New Yorker's Sy Hersh: Bush Admin Helped Plan Israeli Offensive...

Grey Satterfield wrote:

On 8/15/06 8:53 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:


On 8/14/06 10:21 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
wrote:


tomcervo wrote:


Fred J. McCall wrote:


Lawson English wrote:
Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.

They also want a balanced budget, a strong military and intelligent
diplomacy. The bunch in now are acting like looters--run up unpayable
debts here and abroad, and then retire to a gated community, and let
the rabble stew. Now they seem to be saying that they'll let the NEXT
administration decide to leave Iraq--they really seem to think it's up
to the US to decide that.

It's looking like the First Afghan War all over again, especially at
the top.

No to mention getting the damn feds out of state's business and fiscal
responsibility (not just a balanced budget, but intelligent use of funds).

We used to say the Democrats like to tax and spend. These birds just
want to spend and spend.


John and I can agree on this at least. Federal spending has been
hemorrhaging during the Bush administration. My primary complaint with
George W. Bush has been his unwillingness or inability to control federal
spending. This isn't the Republicanism I thought I knew. That's why I
think Bush's presidency is a failure and, I believe, why his approval
numbers are so low.

Even those of us who agree with Bush on the Iraq War, and his other
initiatives against Islamic fascism, think that he has failed on the home
front. Bush's fundamentalism, most recently evidenced by his veto of the
bill to federally fund stem cell research, is another example of that
failure.

Grey Satterfield


Just remember that the Iraqi war and the unbounded spending are
connected. You can't spend a few hundred billion dollars on a war and
not have it affect spending.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/

This does not count the cost of having our bright, energetic people over
in Iraq instead of here, contributing to economic growth or that of
young children deprived of a parent early in life.

It will be a very long time before this debt is paid off.


Absolutely wrong, it seems to me. The spending on the war and the other
aspects of the fight against Radical Islam has been money well spent. It is
the other spending by a Republican congress the president has not attempted
to control that I disapproved of.

Grey Satterfield


Grey,

When you are spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year, the budget
is chump change.

And, I don't see why creating enemies for the US faster than we can kill
or capture them is a good thing.

Also, just because the US is engaging terrorists in Iraq does not mean
they cannot also attack us at home. The terrorists the US is creating
in Iraq are a different bunch than the ones that attacked the US.

John Mullen

wrote:

Grey Satterfield wrote:

On 8/16/06 9:04 PM, in article
s.com,
" wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:

spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.

By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
the patients who need the research and their families.

The last sentence is all that makes sense: "The only losers were the
patients who need the research and their families." The translation is that
the president's veto was bad public policy. Making bad policy is always bad
politics in the long run and this fiasco should therefore be an
embarrassment to the Republican Party.


It is terribly naive to suppose they care about the long run, and not
all that astute to claim this will ocme back ot haunt them later.

The typical politician looks no farther than their next election, if
they set their sights on the long term and lose their next election
the long term doesn't involve them.

Plenty of Republicans voted for the bill so the failure will not
be laid on their doorstep by their constituents. Only if they
choose to run for President in 2008 would the national
consensus on the issue affect them.


The worst part is that Bush clearly
thought vetoing the bill was the right thing to do but he could not have
been more wrong.



Doh!


The veto will hurt Bush and the Republican Party.

A very large majority of US voters feel this sort of research is
warranted and that the Federal government should be involved so it can
go forward more quickly. In addition, this bill would give the Federal
government more control over a process that could easily be abused.

The Dems will say, "We need enough lawmakers to vote for this bill to be
able to override an anticipated Bush veto." They can use the coverage
argument, saying that, "Yes Senator Snort did vote for the bill this
time, but he did so because he knew the President would veto it. Make
sure it passes next time by voting for me!"

John Mullen

wrote:

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Grey Satterfield wrote:

:On 8/14/06 10:21 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
wrote:
: tomcervo wrote:
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Lawson English wrote:
: Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
: Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.
:
: They also want a balanced budget, a strong military and intelligent
: diplomacy. The bunch in now are acting like looters--run up unpayable
: debts here and abroad, and then retire to a gated community, and let
: the rabble stew. Now they seem to be saying that they'll let the NEXT
: administration decide to leave Iraq--they really seem to think it's up
: to the US to decide that.
:
: It's looking like the First Afghan War all over again, especially at
: the top.
:
: No to mention getting the damn feds out of state's business and fiscal
: responsibility (not just a balanced budget, but intelligent use of funds).
:
: We used to say the Democrats like to tax and spend. These birds just
: want to spend and spend.
:
:John and I can agree on this at least. Federal spending has been
:hemorrhaging during the Bush administration. My primary complaint with
:George W. Bush has been his unwillingness or inability to control federal
:spending. This isn't the Republicanism I thought I knew. That's why I
:think Bush's presidency is a failure and, I believe, why his approval
:numbers are so low.

Yes, but he does have a war on. That tends to wreck any budget. Too
large a percentage of the budget is non-discretionary spending.




The budget deficit is three times the size of the war budget.

Even then most of the war budget is being spent in Iraq, where
he chose to go to war despite Iraqi compliance with the inspection
and disarmament program.


Most of the war expenditures are off budget.

There are also costs associated with the military and the war that are
not clearly identified in the budget.

In addition, a lot of the war cost is being borne by the states.

John Mullen

Bob Matthews wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Bob Matthews wrote:
:
: :They're certainly a bigger threat than Al Qaida. Too bad the GOP
: :mouthbreathers haven't yet figured it out.
:
: So your position is that you lot keep losing because the voters are
: stupid?
:
:That's "your lot," genius.

No, that's "you lot", you grammar-flaming tosser.

: Perhaps, but they're smart enough to not vote your you lot.
:
:Maybe you mean "not vote for your lot"?

And maybe I mean "not vote for you lot".

:Lemme guess: you're another neocon with parchment on the wall?

Wrong at least once. Does 'parchment on the wall' have something to
do with something?

:Or just
:another loser who types with one hand while whacking off with the other?

No, son. It takes two hands to handle the Whopper...

:Am I close?

sniffsniff

Nope, you apparently aren't close. No odour of stale feces. You must
be well downwind.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"John P. Mullen" wrote:

:When you are spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year, the budget
:is chump change.

Huh?

:And, I don't see why creating enemies for the US faster than we can kill
r capture them is a good thing.

I also don't see how putting their boot on our neck and inviting them
to cut off our balls helps us much.

:Also, just because the US is engaging terrorists in Iraq does not mean
:they cannot also attack us at home. The terrorists the US is creating
:in Iraq are a different bunch than the ones that attacked the US.

And what's YOUR proposal, Mr Mullen? Is it something better than
"just give the terrorists everything they ask for"?

--
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed
and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks
that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has
nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more
important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature,
and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the
exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

"John P. Mullen" wrote:

wrote:
:
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
:Yes, but he does have a war on. That tends to wreck any budget. Too
:large a percentage of the budget is non-discretionary spending.
:
: The budget deficit is three times the size of the war budget.
:
: Even then most of the war budget is being spent in Iraq, where
: he chose to go to war despite Iraqi compliance with the inspection
: and disarmament program.
:
:Most of the war expenditures are off budget.

Pardon? How's that work again?

:There are also costs associated with the military and the war that are
:not clearly identified in the budget.

For some definition of 'clearly identified'.

:In addition, a lot of the war cost is being borne by the states.

Enumerate them.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"John P. Mullen" wrote:

wrote:
:
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
:Yes, but he does have a war on. That tends to wreck any budget. Too
:large a percentage of the budget is non-discretionary spending.
:
: The budget deficit is three times the size of the war budget.
:
: Even then most of the war budget is being spent in Iraq, where
: he chose to go to war despite Iraqi compliance with the inspection
: and disarmament program.
:
:Most of the war expenditures are off budget.

Pardon? How's that work again?

:There are also costs associated with the military and the war that are
:not clearly identified in the budget.

For some definition of 'clearly identified'.

:In addition, a lot of the war cost is being borne by the states.

Enumerate them.

Actually there are several different kinds of costs.

true "off budget" costs are those which are externalized to the economy
in general. for example deficit spending increases the borrowing costs
for everyone, but the costs are "off budget"

Then there are "deferred costs" cost which don't show up in this years
budget e.g. costs of veterans benefits.

then there is the "using up" of military assets. Since the US is a
cash, not an accrual budget, you can "spend out of capital" without it
appearing on the budget.

Economists differ on how large these cost are for the Iraq war but they
are very large.

Vince

John P. Mullen wrote:
wrote:

Grey Satterfield wrote:

On 8/16/06 9:04 PM, in article
s.com,
" wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:

spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.

By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
the patients who need the research and their families.

The last sentence is all that makes sense: "The only losers were the
patients who need the research and their families." The translation is that
the president's veto was bad public policy. Making bad policy is always bad
politics in the long run and this fiasco should therefore be an
embarrassment to the Republican Party.


It is terribly naive to suppose they care about the long run, and not
all that astute to claim this will ocme back ot haunt them later.

The typical politician looks no farther than their next election, if
they set their sights on the long term and lose their next election
the long term doesn't involve them.

Plenty of Republicans voted for the bill so the failure will not
be laid on their doorstep by their constituents. Only if they
choose to run for President in 2008 would the national
consensus on the issue affect them.


The worst part is that Bush clearly
thought vetoing the bill was the right thing to do but he could not have
been more wrong.



Doh!


The veto will hurt Bush and the Republican Party.

I left the text in above, wherein I pointed out why it will not.
As did you.


A very large majority of US voters feel this sort of research is
warranted and that the Federal government should be involved so it can
go forward more quickly. In addition, this bill would give the Federal
government more control over a process that could easily be abused.

The Dems will say, "We need enough lawmakers to vote for this bill to be
able to override an anticipated Bush veto." They can use the coverage
argument, saying that, "Yes Senator Snort did vote for the bill this
time, but he did so because he knew the President would veto it. Make
sure it passes next time by voting for me!"


Senator Snort will say, quite corrrectly, The Dems don't speak for me.

Only his constituents get to vote for or against him--that's the part
you
don't seem to appreciate about the midterm elections.

--

FF

wrote:
John P. Mullen wrote:

wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:


On 8/16/06 9:04 PM, in article
ups.com,
" wrote:



Grey Satterfield wrote:


spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.

By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
the patients who need the research and their families.

The last sentence is all that makes sense: "The only losers were the
patients who need the research and their families." The translation is that
the president's veto was bad public policy. Making bad policy is always bad
politics in the long run and this fiasco should therefore be an
embarrassment to the Republican Party.


It is terribly naive to suppose they care about the long run, and not
all that astute to claim this will ocme back ot haunt them later.

The typical politician looks no farther than their next election, if
they set their sights on the long term and lose their next election
the long term doesn't involve them.

Plenty of Republicans voted for the bill so the failure will not
be laid on their doorstep by their constituents. Only if they
choose to run for President in 2008 would the national
consensus on the issue affect them.



The worst part is that Bush clearly
thought vetoing the bill was the right thing to do but he could not have
been more wrong.



Doh!


The veto will hurt Bush and the Republican Party.


I left the text in above, wherein I pointed out why it will not.
As did you.


A very large majority of US voters feel this sort of research is
warranted and that the Federal government should be involved so it can
go forward more quickly. In addition, this bill would give the Federal
government more control over a process that could easily be abused.

The Dems will say, "We need enough lawmakers to vote for this bill to be
able to override an anticipated Bush veto." They can use the coverage
argument, saying that, "Yes Senator Snort did vote for the bill this
time, but he did so because he knew the President would veto it. Make
sure it passes next time by voting for me!"



Senator Snort will say, quite corrrectly, The Dems don't speak for me.

Only his constituents get to vote for or against him--that's the part
you
don't seem to appreciate about the midterm elections.


That is the part *you* don't get. His constituents will understand him
and are likely to not be fooled by so simple a ploy.

John Mullen

John P. Mullen wrote:
wrote:
John P. Mullen wrote:

wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:


On 8/16/06 9:04 PM, in article
ups.com,
" wrote:



Grey Satterfield wrote:


spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.

By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
the patients who need the research and their families.

The last sentence is all that makes sense: "The only losers were the
patients who need the research and their families." The translation is that
the president's veto was bad public policy. Making bad policy is always bad
politics in the long run and this fiasco should therefore be an
embarrassment to the Republican Party.


It is terribly naive to suppose they care about the long run, and not
all that astute to claim this will ocme back ot haunt them later.

The typical politician looks no farther than their next election, if
they set their sights on the long term and lose their next election
the long term doesn't involve them.

Plenty of Republicans voted for the bill so the failure will not
be laid on their doorstep by their constituents. Only if they
choose to run for President in 2008 would the national
consensus on the issue affect them.



The worst part is that Bush clearly
thought vetoing the bill was the right thing to do but he could not have
been more wrong.



Doh!


The veto will hurt Bush and the Republican Party.


I left the text in above, wherein I pointed out why it will not.
As did you.


A very large majority of US voters feel this sort of research is
warranted and that the Federal government should be involved so it can
go forward more quickly. In addition, this bill would give the Federal
government more control over a process that could easily be abused.

The Dems will say, "We need enough lawmakers to vote for this bill to be
able to override an anticipated Bush veto." They can use the coverage
argument, saying that, "Yes Senator Snort did vote for the bill this
time, but he did so because he knew the President would veto it. Make
sure it passes next time by voting for me!"



Senator Snort will say, quite corrrectly, The Dems don't speak for me.

Only his constituents get to vote for or against him--that's the part
you don't seem to appreciate about the midterm elections.


That is the part *you* don't get. His constituents will understand him
and are likely to not be fooled by so simple a ploy.


Huh? No ploy from him. From you, yes, from him no.

He voted the way a majority of his constituents wanted him to.
Nobody's
fooling anybody, especially you. You're not even from wherever it
is he's from. Nobody there gives a damn about your opinion and
Senator Snort isn't trying to get your vote. Or mine, for that matter.

--

FF