Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result

Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Mercnbeth -> Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result (5/22/2007 2:14:49 PM)
It looks like the change to a Democratic majority in Congress ends up having no effect in funding the Iraq war. Of course the funding Bill is still flavored with plenty of 'Pork'. Keep those blinders on and continue to vote and defend the party line. It will take you right to bankruptcy, morally and fiscally. quote: WASHINGTON (AP) -- Flinching in the face of a veto threat, Democratic congressional leaders neared agreement with the Bush administration Tuesday on legislation to pay for the Iraq war without setting a timeline for troop withdrawal. Several officials said the emerging compromise bill would cost about $120 billion, including as much as $8 billion for Democratic domestic priorities - originally resisted by the White House - such as disaster relief for Hurricane Katrina victims and farmers hurt by drought. Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, added, "Democrats have finally conceded defeat in their effort to include mandatory surrender dates in a funding bill for the troops, so forward progress has been made for the first time in this four-month process." Republicans paid a price, too, in terms of billions of dollars in domestic spending that Democrats wrung from them and the administration. Edited to add source: http://breakingnews.nypost.com/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ?SITE=NYNYP&SECTION=HOME

selfbnd411 -> RE: Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result (5/22/2007 2:36:33 PM)
You're right about the "same result" part. Americans are dying for nothing....absolutely nothing. Not for freedom. Not for security. Just for the ego of a single megalomaniacal man. Three thousand four hundred and twenty two American men and women died for nothing. Twenty five thousand three hundred and seventy eight American men and women have been mutilated in combat for nothing. Four hundred twenty seven billion nine hundred sixty three million nine hundred thousand dollars have been wasted for nothing. I say this as a nationalist and an historian: Our blood and treasure should be expended only for that which is within the national interest. Once Saddam's threat to our oil supply was toppled, we ought to have erected a military dictatorship to maintain order in Iraq and left. Instead, our President decided that he wanted to become a modern day Woodrow Wilson, saving the world for democracy. He ended up just as successfully as Wilson did nearly ninety years ago.

Sinergy -> RE: Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result (5/22/2007 2:55:09 PM)
What I always love about these sorts of threads is they tend to be started by hard core Republicans in order to try to blame Democrats for the problems the Republicans have gotten us involved in over the past 6 or so years. I Sinergy

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result (5/22/2007 3:04:58 PM)
Kinda like the Democrats did in the late 60's when Nixon had to clean up the mess in Viet Nam.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result (5/22/2007 3:12:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy What I always love about these sorts of threads is they tend to be started by hard core Republicans in order to try to blame Democrats for the problems the Republicans have gotten us involved in over the past 6 or so years. I Sinergy However NOT in this case. I'm a core "pragmatist"; have been for at least 20 years. You must be very pleased with the results of the election and the actions of the Congress. Care to defend them?

UtopianRanger -> RE: Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result (5/22/2007 3:32:34 PM)
quote: Three thousand four hundred and twenty two American men and women died for nothing. Some would argue that it's irrelevant....but I think the actual number of deaths could be twice that of the DoD's official number. Good post Merc. - R

Sinergy -> RE: Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result (5/22/2007 3:47:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy Kinda like the Democrats did in the late 60's when Nixon had to clean up the mess in Viet Nam. Yeah, I remember the Republicans blaming the Democrats for doing it then as well. In that case, there was an element of truth to their blame game. What is most amusing about Nixon cleaning up the mess in Vietnam is he betrayed his own party's position on the war in order to end it. He did that to be re-elected because the Republican base was not powerful enough to put him in office, and the only way he could be re-elected was to convince Democrats (many of whom opposed the war by 1972) to jump ship and vote for him. Thank you for supporting my point so lucidly, FatDomDaddy. Sinergy

dcnovice -> RE: Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result (5/22/2007 6:42:51 PM)
quote: Instead, our President decided that he wanted to become a modern day Woodrow Wilson, saving the world for democracy. Do you that's really it? My hunch is that he passionately wanted to go to war with Iraq (for reasons I've never entirely fathomed) and that "democracy" became the rationale when other reasons (WMD, link to 9/11) proved wanting. quote: He ended up just as successfully as Wilson did nearly ninety years ago. Is that fair to Wilson? The Big Four at Versailles did at least free a lot of nationalities from the Austro-Hungarian yoke.

dcnovice -> RE: Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result (5/22/2007 6:46:56 PM)
quote: It looks like the change to a Democratic majority in Congress ends up having no effect in funding the Iraq war. So it does. To be fair, though, I'm not sure what the Democrats could do. They don't have the votes to sustain a veto, and playing politics with the troops (by constantly passing bills that get vetoed) doesn't seem likely to help anyone. quote: Of course the funding Bill is still flavored with plenty of 'Pork'. That is pretty bad, I think.

lockedaway -> RE: Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result (5/22/2007 7:15:17 PM)
There are three Presidents (according to Jeane Kirkpatric who could probably help you fathom why we went to war) that tried to usher in "New World Orders." The first was Woodrow Wilson with the League of Nations, which proved impotent. The second was FDR with the United Nations, which has proven itself to be utterly impotent without U.S. forces in Nato. The third was George Herbert Walker Bush after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Bush's coalition proved to be unweildy and time consuming and was criticized sharpley by Margaret Thatcher. Slick Willy tried to pursue the "New World Order" by nation building and that proved to be more than impotent, even disasterous. Bush Jr. is still humping this ridiculous, impotent and ineffective New World Order thing, to a degree, with less emphasis on trying to build a coalition. (Thatcher's criticism was that it was almost impossible to get a consensus on a coalition about going to war and in the time it took to try to create one, millions of lives could be lost and nations had to be able to act where there was a clear imperative.) So...yes, it is fair to compare Wilson, FDR, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. in the notion of spreading democracy by collaberative means. It has never worked and it probably never will. Concerning Nixon and Vietnam, Nixon ended the Vietnam War with the Christmas bombings (which didn't happen over Christmas) which forced the Viet Cong to return to the bargaining table and the entering into the Treaty of Paris. Vietnam was divided between the North and the South and the U.S. pledged itself to re-new bombing Hanoi and other targets should the North invade the South. Then calls for Nixon's impeachment began heating up, the North DID invade the South and Senator Ted Kennedy (Ted "more people have died in Kennedy's car than at 3 mile Island") was the loudest and most strident voice amongst the Senate for the abandonment of that pledge, which the U.S. did in disgrace. Then came Pol Pott, the Khmer Rouge, millions and millions dead and close to 100,000 Vietnamese boat people to be settled in Florida and Arkansas among other places. Now Kennedy is trying to torpedo his country again (together with McCain) by advancing , essentially, an amnesty bill for 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants. The brokerage firm of Bear Sterns, which did it's own study, came up with a figure of closer to 30 million illegals. You decide which one you want to believe. The United States' problem with the middle east will cease to be an issue soon enough. If this amnesty bill is passed, we will cease to be a very relevant player on the world stage in 30 years or less. As the Republican party becomes irrelevant (because the illegals will most certainly become democrats) and we become a one party system, entitlements will multiply without abatement (making the U.S., for all intents and purposes, a socialist system), tax rates will double and, perhaps, triple (imagine a 90% income tax) and private enterprises will become nationalized. It has only taken the U.S. from the 1986 amnesty until now to be in this situation. Of course there are other issues like the pregnancy rate being just slightly below 0% since 1970 and the causes for same but that is a subject for a different thread. Suffice it to say that within 2-3 generations' time, the U.S. will be entirely marginalized as a world force.

selfbnd411 -> RE: Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result (5/22/2007 7:17:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Do you that's really it? My hunch is that he passionately wanted to go to war with Iraq (for reasons I've never entirely fathomed) and that "democracy" became the rationale when other reasons (WMD, link to 9/11) proved wanting. quote: He ended up just as successfully as Wilson did nearly ninety years ago. Is that fair to Wilson? The Big Four at Versailles did at least free a lot of nationalities from the Austro-Hungarian yoke. I agree that he desperately wanted to go to war, and I think cowboyism is the reason. He does resemble Wilson quite a bit, though. Woodrow Wilson intervened in Mexico in 1914, saying that he was going to teach them "to elect good men," and to redress a supposed insult to the American flag. This was in response to the Tampico Incident, in which American sailors were arrested but quickly released. The local commander apologized to the American commander, but the American commander demanded a 21 gun salute in addition to the apology. When the Mexican commander refused, the Americans invaded. Bush did the same thing: There was the same principle that America not only knew best, but it was willing to use force to correct the situation for the good of civilization. There was the same sense that American power was enough to overcome the nationalism of the local peoples. And there was the same warped jingoism that held that insults to the American flag, real or perceived, were worth killing for. (For the Bushes, it was the threat on Bush Sr's life) Both Wilson and Bush ultimately wound up in quagmires as they attempted to fight nationalism with bullets. If Bush had only been after revenge for the plot against Bush Senior, he would have left shortly after the invasion, or at least after the civil war began. He could simply have said "Hey folks, we tried...they're not ready for democracy." But instead he not only chose to stay, he chose to reach down, grab his socks, and pull his face below the quicksand. Wilson, at least, was smart enough to realize that the US did not have the army or the public/world support to occupy Mexico. Instead, he submitted the matter to the ABC (Argentina, Brazil, and Chile) Powers, who arbitrated a settlement. The Americans withdrew, only to return a few years later after the Villistas raided Colombus, NM. Wilson didn't meddle in Mexican politics this time, because he had bigger fish to fry with World War I.

dcnovice -> RE: Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result (5/22/2007 7:20:05 PM)
Thanks for the Mexico info; I knew vaguely that Wilson messed with Mexico but not more than that.

selfbnd411 -> RE: Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result (5/22/2007 7:58:15 PM)
No prob...I'm actually writing a paper on American foreign policy in World War I for a conference so it's on my mind [:D]

dcnovice -> RE: Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result (5/22/2007 8:14:58 PM)
Cool! If you ever come to DC, be sure to check out the Wilson house. He was the only President to retire here.

selfbnd411 -> RE: Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result (5/22/2007 8:43:46 PM)
I've been to DC a few times but never seem to make it to the Wilson house [:(] I even interned in DC last summer and oddly enough I saw even FEWER sights lol! DC's a great town, though...I had a fantastic and cheap subleased apartment in Glover Park [:D]

dcnovice -> RE: Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result (5/22/2007 8:58:11 PM)
quote: I had a fantastic and cheap subleased apartment in Glover Park Dear old Glover Park. Lived there for many years. [:)]

dcnovice -> RE: Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result (5/22/2007 8:59:35 PM)
quote: never seem to make it to the Wilson house It's a cool house. Edith Wilson lived there till she died (in 1961, I think) and left it, intact, to the National Trust. So all the furnishings etc are original--a rarity for many historic sites, I believe.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result (5/22/2007 10:18:51 PM)
Have I mentioned that the Democrats have no fucking balls?

Sinergy -> RE: Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result (5/23/2007 1:19:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy What I always love about these sorts of threads is they tend to be started by hard core Republicans in order to try to blame Democrats for the problems the Republicans have gotten us involved in over the past 6 or so years. I Sinergy However NOT in this case. I'm a core "pragmatist"; have been for at least 20 years. You must be very pleased with the results of the election and the actions of the Congress. Care to defend them? I suppose you have not read my posts regarding Congress. To recap: I am pleased with the elections. Congress does not have enough of a majority to actually accomplish much of anything. Feel free to read my previous comments if you are curious about my rationale for these opinions. Sinergy

subfever -> RE: Congressional Majority Changes But Same Result (5/23/2007 7:12:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth It looks like the change to a Democratic majority in Congress ends up having no effect in funding the Iraq war. Of course the funding Bill is still flavored with plenty of 'Pork'. Keep those blinders on and continue to vote and defend the party line. It will take you right to bankruptcy, morally and fiscally. I've been saying this for years. For the most part, it has just fallen upon deaf ears. The PTB has us right where they want us.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.171875