It must have been very chilly in hell on Friday, for the editorial division of a major newspaper actually came down on Democrats.
I kid you not.
For those that missed it, the Washington Post ran an editorial Friday entitled “Retreat and Butter,” with a sub-headline “Are Democrats in the House voting for farm subsidies or withdrawal from Iraq?”
Having asked a tremendously valid question that most in the antiwar media have ignored as the Iraq debate heated up on Capitol Hill this week, the Post surprisingly and accurately answered its own question (better strap yourself in your seat):
TODAY THE House of Representatives is due to vote on a bill that would grant $25 million to spinach farmers in California. The legislation would also appropriate $75 million for peanut storage in Georgia and $15 million to protect Louisiana rice fields from saltwater. More substantially, there is $120 million for shrimp and menhaden fishermen, $250 million for milk subsidies, $500 million for wildfire suppression and $1.3 billion to build levees in New Orleans.
Amazing. But the editorial staff was just getting warmed up (emphasis added throughout):
Altogether the House Democratic leadership has come up with more than $20 billion in new spending, much of it wasteful subsidies to agriculture or pork barrel projects aimed at individual members of Congress. At the tail of all of this logrolling and political bribery lies this stinger: Representatives who support the bill -- for whatever reason -- will be voting to require that all U.S. combat troops leave Iraq by August 2008, regardless of what happens during the next 17 months or whether U.S. commanders believe a pullout at that moment protects or endangers U.S. national security, not to mention the thousands of American trainers and Special Forces troops who would remain behind.
Shocked? Astounded? There was more:
The Democrats claim to have a mandate from voters to reverse the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. Yet the leadership is ready to piece together the votes necessary to force a fateful turn in the war by using tactics usually dedicated to highway bills or the Army Corps of Engineers budget. The legislation pays more heed to a handful of peanut farmers than to the 24 million Iraqis who are living through a maelstrom initiated by the United States, the outcome of which could shape the future of the Middle East for decades.
The piece marvelously concluded:
Democrats who want to force a withdrawal should vote against war appropriations. They should not seek to use pork to buy a majority for an unconditional retreat that the majority does not support.
Could you imagine any of the network evening news programs addressing the pork involved in this bill so accurately? Or how about the New York Times, whose editorial the day before completely supported the bill without mentioning a word about the bribery involved (emphasis added):
The House of Representatives now has a chance to lead the nation toward a wiser, more responsible Iraq policy. It is scheduled to vote this week on whether to impose benchmarks for much-needed political progress on the Iraqi government — and link them to the continued presence of American combat forces. The bill also seeks to lessen the intolerable strains on American forces, requiring President Bush to certify that units are fit for battle before sending any troops to Iraq. Both of these requirements are long overdue. The House should vote yes, by an overwhelming, bipartisan margin.
With that in mind, the Post staff is to be commended for getting this one right, and telling its readers the dirty little secret about what the House Democrats are actually doing.
Bravo, Post. Bravo.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
war spending
March 24, 2007 - 16:21 ET by DontabWake up America, theirs traitors among us, their doing everthing they can to undermind our commander and chief in times of war. I don't want their resignations I want them prosecuted for war crimes against America.
dontab
March 24, 2007 - 16:50 ET by misterbillThese fools who call themselves elected officials are indeed traitorous. I know it will not happen, but I wish we could dump ALL of them (even the good ones) and start all over. In order to be in office, one must, publicly declare his/her loyalty to American and pledge their undying efforts to protect our country. And not by running and hiding.
An ugly American is one who does not support his country.
Treason Laws
March 24, 2007 - 17:53 ET by pickerseniorSomeone smarter than I should know how to prosecute Nancy P, Murtha, and company for Treason to this country, Our troops, and all of us. Why can't this happen? How is it done?
One frustrated citizen.
The list of those charged with Treason would be long
March 24, 2007 - 18:12 ET by RJIn addition to Pelosi and Murtha, you'd have to include Bill and Hillary Clinton, Madeline Albright, Al Gore, John Kerry, George W. Bush, Alberto Gonzales, several Supreme Court Justices and a host of others. All those and many others are, or have been, derelict in their primary duty to protect the Constitution, the United States, and the safety of it's citizens.
The whole American system is being dismantled by agenda-driven politicos and special interest groups.
Joe McCarthy was a terrible man, but his basic premise that there are people and groups inside our country who represent a serious danger to the republic was right! Ever since his disasterous hearings, no one has been willing to tackle the problem.
RJ sadly amen.
March 24, 2007 - 18:28 ET by misterbillRJ -sadly, amen.
We are done
March 24, 2007 - 22:12 ET by pickerseniorRight On!
With the latest news about Iran trying the British for espionage, I think our western society will become Islamic. There is not one politician here with the balls to blow these people off the face of the earth as they deserve. Our congress, our politicians, and British parliment has made this happen, and a pox on them all!
We will have to learn again to live in caves because of people's blind faith in our sub-human political animals and their willingness not to offend anyone.
Viva McCarthy, and viva Atilla.
I fear that the capitulatio
March 25, 2007 - 02:47 ET by liberal_bug_zapperI fear that the capitulation and kowtowing of our leaders today will lead us into a great war that very few will survive.
For the past 60 years or so, we've been playing Russian roulette with nukes and who's been getting their hands on nukes. So far, we've been lucky, but one of these days, someone will get them and start using them everywhere.
I know the common lefty response is that we used them on Japan. And my continual response to them is that we need to use them again on Mecca and Medina. But we won't. The biggest problem is that people do not see the coming war. They do not believe that there are people out there who think they will be key figures in the end times... and they will be instruments in bringing about those end times. MyMood Iminnajihad is just such a person. Allow him nukes and he'll use them.
As soon as the Middle East Accelerates into complete chaos (a direct result of Democrat policies) you'll see China take advantage of a situation they think is sufficiently distracting the US and go to take back Taiwan by force.
The US will be forced to honor it's treaties with Taiwan and China will launch nukes to stop it. The nukes will be aimed at a carrier group, and will likely get some ships, and maybe even a carrier.
Then, the US will retaliate with sub based nukes and China's military bases will be reduced to smoldering rubble. The world will cry out against the US (even though China will have used nukes first) because all of China's military bases are in urban areas.
The death toll of the nuke strikes will be devastating, somewhere around 1 to 3 million. The Chinese military will be effectively neutralized, but the world will be diametrically opposed to the US and countries formerly our allies will side with China. China will follow Sun Tzu's rules of warfare and play the victim to gain the upper hand in this later stage of the conflict. It's leaders will be safe, and it will have what it needs, a reason to get rid of millions of mouths that it cannot feed.
Must I go on? This scenario is very real and is being planned by the Chinese military. You can find this online in several places. Even the US military knows these possibilities.
____________________________________________________
"We have it in our power to begin the world over again." ~ Thomas Paine
The last I had heard, everyon
March 26, 2007 - 10:25 ET by BruzillaThe last I had heard, everyone who McCarthy brought up before his hearings has since been found to have been either a Communist sympathizer who was supporting Communist agents, or a Communist agent themself. The House Un-American Activities hearings were a disaster, but I'm not seeing the rationale for labeling McCarthy's hearings as such.
Walter Reed is another exampl
March 25, 2007 - 02:40 ET by joe conservativeWalter Reed is another example of conservatives: Love the solider, hate the veteran. It's sad but true.
Joe Clown
March 25, 2007 - 03:17 ET by Sua Sponte 75The state of America is another example of liberals and democrats (blackhole social programs) of waste money and effort over the past sixty years. Maybe if asshats like you weren't trying to get $75 million for peanut storage instead of beds for WRAH it wouldn't be the case today. Thanks to you and the ilk like you the budget cuts in the military *cough* Democrats *cough* put Reed where it's at today. Obviously you have no grasp historically of military budgeting and the slash and cut policies of the 90's. Thanks for all the indepth knowledge *cough* and contribution *cough*.
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
Blame Clinton for Walter Reed
March 25, 2007 - 03:30 ET by joe conservativeBlame Clinton for Walter Reed? Thanks for the laugh. Carol Lamn goes after a sleazy conservative congressman who is taken two million plus in bribes in a time of war. Her reward? She gets canned by Gonzo
Out der flappin' joe
March 25, 2007 - 03:56 ET by Sua Sponte 75No, thank you for the laugh in showing your inability to read, never mentioned Clinton. You as others like you try to present a situation as though it just happened recently and fail to see the history leading up to it. Just what the hell does your statement have to do with this sleazy bill? You claim all this support the troops, yet still haven't stepped up to plate on this disengenuous bill.
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
Flat out lie. Liar.The answ
March 25, 2007 - 04:20 ET by Jack BauerFlat out lie. Liar.
I must assume that you are re
March 25, 2007 - 11:25 ET by NL207I must assume that you are referring to the prosecution of Randy Cunningham. I fail to see how the removal of Carol Lamn has any effect on that. Cunningham is convicted by his own plea and is serving time in prison. He isn't going to be getting out any time real soon either. Firing Carol Lamn isn't going to change any of that.
And whole we are leveling charges of politically motivated retribution, let's talk about that prosecutorial trash, Patrick Fitzgerald, who was the US Attorney leading the case against fugitive financier, Marc Rich, of Clinton pardon fame. Can you guess who Rich's lawyer in that case was? None other than Scooter Libby.
Lest you have failed to notice: US Attornies, like all other executive appointees serve at the pleasure of the President. He is free to ask for their resignations at any time and for any reason he sees fit. There is no scandal here. This whole deal is bogus controversy entirely supported and fueled by constituionally challenged Democrats and a corrupt and biased MSM. It has no basis in law.
Thanks for clarifying the Car
March 25, 2007 - 11:34 ET by dahliatraversThanks for clarifying the Carol Lamm situation, NL. Let's establish facts and then proceed to discussion, analysis, implication ...
Didn't these leftists whine a
March 26, 2007 - 16:56 ET by TheDeuceDidn't these leftists whine about the coalition being 'coerced' by political pressure to support the initial invasion? Now, they come back with such obvious vote-buying? And the MSM will continue carrying their water.
What, the morons at WaPo fina
March 24, 2007 - 16:36 ET by dscottWhat, the morons at WaPo finally waking up? The Dems have broken every campaign pledge they made, and you are surprised they loaded up the military spending bill with pork to buy votes for their re-election? They broke 6 of 8 campaign pledges before they even took office in January and then promptly proceeded to break the other two in just two months. Surprise, surprise, surprise, they sold you, you bought and you got a pig in a poke. What a bunch of maroons...
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Do you know how many bullets
March 25, 2007 - 02:41 ET by joe conservativeDo you know how many bullets you can buy for the cost of a new hospital bed?
Do you know how much money
March 25, 2007 - 02:50 ET by liberal_bug_zapperDo you know how much money we waste every year keeping murderers alive on death row? Do you know how much money we spend each year on keeping the product of liberal policy in jail?
$60 billion a year and growing.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
What the real cost of this wa
March 25, 2007 - 02:59 ET by joe conservativeWhat the real cost of this war? It shames this country that when these vets deserve our best for having given their best and more, they're being housed in mouldy, rat infested digs. Truly shameful.
More clown poking
March 25, 2007 - 03:21 ET by Sua Sponte 75Shames this country? Wow, you couldn't even read the damn bill to see where the real shame is? You my friend are the captain of the chickenwire canoe.
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
So much for "support the
March 25, 2007 - 03:33 ET by joe conservativeSo much for "support the troops". That's BS. Conservative support the war, they support the administration and they don't give a rat's *ss about the troops.
You're a clown joe
March 25, 2007 - 03:48 ET by Sua Sponte 75What a shoddy statement, guess you've never served. So ONLY conservatives support the war, administration? You really are a clown. The only times that we've recieved decent funding and support was during Republican control times. The biggest slash and cuts and moves detrimental to the military was during the Bubba years, which seems you conveniently disregarded. Don't give a rats ass about the troops, gee Einstein, you happen to read what the Democrats want to do? What an asshat.
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
JoeConservative would cry for his mommy
March 26, 2007 - 11:24 ET by RJYou're right about which party supports the military, Sua. Joe knows that military personnel tilt way, way right, so this is only his lame attempt to drive a wedge between them and the Republicans. But when it comes to actual knowledge about the military, he's just a typical whiny liberal baby:
Having never served, he feels guilty. Having never served, he can only imagine real life in the military. Having never served, he tries to imagine what those who have served think. Having never served, he doesn't understand that military personnel are real grownups who understand that military life isn't Disneyland. Having never served, he drones on and on with made-up suppositions. Having never served he doesn't even know that he's just a punk who couldn't get through boot camp without crying for his mommy (and, probably, a reporter) to complain about the "abuse".
Well, Joe, can you tell us ho
March 25, 2007 - 10:10 ET by bassndudeWell, Joe, can you tell us how much time you spent serving this country, in uniform? And perhaps regale us with tales of your accomplishments, acts of heroism, and discharge status. Just trying to get a feel of why you detest this country so much and concentrate on the little things to belittle it. I spent 6 weeks in a hospital in Pleiku, once. I dare say, Walter Reed is much better conditions. At its worst. We had rats almost as big as a jack rabbit.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Speaking of rats, I went over
March 26, 2007 - 10:59 ET by BruzillaSpeaking of rats, I went over to visit a Marine friend at his barrack at NAS Millington, TN, back in 1979, and was surprised to find he lived in an open-bay squad with about 60 other guys. I was also suprised to hear that they had a huge rat problem there as well. When I was deployed to NAS Sigonella, Italy in 1981 and 1983, we had to deal with rats and flies on a daily basis in our living quarters, and getting shot at during overflights of Lebanon by night... but this was a step-up from living in tents or on cots on the gymnasium floor as my predecessors had. Throughout the 1980s, we were always having to take working parts off one airplane and put them in another because there weren't enough spares to go around. When I was based in Bermuda, the commissary would get late shipments of food, and we were told that we could ignore those pesky expiration dates as they don't really mean anything.
I could go on and on about how miserable life in the military has been, is now, and will always continue to be, but my real point is where was all this tremendous concern by the Left for the health and safety of "our heroes" when there wasn't a George W. Bush to bash? It was okay to put Marines in with rats when Reagan was President, it was okay to send guys flying with broken airplanes when George Bush Sr. was President. It was okay to deny funding for replacement weapons and supplies when Clinton was President. But now that you need to bash George W. Bush, every little flaw with the military, even if it's been around since George Washington led the Continental Army, is now a major crisis that must be immediately fixed and Bush must be held accountable for.
Please don't waste your time posting about the needs of the military. We somehow managed to get through the last 50 years or so without the help of Liberals when you refused to give it to us, and we don't much care for you trying to act like Sister Theresa when all you're really out to do is make Bush look bad. As Kerry says, military members may not be brilliant, but they aren't that dumb or blind either.
Here's an idea to make the mo
March 25, 2007 - 08:46 ET by The FugitiveHere's an idea to make the money go further. Why not buy smaller cheaper beds, and use the money saved to buy more bullets, which we can then use to shoot useless liberal morons with. If our aim is right on we wont even have to use the beds, thus saving even more money.
Why is it that EVERYTIME a liberal opens their mouth, I feel a sudden urge to hand them a roll of toilet paper?
Politics as usual.Disgusting.
March 24, 2007 - 16:44 ET by BlondePolitics as usual.
Disgusting.
Blonde
March 24, 2007 - 16:55 ET by Noel SheppardB,
Actually, this kind of pork tied to a war funding bill is probably very unusual. It really shows how pathetic this Party is -- and how soft the antiwar position is in some of its members -- to actually have to bribe folks this way. And, if the press were honest about it, I would imagine a lot of Democrats would feel the same way.
This is a pretty embarrassing moment for the left -- if only the media would report it. ns
Noel,That's kind of my point.
March 24, 2007 - 17:00 ET by BlondeNoel,
That's kind of my point. The dems get to play politics, as usual, bribes and all, with the cover of the MsM. The fact that they're they're attaching all of the pork to a war spending bill just shows how emboldened they've become...and sure of their media support.
I loved the non-vote list, too. Fence sitters.
I heard a blurb yesterday (not sure where...I was running around with my hair on fire) that Liebermann was considering a switch to the (R) side. Was I imagining this?
Blonde
March 24, 2007 - 17:31 ET by Noel SheppardB,
He made a statement on MSNBC earlier in the week about possibly changing parties. In reality, all he said was that he wasn't ruling it out. Also, this was an answer to a question, not something he just volunteered.
On a different subject, even though Florida is doing well, have you felt that the tournament this year has been a little disappointing from an entertainment standpoint? There really haven't been a lot of great games this year, do you agree? ns
Noel,Thanks for the update. (
March 24, 2007 - 18:00 ET by BlondeNoel,
Thanks for the update. (Lieberman).
And a big THANKS for the Florida nod.
I caught the last ten minutes of last night's game (working really crazy hours these days). I was horrified to see we were so mediocre against Butler. We pulled it out, but I must agree, it was nothing special.
Having said that....the best games of the year are the last...so we shall just have to wait and see, yes?
I love college sports!
Blonde
March 24, 2007 - 18:15 ET by Noel SheppardB,
Actually, the past couple of years we've seen some great games in the second and third rounds. This year not so much.
Are the best games normally the Final Four? Sometimes, but not always.
I just haven't seen a lot of great games this year. Actually, the best game so far was the Division II final today. Now THAT was GREAT! ns
Noel,I kind of liked last yea
March 24, 2007 - 18:19 ET by BlondeNoel,
I kind of liked last year's final (d'oh!).
I am not much of a basketball fan, well, until lately.
So I must totally agree with your assessment.
Here's to hoping for a three-peat!
GO GATORS!
Kansas/UCLA
March 24, 2007 - 18:57 ET by RJNoel and Blonde, looks like a decent game right now 'tween Kansas and UCLA. Terrific defensive game.
RJ
March 24, 2007 - 19:48 ET by Noel SheppardRJ,
Yeah, until UCLA just went on that run. Drat! ns
Noel
March 24, 2007 - 19:52 ET by RJI love good "D", and since I don't have a favorite here, I'm just enjoying a pretty terrific bb game...
Okay you guys, now I'm watchi
March 24, 2007 - 19:56 ET by BlondeOkay you guys, now I'm watching non-Gator bb.
Thanks!
Must scout the competition.
Good game tho, I'm not counting KS out yet!
Noel and Blonde
March 24, 2007 - 20:36 ET by RJJust heard the idiot talking head say that UCLA is lucky that they keep running into teams that are having an "off shooting night". What an idiot! Good defense CREATES off-shooting nights!
Living in Jim Calhoun's Connecticut, I'm a BIG fan of defense and I know what it can do to the other team's shooting percentages.
Noel,Sorry about that result.
March 24, 2007 - 20:18 ET by BlondeNoel,
Sorry about that result.
You really can't stand UCLA, can you? LOL! Kinda like I feel about Florida State (Okay, except for Chicago Rep...he's a wee bit cool, for a 'Nole).
Do you think Liebermann is serious about switching parties? I find the thought to be intriguing.
<edit> Was that really Bill Walton with the WHITE hair?
Blonde
March 24, 2007 - 20:25 ET by Noel SheppardB,
Yep, that's Bill Walton.
Yep, I can't stand UCLA. Actually, I root against all LA teams. It's a North vs. South issue. :-)
I think a Lieberman defection is possible. If the Senate actually voted to end funding for the war, or something foolish like that, Joe could walk.
ns
Sorry Noel
March 24, 2007 - 20:25 ET by RJSorry, Noel.
Blonde, I think Leiberman wants to stay Democrat, but he also recognizes the major part Republicans, both in state and nationally, played in his reelection.
If the radical Democrats stupidly go out of their way to pi$$ him off, he could switch, but don't rule out Independent, either.
RJ,Liebermann is already an I
March 24, 2007 - 20:33 ET by BlondeRJ,
Liebermann is already an Independent....officially, that is. He still votes democrat....most of the time.
But, I think he's too honorable of a man to continue the little show.
Oh, how I wish he'd change his party affiliation.
Yup, you're correct Blonde
March 24, 2007 - 20:40 ET by RJYup, you're correct, Blonde. I misstated because he still calls himself a Democrat when he's speaking here in Connecticut. And that may be an indication of how hard it would be for him to actually switch....
If he truly was a man of prin
March 24, 2007 - 21:03 ET by Clear thinkerIf he truly was a man of principle, he would drop the Dems, change his voter staus from Indy to Republican and caucus with the Republicans!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
CT
March 24, 2007 - 21:56 ET by RJWell, an argument can certainly be made for that, CT, because he could stop all this nonsense the Dems are pulling. However, except for the war, he votes all liberal, so it would be hard for him to switch, I think.
I agree, that's why I'm not g
March 24, 2007 - 22:02 ET by Clear thinkerI agree, that's why I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for him to do the right thing.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Who really wants a lieberman
March 26, 2007 - 17:09 ET by TheDeuceWho really wants a lieberman switch over one issue? It would simply weaken the right even more on other issues. Joe's a lefty, tried and true. Besides, a switch would only minimize him even more, giving further ammunition to the 'Hate America' left.
A Leiberman switch would be worthwhile
March 26, 2007 - 17:18 ET by RJI don't really think Joe will switch, but if he did the advantage would be that Republicans would take control of the Senate and a number of committees again. Sure he's a lefty, but that would make it worthwhile.
Lieberman
March 26, 2007 - 17:29 ET by BlondeRJ,
I suspect you are correct...he won't switch any time soon.
But I suspect he's still a tad, um, sore, over the way he was treated by his fellow dems.
And we Republicans admire him for his principled stance on the GWOT (which had his fellow liberals purposefully throw him under the bus). He knows we admire him...and I even admire his liberal stances...because I know he truly believes in them....not because they're politically expedient.
So if he chose to change his party affiliation, I'd embrace it.
Kind of the way many (R)'s are embracing Rudy.
It would certainly make the political landscape much more interesting for the Pelosi's and Reid's of the world.
They must know that Bush will
March 24, 2007 - 17:05 ET by Gat New YorkThey must know that Bush will veto this and that there is not chance it will be overturned. So they throw in a little pork barrel that they promised but can't deliver on and now they can blame the non-delivery on Bush.
Have you posted anything on W
March 25, 2007 - 03:07 ET by joe conservativeHave you posted anything on Walter Reed? The silence of the conservative blogs is deafening on the treatment of our soldiers.
False Flag Poster
March 25, 2007 - 03:31 ET by Sua Sponte 75You really believe your false flag routine is passing here? You talk lots of smack yet completly overlook the proposals of this bill. How is it that you try to be this assumed voice of the service member yet post nowhere your disdain for what they were moving to do? Talk about dishonest, you are neither supporter of the service member or a voice for us. If you were you would be referencing the blatent disregard of our Veterans posed not only by this bill, but by all the budget cuts to them for your precious peanut storage.
"If you don't want to be taken to the shed, don't act like a tool"
Rogers First Rule of Liberali
March 25, 2007 - 09:03 ET by Roger the ShrubberRogers First Rule of Liberalism: Accuse the Right of doing exactly what the Left is doing.
Thank you for yet another reinforcement of this axiom. You make my work so much easier.
LOL - Shrubbo. You'll note
March 25, 2007 - 09:24 ET by Jack BauerLOL - Shrubbo. You'll note everything you need to know about the left in that one short post.
You have the outright blatant lie about the "silence" of conservative blogs. An easily provable false statement.
You have the lying chutzpah of (I assume he's a rabid leftoid) the... Code Pinkos and others of their disgusting ilk have been "screaming" outside Walter Reed for over a year.
Jeering at maimed troops, carrying disgusting signs disparaging troops who have lost limbs in Iraq.
Just despicable. I have no idea whether there is any "silence" on left blogs about this, because I'd rather eat broken glass than spend thirty seconds in the distant company of those weirdos and mental defectives.
And just for the record here are two recent threads on Newsbusters covering media bias and leftoid hypocrisy about Walter Reed.
Walter Reed #1
Walter Reed #2
The Washington Post
March 25, 2007 - 09:50 ET by pbthinkerThat sort of goes with the comment I made, on the other thread. Something this important should be able to stand on it's own, without resorting to the bribery the Democrats leadership did to get this vote. If they had such a mandate, during the election "that had consequences" they should have been able to pull out an easy victory on this bill. Instead, we see all the strings they had to pull to get this bill, that will never move forward in its present form.
On something this important, you'd think the House Leadership would have used debate to get consensus rather than pork.
Considering this and other
March 24, 2007 - 17:19 ET by sarcasmoConsidering this and other spending, and the increasingly-obvious fact that fiscally-irresponsible Presidents (despite rhetoric which I have trouble believing these days to the contrary) don't really want a line item veto, maybe it's time for some sort of "line item voto" for congress. When pork like this (or complete-bullcrap like the antigambling provisions lumped -- without debate -- into the "port security" bill) is presented, what's a fiscally-responsible congresscritter (yeah, I know, contradiction-in-terms...) to do? Why not make votes matter by making them votes on individual issues instead of usual phonebook sized "emergency" appropriations bills with no single coherent subject-matter???
JMR
You go, Senator Coburn
March 24, 2007 - 17:25 ET by misterbillYou go, Senator Coburn. Perhaps the only elected official who is trying to straighten out the pork problem in DC.
Nope. See Dr. Ron Paul, AKA
March 24, 2007 - 17:35 ET by sarcasmoNope. See Dr. Ron Paul, AKA "Dr. No." MY Presidential candidate, the one "minor" Republican the media most wants to ignore to the point that media-ignorance of him becomes the key premise of the only question Fox News asked him. Aren't those of you who told this partisan Libertarian to work within the Republican party for change now glad I took your advice? Heh heh heh.....
JMR
Sarc
March 24, 2007 - 17:34 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
Well, because spending bills are typically quite large, and typically deal with a lot of different issues. Can you imagine if there was a debate on each separate item, and then a vote? That would be impossible from a time perspective.
BTW: What makes you think presidents really don't want the line item veto? ns
Related issues should at le
March 24, 2007 - 17:41 ET by sarcasmoRelated issues should at least be lumped-together better than they've done in the last 20 years, and I think a bunch of sixth graders could do that, don't you?? I've heard (and I believe) representatives do not read each bill. With a government as small as the one I happen to advocate, said reading would once-again become possible. But my main point is that various Presidents have been lying to us all for the last 2 decades when they claimed to "want" a line item veto. They don't, because then they know with a line item veto in place that I can effectively blame an individual for spending excess, and they don't like that idea much. It's gonna be hard to convince me I'm wrong -- especially with one in office that hates spending-vetos as much as this one obviously does -- but anyone's welcome to give it a try...
JMR
phonebook sized bills
March 24, 2007 - 19:18 ET by echojackSarcasmo, I think you've hit on it. One idea, one bill, one vote. If it won't fit on one page then it needs to be simplified. And who wouldn't have time to read one page?
Sadly, from a practical per
March 24, 2007 - 19:27 ET by sarcasmoSadly, from a practical perspective at the moment, IMO Noel's right until we have major smaller government. But my main point was about Presidents not really wanting a line item veto because said provision would allow inconvenient people like me to assign individual responsibility to spending, and group "responsibility" is more to their liking. On that one, I was right decades ago, I'm right now, and I'll still be right in the foreseeable future, until a President actually shows half the vigor wanting a line item veto that they've shown wanting various stupid crapola I hate.
JMR
They didn't write out their u
March 24, 2007 - 17:23 ET by ucThey didn't write out their usual exemption from complying with the laws and edicts they write on this one did they? You'ld think due to its nature they would have made their own compliance and usual exemption clearly and loudly a noted exclusion from this rightfully questioned by the President act of congress.
Unwinnable?
March 24, 2007 - 17:42 ET by acumenOf course with the WaPO one cannot help but view this editorial with some degree of suspicion.
Was this condemnation of the Dems for loading the emergency spending bill with pork.......or is this just the Post adding their outrage at the Dems with that of the far left for the Dem failure to reject emergency funding for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, in effect providing the circumstance for the necessity of an immediate withdrawal? Hmmm......
After all, the Demediacrats must be starting to get somewhat worried. The war they have labeled as Bush's war, an invasion, ignoble, unjust, built on a lie, replete with torture, causing the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians, a debacle, a disaster, unwinnable, resulting in a fractious civil war that has alienated the US from the whole world, ruining the credibility of the US.........might just be on the verge of......gasp......victory.
What's this? A competent Iraqi government enforcing a solid Constitution? A carnival in downtown Baghdad last week complete with ferris wheel (and even ice cream for Harry)? A booming economy in the North and South. Large numbers of Iraqis returning to formerly deserted areas? A capable Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police Force assisting US forces? A snitch on every corner now eager to run to authorities and tell all resulting in the capture or death of multiple high-ranking and other al qaeda members? Deaths down significantly including the notorious Haifa Street area of the Khark district where in December 2006, 100+ corpses were found in the streets and in the past month only 10 bodies were found? By all accounts the surge is working and this has to be troubling to the doom and gloom Demediacrats.
The doom and gloom, Bush-hating Demediacrats realize time is not on their side. If they don't get an immediate withdrawal of US troops now, all is lost - i.e.: All is lost for the Demediacrats that hung their credibility on labeling this war as unwinnable. A Republican led victory in Iraq is tight quarters for the Demediacrats large ego.
I might be wrong about the purpose of this WaPo editorial, however, one thing is for sure. If the Demediacrats don't stop this war shortly, a US/Iraqi victory against the terrorists, unwanted by the Demediacrats, will stop this war......and all recent signs show that victory is imminent.
As the flip-flopping politicians they are, I see the Dems now working on some strategy that will enable them to, at the least, share in the credit for this looming success. But that is not good enough for the Demediacrats. Sharing in the credit is not what they were after, they wanted to ruin Bush and that might now look unwinnable to the Demediacrats.
This is a cut from a post o
March 24, 2007 - 18:24 ET by Right2thePointThis is a cut from a post over at Macsmind, I will let you judge the irony of it
What’s even funnier is reading that, then reading Section 1909:
It is the sense of Congress that, because the commanders of the
United States Armed Forces in Iraq have the training, experience, and
first-hand knowledge of the situation on the ground–
(1) the commanders should be allowed to conduct the war and manage the movements of the troops; and
(2) Congress should remain focused on executing its oversight role.
Excuse me folks, but based on the other sections of this bill, you
are doing anything BUT allowing the commanders on the ground to run the
war, or executing “oversight”. This is in fact, a prime example of
micromanagement of a war by Congress.
In fact, in the previous sections, congress dictates to the
commanders what troops they can use, how often they can deploy them,
and what number can be there.
Why?
March 24, 2007 - 18:39 ET by redtailDon't think the WP is doing this for altruistic reasons. They understand the stupidity here and the impact it will have on Democrat electability. This will sink the Democrats, the Post has recognized that and they are trying to stop it.
The more bills like this, the better. Folks will catch on...
No wonder Halliburton is movi
March 24, 2007 - 19:24 ET by mrsimeleNo wonder Halliburton is moving its headquarters to Dubai. Looks like the free-handouts in the U.S. is OVER!
I like Dubai. Unlike variou
March 24, 2007 - 19:32 ET by sarcasmoI like Dubai. Unlike various other countries in the region, they appear to have (basically) taken my decades-old advice for Haiti and enacted a '70s version of the Hong Kong Statutes Annotated, with predictable business-results. The fact that large companies like Halliburton now want to move there says a lot more about capitalism than it does about handouts (though I agree, of course, that government handouts are morally & economically wrong). And, just as in Panama City, Panama (which I don't just like, I love it!) skyscrapers are sprouting like weeds...
JMR
Sarc,Could it be more of a &q
March 24, 2007 - 19:38 ET by BlondeSarc,
Could it be more of a "laissez-faire" thing?
I despise the french, but I love that concept.
Well, "letting them do
March 24, 2007 - 19:48 ET by sarcasmoWell, "letting them do" is, for me, what capitalism is. I'm not a huge fan of companies like Halliburton, but I am a fan of countries like Dubai. Instead of being outraged by a ski slope near the equator in the middle of a desert, I want to visit. The wide-open "Vegas" aspect just draws me in, every time. Plus regrets about not visiting Hong Kong in the late '70s, when I obviously should-have...
JMR
Sarc,Actually, "laissez-
March 24, 2007 - 19:53 ET by BlondeSarc,
Actually, "laissez-faire" is more accurately translated as "to leave alone" or "leave to do".
As for Vegas...you can have it. Tourista hell, if you ask this Floridian.
I wouldn't live there, but
March 24, 2007 - 19:56 ET by sarcasmoI wouldn't live there, but I like the attitude. And the poker. I always thought "faire" was either "make" or "do" depending on context, but trying to understand French only confuses my also-crappy Spanish/Italian/etc.
JMR
Sarc,"faire" is the
March 24, 2007 - 19:59 ET by BlondeSarc,
"faire" is the verb "to do". One of the "irregular" ones, to boot.
I am sick to death I spent so many years studying this language....what can I say? I was dumb and stubborn.
Blonde,It may not be an exact
March 24, 2007 - 21:04 ET by Scout FinchBlonde,
It may not be an exact translation (I did not study French) but would the phrase "let it be" fit?
Blonde...That's a hilarious c
March 24, 2007 - 21:16 ET by Clear thinkerBlonde...
That's a hilarious comment, thanks!
A Floridian complaing about tourists lol lol lol....
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Hey sarc, my brother spent
March 24, 2007 - 19:45 ET by Jack BauerHey sarc, my brother spent Christmas thru New Year there! Not that that is a recommendation either way, as you don't know him.
Oddly enough, he spotted more Christmas decorations in Dubai than in a New York public school, including Manger scenes. No Menora though.
I, of course, want to visit
March 24, 2007 - 19:54 ET by sarcasmoI, of course, want to visit their famous "gold souk" (market) if I ever get to go. :) What did he say about that??
JMR
I ask him. Let you know.The
March 24, 2007 - 20:00 ET by Jack BauerI ask him. Let you know.
pathetically knee jerk
March 24, 2007 - 19:47 ET by RJWhat great news that they've finally taken your advice, sarky! What's your kickback? (kidding) Actually, I agree with you about Dubai. The Dems are so pathetically knee-jerk about Haliburton, the port security deal, and so on, but what else is new?
They took it a while ago, b
March 24, 2007 - 19:50 ET by sarcasmoThey took it a while ago, but my kickback has perpetually been 0. The Haiti advice would take at least a decade to work in Haiti, during which time bad things would happen (just like now) but they'd all be blamed on capitalism. And IMO Dubai isn't the 15 outta 19 "friend" with a security issue...
JMR
Thank you, WashPost. It is
March 25, 2007 - 10:40 ET by dahliatraversThank you, WashPost. It is unspeakable that some legislators have to get a cut before they will vote to fund our troops WHO ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR.
By the way, who are the House leaders who allowed this jostling-for-dollars to even get started? As soon as they heard about it, they needed to take those selfish, dim-witted congresspersons aside and quietly say, "We're not doing pork right now. This is for our troops."
I'm almost surprised the Dems
March 25, 2007 - 15:24 ET by lnthompI'm almost surprised the Dems didn't throw a provision in that bill endorsing the "burning troops in effigy" event that took place during the March 18 "peace" march in Portland (I'm starting to regret moving to Oregon). Or perhaps funding to bring the troop-burners to DC to put on their show on the capital mall.<\p>
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Hillsboro, Oregon
I have enough money to last me the rest of my life. Unless I buy something.
Cleansing the house
March 26, 2007 - 05:19 ET by Mr. TerryYep, Nancy Pelosi is cleansing the house of corruption, just like she promised! Looks like Mr. Murtha has had a little to much bacon with his bicuits and butter though.
Nuke the whales!
Earmark "reform.&quo
March 26, 2007 - 08:54 ET by sarcasmoEarmark "reform." Sigh...
JMR