "we knew at the time" is what we know now. Many of us believed "at the time" that the only chemical weapons Saddam might possess were leftovers of what we gave him (that had to be deteriorated,) that biologicals were non-existent, and that nukes were an idiot's claim. The truth was certainly available "at the time."

A more accurate historical report would call it "the bill of goods some swallowed at the time." Sometimes, you just have to say, "I believed the wrong guy." No fault of yours, really. You ought to be about to count on the honesty of the President when he's sending people off to kill and die. [rant off

]

That said, some of the other appropriations in the spending bill are legitimate, some are silly. All are an investment in ending the phoniest pork program since "Star Wars." To me that's worth it. And I think it represents a long-term savings of both lives and tax dollars. The former makes it even more worth it.

coronadozx · 03-30-2007, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim schmidt

If Bush were honest, he'd say "I'm the Veto-er!" ;-)

lol

PhilB · 03-31-2007, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim schmidt

No it wasn't. What "we knew at the time" is what we know now. Many of us believed "at the time" that the only chemical weapons Saddam might possess were leftovers of what we gave him (that had to be deteriorated,) that biologicals were non-existent, and that nukes were an idiot's claim. The truth was certainly available "at the time."

A more accurate historical report would call it "the bill of goods some swallowed at the time." Sometimes, you just have to say, "I believed the wrong guy." No fault of yours, really. You ought to be about to count on the honesty of the President when he's sending people off to kill and die. [rant off

]

Hindsight is 20/20. Sure, many at the time believed Saddam was no significant threat. But many people who were not just Bush followers believed he was or might well be. Including most of the Democrat politicians in Congress (who mostly voted for letting Bush make the decision whether to go in). Including many people in leadership in other countries and in the U.N. And since he was continuing to play games with the inspectors, no one could be sure. And it certainly didn't help that the U.N. bureaucrats who were supposed to be ensuring that the oil-for-food money was spent on food and medicine and such for the people (to try to reduce the burden of the sanctions on the people while denying Saddam the funds to do mischief) were instead taking bribes to let him skim money off the top for his own purposes.

At the time it was reasonable to believe he could really be dangerous, and many reasonable people thought so. I'm about the last person to believe a politician about anything. And if Bush and his gang had been the only people beating the drum, I'd have discounted it quickly. But there was a pretty wide consensus, among many factions throughout the world that do not ususally agree with each other, that he (a) had been working on that stuff in the past, and (b) had the ability to be working on that stuff at the time, and (c) was being evasive and secretive.

Why did he do this if he wasn't working on that stuff? I don't know. Maybe he thought he could bluff it out and play factions against each other indefinitely. One intriguing possibility is that he may have *thought* he had that stuff, but was being lied to by his own scientists, since they knew he was the kind of person that was prone to shooting people who told him things he didn't want to hear.

Anyhow, I know I was following the story at the time, and getting much of my news from my subscription to The Economist (which, if you're not familiar, is a British weekly news magazine that is remarkably intelligent and unbiased, and certainly was/is no follower of Bush), and although I wasn't gung-ho convinced that we needed to go in immediately, I thought the decision was understandable.

PhilB

jim schmidt · 03-31-2007, 07:31 PM

Whatever gets you through the night, really. Many people knew and spoke up. I don't begrudge anyone for hoping they could believe what the President said, really I don't. You ought to be able to believe the President is telling the truth when he sends people to kill and die.

But to later call it "what we knew" as if what you believed were somehow formerly true facts is just rationalized history. A significant percentage of Americans looked at the facts and heard the claims and came to the conclusion that was proved factually true by the passage of time. "What we knew" was never known, it was claimed by some and believed by others.

Congress voted to give Bush a strong hand in negotiations. At the time he promised publically to use war as a last resort. Then he used war as a first resort. I believe history will reveal that he made even stronger promises to the contrary in private. Before you dismiss that claim as presposteous, it might be good to remind yourself that I was right last time too. ;-)

PhilB · 04-01-2007, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim schmidt

Whatever gets you through the night, really. Many people knew and spoke up. I don't begrudge anyone for hoping they could believe what the President said, really I don't. You ought to be able to believe the President is telling the truth when he sends people to kill and die.

But to later call it "what we knew" as if what you believed were somehow formerly true facts is just rationalized history. A significant percentage of Americans looked at the facts and heard the claims and came to the conclusion that was proved factually true by the passage of time. "What we knew" was never known, it was claimed by some and believed by others.

Congress voted to give Bush a strong hand in negotiations. At the time he promised publically to use war as a last resort. Then he used war as a first resort. I believe history will reveal that he made even stronger promises to the contrary in private. Before you dismiss that claim as presposteous, it might be good to remind yourself that I was right last time too. ;-)

I didn't say that we knew he *was* a danger. I said that we couldn't tell for sure either way from what we did know at the time. So y'all that said he wasn't didn't know either; you were guessing just like the people that said they thought he was. So sure, you turned out to be right afterward, but there was no way to prove that at the time. You keep talking about believing the president; it wasn't that (at least for me), I wasn't even listening to him much. It was a risk assessment, based on not knowing, and on his behavior in trying to keep everyone guessing.

As for Bush's promises, I do not (and did not then) agree with Congress voting to leave the decision to him. It is the responsibility of Congress to declare war or to decide not to, and voting to let the president make the decision is an abdication of their responsibility, regardless of what the president "promises".

So while I do still think that the decision to go was reasonable given what was known at the time, I also think that it was done particularly badly, and that part of the responsibility for that lies with Congress for bailing out on their responsibility to ensure that the decision was valid and to oversee the process.

PhilB