Subscribe: Comments on: Next Steps
http://www.mahablog.com/2007/03/30/next-steps/feed/
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
bill  bush  closing gitmo  emergency funding  emergency  funding bill  funding  money  past years  past  pork  republicans  war  years 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Next Steps

Comments on: Next Steps



Politics. Society. Group Therapy.



Last Build Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 20:54:05 +0000

 



By: Peter Gaffney

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:36:46 +0000

Instead of tying the funding to a timetable for withdrawal, which Bush will never agree to, how about trying it to a restoration of civil liberties, the closing of Gitmo and/or clarified limits on Presidential power? Nothing too outrageous or of questionable popularity (maybe closing Gitmo's the wrong thing) -- not so much that the Prez can defend not signing but enough to give the Dems a clear victory AND get rid of a few of the more deplorable innovations of the past few years. I do approve of forcing a move away from these emergency funding bills as well.



By: nicollette

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 10:46:48 +0000

Mark Johnson - I think you hit the nail right on the head. This "war" is solely about power and profit. The PNAC has been advocating this for years. I really wish we could view some legimate income tax information from tricky dicky.



By: flounder

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 02:57:45 +0000

I think the best idea I've heard is for the Democrats to parcel the money out in 3 month increments and make the Republicans vote on Iraq money over and over leading right up to the election. Put a pullout resolution in every one of those and try to peel off two more Republicans wary of their re-election chances every three months and pretty soon there is a veto proof margin. They wanted to fund their war in a way that keeps it off the books, make em pay for it.



By: whig

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 02:37:58 +0000

If this emergency funding bill is vetoed, then pass a much more limited emergency funding bill which provides money only until the regular budget is expected to be passed for the next year. Take it out of emergency status.



By: mark johnson

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 01:55:12 +0000

Why not save some money for Dumbya by defunding the mercs and the no bid reconstruction contracts. Stop the profiteering, and the occupation (no war has been declared) will wither and die. Oh yeah, and call the deciderer a whaaaaambulance.



By: old hack

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 01:01:02 +0000

I posted a blog dissecting the "Support the troops" argument. I welcome all commentary



By: Donna

Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:42:40 +0000

The American public has the Democrats' back on this one, including about what the critics want to dismiss as 'pork'. Mostly, the extra domestic funding is not 'bridge to nowhere' pork, but rather is funding for other emergency situations. Temper-tandrum Bush is being taught a lesson, whatever happens next. No longer will he get away with dictatorially announcing decisions to which others are supposed to kowtow......I wonder if the guy even knows how to discuss an issue. [Sachem515, I really disagree with you....about 'giving Bush what he asks for'----no tantrum thrower learns how to grow up with that response, and this is about a lot more than politics.]



By: Sachem515

Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:26:13 +0000

Politically, we should give GeeDub the spending bill he wants and keep our hands off the war, but morally we should question each and every day of continued occupation with the concomitant carnage mayhem and chaos that we are inflicting on the region and ourselves. See former Sen. Mike Gravel (D-AK) statement about his “suspicions” that neither party's candidates are actually going to get us out. I didn't know he read Daniel Ellsberg's famously leaked Pentagon Papers into the Congressional record.



By: Steve in Sacto

Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:15:38 +0000

If the bill doesn't have a prayer of becoming law how is having a "pork" project added a benefit to a Congressman? I mean seriously, how stupid do you have to be to make your support contingent upon the inclusion of some preferred funding that will never occur because of the bill's sure veto? How stupid are the Democratic leaders that they can't successfully explain the idiocy of such demands and rebuff them? To steal Atrios' phrase, we are truly ruled by morons, even on our side...



By: zeus

Sat, 31 Mar 2007 05:34:25 +0000

Congress has gotten away with this sham/scam for the past two-three years because Congress was controlled by the republicans. The dems have been screaming about this for the past two years, pointing out that Bush was trying to hide his war by not putting the money for it in the full budget. The 'pork' that the repubs are screaming about now are for true emergencies - farmers across the country have suffered losses due to extreme weather conditions (including but not limited to Katrina). The Republicans in Congress like to talk about being patriotic - how about helping out our own? I guess if we're not spending our money overseas for Bush's war, we are Unamerican! I didn't see anything in the emergency supplemental that looked remotely like the 'bridge to nowhere'!