Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   so Bush isn't a liar?
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 46 of 62 (144441)
09-24-2004 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Silent H
09-24-2004 6:23 AM


In a couple places, there was the big push for same sex marriages, and at least in Mass., it is currently (for who knows how long...) legal. On the other hand, Bush has been pushing for a constitutional amendment (and this call has led to several states doing the same) banning same sex marriage. Gore certainly wouldn't have done that.
You don't agree that there wouldn't have been a huge buildup? Of course he would have had to react to 9/11, but Afghanistan was, if anything, notably weaker than Yugoslavia, plus we had a native resistance force. We didn't have a big military buildup for Yugoslavia, did we? Besides, Bush was trying to increase the military budget before 9/11.
Most importantly, however, war related expenses aren't included in DoD outlays; they require supplimental appropriations. Bush has been drastically increasing the annual, non-war-related operating budget. This budget doesn't include a dime for Afghanistan or Iraq - that's all supplimental.
This message has been edited by Rei, 09-24-2004 12:10 PM

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Silent H, posted 09-24-2004 6:23 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Silent H, posted 09-24-2004 1:39 PM Rei has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 47 of 62 (144447)
09-24-2004 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Rei
09-24-2004 1:09 PM


Bush has been pushing for a constitutional amendment (and this call has led to several states doing the same) banning same sex marriage. Gore certainly wouldn't have done that.
I don't count that as being any WORSE than before, and thankfully gays now have a right to actually have sex.
Clinton and Gore supported the defense of marriage act. Whether they would be for or against an amendment is sort of besides the point since one would not pass anyway.
I really believe that amendment of Bush's was ONLY a political device. Cheney was totally against it as well as many republicans, but all said it was good to put it out there right now to get Kerry and Edwards on record for what they believe about gay marriage. This is of course exactly why they didn't vote on it.
We didn't have a big military buildup for Yugoslavia, did we?
No we didn't but that was vastly different. Afghanistan is much larger and more difficult terrain with a better hidden "dug in" enemy. It also involved numerous factions which were just as likely to shoot us as help us.
We did not need a build up at all in Yugo because the conflict was settled according to Clinton's hideous military policy of bombs and missiles. It was as much a form of collective punishment as Sharon's current program, but from the safety of miles away.
If you don't really put boots on the ground there is no need for a buildup.
In Afghanistan we were not going to be able to get away with that kind of warfare. We needed to take out the Taliban and we needed to get large groups of men on the ground for real reconnaissance and interdiction. The combination meant actual warfare... not just push button crap.
One of my criticisms of Bush's strategy in Afghanistan is that we still don't have ENOUGH people there.
In addition, we should have been more active in other areas like the Phillipines and Malaysia.
In my opinion under all scenarios there would have had to have been a build up.
Bush was trying to increase the military budget before 9/11.
This is something completely different. I won't argue that without 9-11 Gore would have been unlikely to grow the military.
Bush has been drastically increasing the annual, non-war-related operating budget. This budget doesn't include a dime for Afghanistan or Iraq - that's all supplimental.
This is also something else. I thought you were referring to force and material buildup. I will say there is a need for support build up, but my guess is you can probably dig up some info how they are going beyond what we need on that.
Let me make things clear... I think that given what happened, Gore would have been less detrimental over all for the US and the world.
But that does not mean it would have been glowing.
And more importantly, we are talking the 2000 election, where we could not have known what lay in store.
At that time there was no way one could guess that a fiscal conservative republican, backed by a hardcore group of conservatives that were in FAVOR of balanced budgets (so proud "they" finally were getting that done), and vocally for reforming the intelligence agencies and against using the military for nation building (all republican platforms)... would turn around and burn our surplus and throw the government into major deficits in order to finance a humongous military nation building campaign based in part on major errors from failing to reform intelligence agencies.
As much as I did not like Bush, I would never have guessed he was capable of THAT.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Rei, posted 09-24-2004 1:09 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Rei, posted 09-24-2004 1:51 PM Silent H has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 48 of 62 (144451)
09-24-2004 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Silent H
09-24-2004 1:39 PM


Gay rights - concerning the DOMA:
The democrats voted 2 to 1 against the DOMA. The Republicans voted 20:1 for it.
Gay rights - sodomy laws:
Bush had absolutely nothing to do with that, and couldn't have.
Gay rights - general:
Even the Log Cabin republicans are refusing to endorse the Bush administration.
Afghanistan vs. Yugoslavia:
Afghanistan also had a smaller and more outdated military than Yugoslavia, and as I mentioned, had a local resistance force. And, I agree, I didn't like Clinton's war policy in Yugoslavia too - I've seen pictures and videos of the effects. However, we're discussing arms buildups, and there was no arms buildup for Yugoslavia. There wouldn't have been for Afghanistan, either.
Conerning supplimental appropriations:
It is very important to note that Bush's buildup is completely outside the Afghanistan and Iraq supplimental appropriations (which are big on their own). The US military budget *outside* of appropriations has been increased by over 30% after inflation in his not-even-yet 4 years, and his future budgets are even more extreme. If he gets another 4 years, and he keeps to his plans, we'll have a peacetime military that is 50% larger than it already was (and it already made up a huge chunk of the world's military spending). Note that this buildup doesn't include SDI, either - that's supplimental as well.
quote:
And more importantly, we are talking the 2000 election, where we could not have known what lay in store.
True, true.... although, in our hearts, we feared what might come. Like you, though, I never seriously thought that Bush was capable of all that he did... I knew the sort of dirty tricks the people around him were famous for pulling (Rove bugging his own office, the horrible smear tactics against McCain in South Carolina, etc)... but I never thought he'd go as far as he did.

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Silent H, posted 09-24-2004 1:39 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Silent H, posted 09-24-2004 2:12 PM Rei has replied
 Message 50 by Silent H, posted 09-24-2004 2:16 PM Rei has not replied
 Message 54 by Rrhain, posted 09-25-2004 1:04 AM Rei has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 49 of 62 (144455)
09-24-2004 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Rei
09-24-2004 1:51 PM


The democrats voted 2 to 1 against the DOMA. The Republicans voted 20:1 for it.
That doesn't mean anything about Gore. He and Clinton supported it. That is one reason I did not like Gore.
By the way, do you have stats on independents? I'm independent and I'd love to be able to say 100% of independents were against it.
Gay rights - sodomy laws:
and...
Gay rights - general:
Yeah I know Bush had nothing to do with that. I think two subjects are beginning to merge. I was not trying to say that BUSH is or was great for gays or gay rights. You made the statement that gay rights had deteriorated during his time in office. Regardless of what Bush wanted, it seems to me gay rights have actually advanced.
One can always debate, and I'd agree, they haven't advanced far enough.
Afghanistan also had a smaller and more outdated military than Yugoslavia, and as I mentioned, had a local resistance force... However, we're discussing arms buildups, and there was no arms buildup for Yugoslavia. There wouldn't have been for Afghanistan, either.
This appears to be an honest disagreement between us.
The local resistance was not enough to handle all the needs. Indeed, seeing the "help" we recieved from them, it would have been better never to have used them. You may have info (you always seem pretty good with this) on the number of times we got suckered into attacking their enemies instead of real ones.
Anyway, we were going to have to go in with real troops on offensive missions. That is 100% different than Yugo. Whether their ground equipments was superior to the Afghans or not, we never had to see them (besides SAMs). Now we were going to see real ground combat against forces trained on how to deal with fighting superior numbers and equipment.
The aftermath was also going to be 100% different, as we have seen already. Afghan is more of a crazy quilt than Yugo, with warlords still bucking a government... and some of those were the ones ON OUR SIDE.
I do not see how you could have planned an offensive in Afghanistan that would not have required an arms buildup, especially if you wanted to keep adequate forces/material in reserve, and address other threats.
But believe me, I think if anyone can prove me wrong on that, I believe it would be you. If you come back with an actual plan I'll really be impressed.
Conerning supplimental appropriations:
Like I said, I won't argue about nonconflict related expenditures. I will take your word for it, and I do agree that Gore would not have done that. Clinton was pretty good with budget clipping and I don't think Gore would have dropped that (actually he was behind a great plan to cut gov't waste... one thing I did like about him).
You have said what all this stuff isn't. By any chance do you have a breakdown on what it IS? I'm curious.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Rei, posted 09-24-2004 1:51 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Rei, posted 09-24-2004 2:42 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 50 of 62 (144456)
09-24-2004 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Rei
09-24-2004 1:51 PM


True, true.... although, in our hearts, we feared what might come.
Heheheh... love the Onion.
Actually SNL did that great sketch of what the US would be like depending on who won in 2000. They had Bush (played by Farrel) with America under massive attack and him bobbling everything.
Days after 9-11 I kept thinking... man that came true. I wonder if they'll ever air that episode again?
Years after 9-11 I keep thinking... man that really did come true, I wish Kerry could get a clip of that into some of his ads.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Rei, posted 09-24-2004 1:51 PM Rei has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 51 of 62 (144458)
09-24-2004 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Silent H
09-24-2004 2:12 PM


quote:
By the way, do you have stats on independents?
Lets see.... in the senate, there were no independents (this was pre-Jeffords) (every person in the senate to oppose it, plus the one abstention was a democrat). In the House, the only independent was Bernie Sanders (Vermont), and he voted against the DOMA. So, yes, 100% of independents opposed it
quote:
The local resistance was not enough to handle all the needs. Indeed, seeing the "help" we recieved from them, it would have been better never to have used them.
Actually, I completely, 100% agree with this. Their human rights records were even worse than the Taliban in many cases. However, the fact is that we did use them, which lowered the war cost. Even though they often got us to attack their own enemies, they did largely replace ground forces for us.
quote:
You may have info (you always seem pretty good with this) on the number of times we got suckered into attacking their enemies instead of real ones.
Oh god... I could give you about a dozen of the major incidents or so, but I couldn't even approach a comprehensive list. Lets just say that they did it "an awful lot" Mark Herold covered an lot of them. He's always a great read - he references everything, and is meticulous with detail.
quote:
I do not see how you could have planned an offensive in Afghanistan that would not have required an arms buildup, especially if you wanted to keep adequate forces/material in reserve, and address other threats.
If the arms are from a supplimental appropriations bill, they don't count. For example, the body armor in Iraq (that they're criticizing Kerry for - despite the fact that almost all Republicans voted against the 87 billion before voting for it) came from the appropriations bill.
quote:
You have said what all this stuff isn't. By any chance do you have a breakdown on what it IS? I'm curious.
Could you clarify that statement? I'm a bit confused
This message has been edited by Rei, 09-24-2004 01:44 PM

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Silent H, posted 09-24-2004 2:12 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Silent H, posted 09-24-2004 6:23 PM Rei has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 52 of 62 (144540)
09-24-2004 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Rei
09-24-2004 2:42 PM


Could you clarify that statement? I'm a bit confused
You were saying what the supplementals did not cover... I was just wondering what exactly they did cover (what was the money for)?
If it's too much you don't have to list this stuff. I was just wondering.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Rei, posted 09-24-2004 2:42 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Rei, posted 09-24-2004 7:07 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 53 of 62 (144543)
09-24-2004 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Silent H
09-24-2004 6:23 PM


War appropriations typically cover a wide range of things. Here's the one for Iraq proposed on March 25, 2003:
Error 404
It covers everything from extra pay to fuel costs to all munitions costs to all repair costs. There's even some equipment research and acquisition in it it, designed to fund the replacement of equipment that gets destroyed (and to funnel a bit more money into the DoD), plus a pretty hefty chunk (1.7 billion) for classified programs.
Reading over the appropriations bill, it makes it obvious how naively overoptimistic the Republicans were about this whole thing. Also, some completely unrelated things are in the bill. Some things that stand out:
"The request is built on the key assumption that U.S. military action in Iraq will be swift and decisive"
"$34 million for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. These funds would be used for needed security and counterdrug assistance in Colombia" (remember, this is the *Iraq* supplemental!)
"$0.2 billion for Peacekeeping Operations. These funds would assist coalition partners and front line states supporting operations in Iraq, including funding for follow on stabilization activities. " (out of 63 billion dollars)
As I mentioned, these costs are in addition to the big military buildup from the increase to the DoD's annual operating budget, and other non-war supplimentals like SDI.

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Silent H, posted 09-24-2004 6:23 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 54 of 62 (144587)
09-25-2004 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Rei
09-24-2004 1:51 PM


Rei writes:
quote:
The democrats voted 2 to 1 against the DOMA. The Republicans voted 20:1 for it.
Um, not quite.
In the Senate, 53 Republicans voted for DOMA and 0 voted against. 14 Democrats voted against DOMA while 32 voted for it with 1 abstention.
In the House, 224 Republicans voted for DOMA and 1 voted against it (Gunderson...who's gay.) 118 Democrats voted for DOMA and 65 voted against it.
Thus, 277 Republicans voted for it while 1 voted against it. That's much more than 20:1.
quote:
Even the Log Cabin republicans are refusing to endorse the Bush administration.
Yes, but they can't figure out that not endorsing anybody actually is a functional endorsement of Bush. The only way the Republicans will learn that Bush and people like him do not represent the Republican party is for people to actively court other people.
quote:
I knew the sort of dirty tricks the people around him were famous for pulling (Rove bugging his own office, the horrible smear tactics against McCain in South Carolina, etc)... but I never thought he'd go as far as he did.
You mean flip-flop on funding the troops he was sending into harm's way?
That's right...Bush flip-flopped. He vetoed the bill before he signed it.
The original bill the Congress was voting on provided health and insurance benefits for veterans and sought to pay for the $87 billion in funding by removing the Bush tax cut on those earning more than $300,000 a year.
Bush threatened to veto this bill. This was the bill that Kerry voted for since it provided benefits for the troops and had a way to pay for what was needed.
But then the bill changed, the veterans' benefits were removed, the payment by revocation of the tax cut was yanked, and Bush signed it. This was the bill that Kerry voted against.
So if Kerry is a "flip-flopper" for voting for this bill before voting against it, then Bush is a flip-flopper for vetoing this bill before signing it.
Flip-flop, flip-flop....
Why does Bush hate veterans? What could cause a man to detest military servicemen so much that he would destroy their financial and medical lives after they got out?
[Hint: If Bush isn't a flip-flopper for wanting a bill that provided support for the troops in the way he wanted, then how is Kerry a flip-flopper for doing the same thing?]

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Rei, posted 09-24-2004 1:51 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Rei, posted 09-25-2004 3:48 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 55 of 62 (144602)
09-25-2004 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Rrhain
09-25-2004 1:04 AM


Doh, I feel stupid, and stand corrected. I haven't looked this up in several years, and checking again, I find that I clearly must not have been looking at the vote for the DOMA at the time; I might have been looking at HRC ratings for the 104th congress (the congress in which the DOMA was voted on) as a whole instead. All but a couple of their issues that year were related to the DOMA (in the house, there were 3 separate votes on it). That'll teach me to doublecheck old information before I post
The numbers for the other house DOMA votes:
Motion to send the bill back to the GAO to study the benefits of marriage and domestic partnerships:
Dems 133 yes/53 no, reps 30 yes/196 no, Ind 1 yes/0 no
Amendment to allow states to overrule the DOMA:
Dems 99 yes/88 no, Reps. 3 yes/223 no, Ind. 1 yes/0 no

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Rrhain, posted 09-25-2004 1:04 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Chiroptera, posted 09-25-2004 9:31 AM Rei has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 62 (144616)
09-25-2004 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Rei
09-25-2004 3:48 AM


quote:
Amendment to allow states to overrule the DOMA:
Dems 99 yes/88 no, Reps. 3 yes/223 no, Ind. 1 yes/0 no
Funny thing: now that the conservatives are in control of all branches of the federal government, you don't hear so much about "States rights".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Rei, posted 09-25-2004 3:48 AM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by nator, posted 09-26-2004 8:34 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 57 of 62 (144804)
09-26-2004 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Chiroptera
09-25-2004 9:31 AM


quote:
Funny thing: now that the conservatives are in control of all branches of the federal government, you don't hear so much about "States rights".
Yeah, and remember when the "Republican Revolution" headed by Newt Gingrich was shouting about "Government out of our lives!!"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Chiroptera, posted 09-25-2004 9:31 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 58 of 62 (145787)
09-29-2004 7:56 PM


I must admit what I said of Kerry was wrong and stupid. At most the man corresponding with Rather held a personal grudge against Bush. I half-jokingly said that to see the response I would get. I have come to believe that my beliefs more closely align with Kerry. Then again, Nader has good points and beliefs on key issues. Sometimes I think that life would be better as an anarchy but then gangs would form and eventually new leaders would rise anyway, turning into a dictatorship.

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Rei, posted 09-29-2004 8:12 PM Trump won has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 59 of 62 (145797)
09-29-2004 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Trump won
09-29-2004 7:56 PM


Heh, that's one of the fundamental problems with anarchy. Political systems based on a pure ideology often seem to fail - and almost always due to human selfishness.
Anarchy? People start stealing; to try and keep their stuff, people start forming miliias, and the militias need leadership... you're back to governments.
Pure socialism (equal pay for all work)? People lose their incentive to work harder than their fellow man - and the "working for the common good" motive just doesn't ring strong enough for most people.
Pure capitalism (economic libertarianism)? People throughout history have shown that they're a bunch of stringy, selfish misers when it comes to charitable giving, and without a social safety net, every last time, we've ended up with the poor starving in the streets or working in appalling conditions for almost nothing.
You have to be realistic, and strike a balance. I like politicans to be pragmatists. I just simply want them to share the same pragmatic approach that I do

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Trump won, posted 09-29-2004 7:56 PM Trump won has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 6:25 AM Rei has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 60 of 62 (145905)
09-30-2004 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Rei
09-29-2004 8:12 PM


I like politicans to be pragmatists. I just simply want them to share the same pragmatic approach that I do
You said you had a relative who was a congressman. Why don't you run for office? This isn't a joke.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Rei, posted 09-29-2004 8:12 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Rei, posted 09-30-2004 4:36 PM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024