A reasonable solution to the Iraq funding statement....or not? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 05-09-2007, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Ace, this isn't a difference between Democrats and Republicans - it's a difference between the Congress and the White House. The White House speaks with one unified voice, and that gives Congressional Republicans something to fall in line with, even though in reality, they probably have as many plans among them as the Dems do. The Democrats don't have a similar leader - so they make a plan by compromising and combining the many different goals of many different people.

I think you may be ignoring this fact in order to set the Dems up to fail an impossible standard that you invented, which is speaking with one voice as persuasively as the White House.

I am not ignoring the fact that you point out.

I agree, Democrats are in a tough position. When I said that perhaps one of the problems was in the way the Democratic Party message was being communicated, the first response was that it was my problem.

At this point I am not just posting things for the sake of argument, I am interested in understanding how the Iraq problem can be solved. One way is the Bush way, which will cost billions more dollars and who know how many american lives. The other way is for the Democrats to over-come the obsticals and present a plan to the American people that we can understand and support.

ubertuber · 05-09-2007, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am not ignoring the fact that you point out.

I agree, Democrats are in a tough position. When I said that perhaps one of the problems was in the way the Democratic Party message was being communicated, the first response was that it was my problem.

At this point I am not just posting things for the sake of argument, I am interested in understanding how the Iraq problem can be solved. One way is the Bush way, which will cost billions more dollars and who know how many american lives. The other way is for the Democrats to over-come the obsticals and present a plan to the American people that we can understand and support.

Fair enough...

The way I see it, there are two possibilities here.

The first would be a spending bill with some sort of verifiable and meaningful benchmarks for funding to continue. There is a lot of room within this for good and bad bills though, depending on the quality of the benchmarks. Ideally, these would be set up more to ensure meaningful progress in quality of life and security in Iraq, rather than embarrassing President Bush. Even those kind of standards would be hard enough to meet.

The second would be to give Bush money, but only for the short term, forcing him to fight this funding battle over and over. I kind of like this because it is poetic justice in a way - Bush would be hoist in the very petard he created by keeping war funding out of the budget. If the public continues to perceive our presence in Iraq as a debacle, benchmarks couldn't save the President anyway - as ignoring the public will in high profile headline inducing budget fights would ruin the Republican party.

Notice that neither of my suggestions are deadlines. Personally, I think that deadlines without reasons (built into the legislation) are almost the worst possible option, after funding with no strings attached and a long leash. Deadlines are a demagogic position, much like free money with no stipulations. They can too easily go awry tactically for the Iraqis, and they are too easily misportrayed by the opposition.

I definitely agree that Congress needs to grow a pair and step up to its Constitutional responsibilities. The power of the purse means that they control funding. Bush's vetoes don't mean that Congress won't fund, it means that he won't accept the money they'll give. That could be a powerful rhetorical position - IMO it's the moral and ethical high ground.

___________________________________________________________

EDIT: May 10, 2007 10 AM

Ace, this one's for you. This NY Times article indicates that support for the President's policies among the Republican members of the house isn't monolithic. Apparently the current debate is less about the democrats failing to articulate a plan than it is that these guys are just on board with the Pres until they have to jump ship, which may be soon. It'll be interesting to see if this meeting generates any softening of Bush's stance at all.

I find Bush's comparison of what will happen upon withdrawal to South Asia post-Vietnam to be...surprising. In my opinion, the violence in Iraq will be much worse, at least in the short term.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NY Times

May 10, 2007
G.O.P. Moderates Warn Bush Iraq Must Show Gains
By CARL HULSE and JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON, May 9 — Moderate Republicans gave President Bush a blunt warning on his Iraq policy at a private White House meeting this week, telling the president that conditions needed to improve markedly by fall or more Republicans would desert him on the war.

The White House session demonstrated the grave unease many Republicans are feeling about the war, even as they continue to stand with the president against Democratic efforts to force a withdrawal of forces through a spending measure that has been a flash point for weeks.

Participants in the Tuesday meeting between Mr. Bush, senior administration officials and 11 members of a moderate bloc of House Republicans said the lawmakers were unusually candid with the president, telling him that public support for the war was crumbling in their swing districts.

One told Mr. Bush that voters back home favored a withdrawal even if it meant the war was judged a loss. Representative Tom Davis told Mr. Bush that the president’s approval rating was at 5 percent in one section of his northern Virginia district. click to show

aceventura3 · 05-10-2007, 06:41 AM

I think public support for the war shifted a while ago, perhaps it takes some time for Washington insiders to get the message.

Members of Congress should spend more with the folks back home. If they do, when they represent us, they can do it with more confidence. Unfortunatley, our President (any President) is going to be the most sheltered person in Washington. My hat is off to the Republicans who have gone in to tell the President he needs to consider bringing the troops home.

dc_dux · 05-10-2007, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

. My hat is off to the Republicans who have gone in to tell the President he needs to consider bringing the troops home.

My hat would be off to those 11 Republicans if their actions matched their words and they vote for anything other than to allow Bush to continue his failed surge.

aceventura3 · 05-10-2007, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

My hat would be off to those 11 Republicans if their actions matched their words and they vote for anything other than to allow Bush to continue his failed surge.

Makes me think of Newton's first law of motion:

Quote:

Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

I would not underestimate the significance of the move taken by the 11 Republicans.

ubertuber · 05-10-2007, 09:48 AM

Ace, here's hoping you are correct. The Washington Post reports that Bush is suddenly willing to talk about benchmarks:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Washington Post article, linked above

Bush Seeks Compromise on Iraq Benchmarks

By ANNE FLAHERTY
The Associated Press
Thursday, May 10, 2007; 1:33 PM

WASHINGTON -- President Bush, under growing political pressure, agreed Thursday to negotiate with Congress on a war-spending bill that sets benchmarks for progress in Iraq.

The turnabout in Bush's position came as Republicans expressed anxieties about the war and the House was expected to pass legislation that would cut off funding for U.S. troops as early as July. click to show

The cynical side of me thinks that Bush realizes that if he gets to participate in making the benchmarks, there is a chance to set them up to be meaningless or easily distorted. Still, there's probably no other way to go about this, so any step may be a step in the right direction.

I think Bush almost certainly realizes that funding without strings that has to be renewed every few months is an invitation to a political bloodbath. Benchmarks are the best deal he is likely to get. If the troops ran out of money in the face of multiple vetoes, it will be much harder to spin things to blame the lack of money solely on the Dems.

dc_dux · 05-11-2007, 05:20 AM

The issue is not whether Bush will aceept benchmarks, but if he will accept benchmarks with consequences if they are not met.

Bush likes to say every few months that progress is being made in Iraq, but offers no measures, or even worse, false measures of that success. His latest pronoucement several weeks ago that the surge was beginning to show results is evident from the fact that civilian deaths are down in Iraq. What he didnt say is that the measure he used exluded deaths by car bombs.

Quote:

Car bombs and other explosive devices have killed thousands of Iraqis in the past three years, but the administration doesn't include them in the casualty counts it has been citing as evidence that the surge of additional U.S. forces is beginning to defuse tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

President Bush explained why in a television interview on Tuesday. "If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings, we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory," he told TV interviewer Charlie Rose.

Others, however, say that not counting bombing victims skews the evidence of how well the Baghdad security plan is protecting the civilian population - one of the surge's main goals.

"Since the administration keeps saying that failure is not an option, they are redefining success in a way that suits them," said James Denselow, an Iraq specialist at London-based Chatham House, a foreign policy think tank.

Bush administration officials have pointed to a dramatic decline in one category of deaths - the bodies dumped daily in Baghdad streets, which officials call sectarian murders - as evidence that the security plan is working. Bush said this week that that number had declined by 50 percent, a number confirmed by statistics compiled by McClatchy Newspapers.

But the number of people killed in explosive attacks is rising, the same statistics show - up from 323 in March, the first full month of the security plan, to 365 through April 24.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...hington_nation

The latest funding bill passed by the House, which he will veto if it gets to his desk, has 16 benchmarks:

he President shall transmit to the Congress a report in classified and unclassified form, on or before July 13, 2007, detailing--

(1) the progress the Government of Iraq has made in--

(A) giving the United States Armed Forces and Iraqi Security Forces the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias;

(B) delivering necessary Iraqi Security Forces for Baghdad and protecting such Forces from political interference;

(C) intensifying efforts to build balanced security forces throughout Iraq that provide even-handed security for all Iraqis;

(D) ensuring that Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces;

(E) eliminating militia control of local security;

(F) establishing a strong militia disarmament program;

(G) ensuring fair and just enforcement of laws;

(H) establishing political, media, economic, and service committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan;

(I) eradicating safe havens;

(J) reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq; and

(K) ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi Parliament are protected; and

(2) whether the Government of Iraq has--

(A) enacted a broadly accepted hydro-carbon law that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis;

(B) adopted legislation necessary for the conduct of provincial and local elections, taken steps to implement such legislation, and set a schedule to conduct provincial and local elections;

(C) reformed current laws governing the de-Baathification process to allow for more equitable treatment of individuals affected by such laws;

(D) amended the Constitution of Iraq consistent with the principles contained in article 137 of such Constitution; and

(E) allocated and begun expenditure of $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.

After 4 years of war and more than 2 years of an elected Iraq government in place, I think these are broad enough (without specific metric measures) for any reasonable person to accept

We shall see what Bush will agree of if he will insist on even less specific and measurable "goals" rather than true benchmarks of progress...and what consequences he will accept if benchmarks are not met.

aceventura3 · 05-11-2007, 06:54 AM

I am still not clear on the consequences. Does Congress want full withdrawal of our military, partial? What role should we play in Iraq if the bench marks are not met? If we remove troops from Iraq, do they want a build-up in a nearby country?

dc_dux · 05-11-2007, 08:03 AM

ace....the Dems took the redeployment timetable out of this specific bill as a concession to Bush and the Repubs in Congress. If the benchmarks are not met in the timeframe specified (or more likely by the end of the fiscal year, sept 30), Bush would have to make a new request for additional funding.

And, if the benchmarks are not met, I assume the Dems will then send him another bill with a timeframe and specifics for redeployment similar to what was in the earlier version Bush vetoed:

Directs the President to commence the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq no later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all U.S. combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number essential for: (1) protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure; (2) training and equipping Iraqi forces; and (3) conducting targeted counterterrorism operations.

Requires redeployment implementation as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community to collectively bring stability to Iraq.

Requires reports from the President to Congress every 90 days on progress made in implementing such redeployment.

Hopefully, those Repub who have spoken publicly about the need for benchmarks to be met would support the follow-up bill in the numbers that would make it veto-proof.

Its a tedious process and far from perfect, but that is how compromise works in politics. And compromise is the only way that we will find a way forward that a supermajority of Congress will support. It wont please the "fight to victory" crowd (whatever victory means) nor the "bring them all home now crowd"...but it will have.the support of the majority of the American people.

aceventura3 · 05-11-2007, 08:19 AM

I understand what is being done short-term, but I am interested in knowing what the long-term goal is.

I think we are headed in the direction of removing our troops from Iraq, I just don't know what that means. And the problem is, I think it means different things to different people. I think we need clarity on this issue. Under the Bush plan our military comitment to Iraq was going to be virtually open-ended. Given the strategic location of Iraq, having a long-term military presence would be to our advantage as well as having a democratic Iraqi government supportive of our needs. If that is no longer our goal, what is?

dc_dux · 05-11-2007, 08:22 AM

Read the original Iraq Accountability Act that Bush vetoed. Its long and also tedious, but pretty clear on the goals and objectives.

Or google John Murtha and iraq funding and check out the youtubes with his remarks on meeting the stratgic goals in Iraq/Middle East as well as the goals of strengthening our military capacity that has been so depleted by the folly in Iraq.

aceventura3 · 05-11-2007, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Read the original Iraq Accountability Act that Bush vetoed. Its long and also tedious, but pretty clear on the goals and objectives.

I will get back to you in about a month on this.

Quote:

Or google John Murtha and iraq funding and check out the youtubes with his remarks on meeting the stratgic goals in Iraq/Middle East as well as the goals of strengthening our military capacity that has been so depleted by the folly in Iraq.

I started listening to Murtha's speech on the floor, and lost interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHHSisbhoXE

dc_dux · 05-11-2007, 08:49 AM

Take as long as you need to learn the facts

..and if you truly want to understand the position of some Dems ...have an open mind and listen to more than one commentary by Murtha (dont just listen to highly political floor speeches that are often a response to a speech you did not hear).

aceventura3 · 05-11-2007, 08:57 AM

I am more inclined to read House and Senate bills than the average American, I would hope there is a better way to get the message to the public.

Also, the bill was so full of b.s. it deserved to be veto'd on that issue alone. Where is a JFK or a FDR when you need one from the Democratic Party?

dc_dux · 05-11-2007, 09:01 AM

ace...I'm curious what specifc bs in the bill didnt you like?

host · 05-11-2007, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....the Dems took the redeployment timetable out of this specific bill as a concession to Bush and the Repubs in Congress. If the benchmarks are not met in the timeframe specified (or more likely by the end of the fiscal year, sept 30), Bush would have to make a new request for additional funding.

And, if the benchmarks are not met, I assume the Dems will then send him another bill with a timeframe and specifics for redeployment similar to what was in the earlier version Bush vetoed:

Directs the President to commence the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq no later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all U.S. combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number essential for: (1) protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure; (2) training and equipping Iraqi forces; and (3) conducting targeted counterterrorism operations.

Requires redeployment implementation as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community to collectively bring stability to Iraq.

Requires reports from the President to Congress every 90 days on progress made in implementing such redeployment.

<b>Hopefully, those Repub who have spoken publicly about the need for benchmarks to be met would support the follow-up bill in the numbers that would make it veto-proof.</b>

Its a tedious process and far from perfect, but that is how compromise works in politics. And compromise is the only way that we will find a way forward that a supermajority of Congress will support. It wont please the "fight to victory" crowd (whatever victory means) nor the "bring them all home now crowd"...but it will have.the support of the majority of the American people.

dc_dux, for all the time that you have posted that you have spent in the DC,
I see that you are still an unrepenting "hope fiend". The people who you hold out the hope for doing "the right thing", are part of a criminal conspiracy that the evidence that I have, indicates ...and that I share on this forum....over and over.....masquerades as a political party. (They have supported Bush, in lockstep, have excersized no oversight over the executive branch....for at least 4 years, and they all were Tom Delays, "boys"....and, Jack Abramoff's, too !!!):

Quote:

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/b..._for_iraq_bill

None Of Republican Moderates Who "Warned" Bush Voted For Iraq Bill
By Greg Sargent | bio

Here's a list of the "moderate" Republican members of Congress who <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/washington/10cong.html">made a big show of parading into President Bush's office</a> a few days ago to inform him that the American public wants out of Iraq:
<b>
Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania
Tom Davis, Virginia
Ray LaHood, Illinois
John Boehner
Mark Kirk, Illinois
Jim Gerlach, Pennsylvania
James T. Walsh, New York
Jo Ann Emerson, Missouri
Jim Ramstad, Minnesota
Mike Castle, Delaware
Todd Platts, Pennsylvania
</b>
Guess how many of them voted yesterday for the House short-term bill that would tie funding to progress of the war? Exactly <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll333.xml">zero</a>.

This isn't all that surprising, and doesn't say a great deal, but it does remind us that we shouldn't take the protestations of these GOP moderates all that seriously until they actually do something in practice, anything at all, to rein in this President and his war.

<b>Update:</b> It's worth adding that there may be a very good reason those GOPers leaked word of the "private" meeting with Bush: It sent a message back to their districts saying, in effect, that they're working hard to get this President to see reality -- really they are!

roachboy · 05-11-2007, 09:52 AM

meanwhile in iraq:

Quote:

Life in the 'triangle of death'

Guardian photographer Sean Smith, embedded with US soldiers near Baghdad and on his fifth trip to Iraq, describes the huge gap between government rhetoric and reality on the ground

The Americans didn't attempt to patrol the so-called "triangle of death" around the town of Yusifiyah, about 25 miles south-west of Baghdad, until last year. Before that it was a no-go area, ruled by tribal chiefs. Even now, when you move through the area, it reminds you of John Boorman's film Deliverance; you never know what will be around the next corner.

I'm embedded with the 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, who have a base in Yusifiyah and are setting up smaller bases in the surrounding countryside. Yusifiyah is predominantly Shia; the areas around it, populated by farmers, are largely Sunni. Both groups are hostile to the Americans: used to autonomy, they recognise this as an occupation.

The area is full of palms and irrigation ditches. To the American foot patrols, having to watch out for mines and snipers, it must feel like Vietnam. At first they had great difficulty establishing bases in the countryside and suffered heavy casualties, but the bases are now more secure. The "surge" in troop levels is paying off in terms of greater stability - the sheer size of the military bootprint guarantees that. But can it be sustained? The troops are doing longer terms of duty; morale seems low; how many will re-enlist?

The only contact the soldiers have with the local population is in stress situations - when a search is being conducted or IDs checked. The troops take interpreters with them, but their English is not always very good. Through the interpreters they will ask some basic questions - "Have you seen any strange people around here?", "Are there any bad guys in the area?" - but mostly the locals just shrug and say no. They don't want to get involved.

One night a vehicle patrol was hit by a roadside bomb. I joined a foot patrol that went out in response, and three men were tracked to their home a mile away. They'll now be sent to Baghdad for questioning, and will either be charged or released. But that could take a long time: they can be held for a long period without being charged and can be parcelled around in the meantime. Following the explosion, the patrol searched houses nearby. That's where they surprised the boy in bed. He looks unconcerned in the photograph, but that's because here the abnormal becomes the norm. Mostly, the locals know what to do when they are confronted by a patrol - stop whatever they're doing, get out of their car, explain who they are. And do it quickly - or you run the risk of being shot.

I realise that, by being embedded, I am seeing the country through the eyes of the occupiers. There is no way I can tell the whole story. But what I can do is show the gap between the rhetoric of the government in Baghdad and the reality on the ground. There is no effective administration here and the Iraqi army is a fiction. There are Iraqi soldiers alongside the Americans, but they owe their allegiance to a unit commander who is usually someone known to them previously. They are small bands or gangs of soldiers, not a national force.

This is my fifth visit to Iraq. This time it has been very slow going - just getting round is difficult, trying to be in the right place at the right time. I can't emphasise enough what a slog this is for the troops. They're good soldiers, sent to do an impossible political job, so at the moment it's not much more than putting one foot in front of the other and showing they are there. This isn't about governing Iraq; it's just trying to demonstrate nowhere is out of bounds.

source: http://media.fastclick.net/w/get.med...%2C00.html&d=f

i bolded one sentence.
sounds like the arvn, doesn't it?
vietnam anyone?

host · 05-11-2007, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

meanwhile in iraq:

source: http://media.fastclick.net/w/get.med...%2C00.html&d=f

i bolded one sentence.
sounds like the arvn, doesn't it?
vietnam anyone?

LOL...remember Cheney, 2 years ago, this month?

Quote:

CNN.com - Iraq insurgency in 'last throes,' Cheney says - May 31, 2005
In a wide-ranging interview Monday on CNN's "Larry King Live," Cheney cited the ...<h3> I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." ...</h3>
www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/

...and now???

Quote:

http://www.star-telegram.com/279/story/96940.html

Posted on Thu, May. 10, 2007
Cheney pushes for Iraqi progress

By TOM RAUM
The Associated Press
BAGHDAD -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Wednesday that "we've got a long way to go" in reducing violence in Iraq in a trip punctuated by an explosion that shook windows at the U.S. Embassy, where Cheney was visiting.

The embassy earlier issued a strict new order telling all employees to wear flak vests and helmets while in unprotected buildings or whenever they are outside the embassy complex.

The order, prompted by a sharp increase in mortar attacks on the Green Zone in central Baghdad, has created a siege mentality among U.S. staff inside the Green Zone since a recent suicide attack on parliament. <b>It has also led to new fears about long-term safety in the place where the U.S. government is building a massive and expensive new embassy.

The security deterioration also holds implications for the Iraqi government, which uses the Green Zone as a haven for key meetings crucial to its ability to govern.</b>

Cheney urged Iraq's parliament to abandon plans for a two-month summer vacation while U.S. forces are fighting. With important issues pending, including how to share Iraq's oil wealth, "any undue delay would be difficult to explain," he said.

Cheney met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Iraqi political and military leaders.

"I emphasized the importance of making progress on the issues before us, not only the security issues but also on the political issues that are pending before the Iraqi government," Cheney said.

Baghdad was Cheney's first stop on a weeklong trip to the Middle East to seek support from moderate Arab leaders for help in bringing stability to Iraq....

...yeah, it sounds eeirly reminiscent of America's loss in Vietnam, but, not to worry...a "feel good" shill like Saint Reagan will come along in the next few years to soothe the volk who are still in denial about what happend to the US in Vietnam, that "Iraq was a noble war" !

aceventura3 · 05-11-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...I'm curious what specifc bs in the bill didnt you like?

Here is a start:

Quote:

TITLE I

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

CHAPTER 1

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Foreign Agricultural Service

PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE II GRANTS

For an additional amount for `Public Law 480 Title II Grants', during the current fiscal year, not otherwise recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including interest thereon, under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, for commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad under title II of said Act, $460,000,000, to remain available until expended.

GENERAL PROVISION--THIS CHAPTER

SEC. 1101. There is hereby appropriated $40,000,000 to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for the release of eligible commodities under section 302(f)(2)(A) of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust Act (7 U.S.C. 1736f-1): Provided, That any such funds made available to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation shall only be used to replenish the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.

CHAPTER 2

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Legal Activities

SALARIES AND EXPENSES, GENERAL LEGAL ACTIVITIES

For an additional amount for `Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities', $1,648,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES, UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

For an additional amount for `Salaries and Expenses, United States Attorneys', $5,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008.

United States Marshals Service

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For an additional amount for `Salaries and Expenses', $6,450,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008.

National Security Division

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For an additional amount for `Salaries and Expenses', $1,736,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008.

Federal Bureau of Investigation

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For an additional amount for `Salaries and Expenses', $268,000,000, of which $258,000,000 is to remain available until September 30, 2008 and $10,000,000 is to remain available until expended to implement corrective actions in response to the findings and recommendations in the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General report entitled, `A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Use of National Security Letters', of which $500,000 shall be transferred to and merged with `Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General'.

Drug Enforcement Administration

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For an additional amount for `Salaries and Expenses', $12,166,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For an additional amount for `Salaries and Expenses', $4,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008.

Federal Prison System

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For an additional amount for `Salari

Here is more:

Quote:

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

For an additional amount for `Wildland Fire Management', $100,000,000, to remain available until expended, for urgent wildland fire suppression activities: Provided, That such funds shall only become available if funds previously provided for wildland fire suppression will be exhausted imminently and the Secretary of the Interior notifies the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing of the need for these additional funds: Provided further, That such funds are also available for repayment to other appropriations accounts from which funds were transferred for wildfire suppression.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

For an additional amount for `Resource Management' for the detection of highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild birds, including the investigation of morbidity and mortality events, targeted surveillance in live wild birds, and targeted surveillance in hunter-taken birds, $7,398,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008.

National Park Service

OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

For an additional amount for `Operation of the National Park System' for the detection of highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild birds, including the investigation of morbidity and mortality events, $525,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008.

United States Geological Survey

SURVEYS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND RESEARCH

For an additional amount for `Surveys, Investigations, and Research' for the detection of highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild birds, including the investigation of morbidity and mortality events, targeted surveillance in live wild birds, and targeted surveillance in hunter-taken birds, $5,270,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

For an additional amount for `National Forest System' for the implementation of a nationwide initiative to increase protection of national forest lands from drug-trafficking organizations, including funding for additional law enforcement personnel, training, equipment and cooperative agreements, $12,000,000, to remain available until expended.

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

For an additional amount for `Wildland Fire Management', $400,000,000, to remain available until expended, for urgent wildland fire suppression activities: Provided, That such funds shall only become available if funds provided previously for wildland fire suppression will be exhausted imminently and the Secretary of Agriculture notifies the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing of the need for these additional funds: Provided further, That such funds are also available for repayment to other appropriation accounts from which funds were transferred for wildfire suppression.

GENERAL PROVISION--THIS CHAPTER

SEC. 3301. (a) For fiscal year 2007, payments shall be made from any revenues, fees, penalties, or miscellaneous receipts described in sections 102(b)(3) and 103(b)(2) of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393; 16 U.S.C. 500 note), not to exceed $100,000,000, and the payments shall be made, to the maximum extent practicable, in the same amounts, for the same purposes, and in the same manner as were made to States and counties in 2006 under that Act.

(b) There is appropriated $425,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2007, to be used to cover any shortfall for payments made under this section from funds not otherwise appropriated.

(c) Titles II and III of Public Law 106-393 are amended, effective September 30, 2006, by striking `2006' and `2007' each place they appear and inserting `2007' and `2008', respectively.

CHAPTER 4

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

DISEASE CONTROL, RESEARCH AND TRAINING

For an additional amount for `Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Disease Control, Research and Training', to carry out section 501 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and section 6 of the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, $13,000,000 for research to develop mine safety technology, including necessary repairs and improvements to leased laboratories: Provided, That progress reports on technology development shall be submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives on a quarterly basis: Provided further, That the amount provided under this heading shall remain available until September 30, 2008.

For an additional amount for `Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Disease Control, Research and Training', to carry out activities under section 5011(b) of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and Pandemic Influenza, 2006 (Public Law 109-148), $50,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Administration for Children and Families

LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE

For an additional amount for `Low-Income Home Energy Assistance' under section 2604(a) through (d) of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8623(a) through (d)), $200,000,000.

For an additional amount for `Low-Income Home Energy Assistance' under section 2604(e) of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8623(e)), $200,000,000.

Office of the Secretary

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES EMERGENCY FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Here is another:

Quote:

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

Capitol Power Plant

For an additional amount for `Capitol Power Plant', $50,000,000, for utility tunnel repairs and asbestos abatement, to remain available until September 30, 2011: Provided, That the Architect of the Capitol may not obligate any of the funds appropriated under this heading without approval of an obligation plan by the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...c110Wm7d4L:e0:

Not saying these things are not needed, just in the wrong bill.

dc_dux · 05-11-2007, 10:50 AM

ace....if you think Bush should have vetoed the supplemental based on this "bs", he should have vetoed every previous supplemental as well.

Bush's last supplemental request:

Quote:

Bush’s own supplemental request to Congress contained millions in non-war related funds.

Contained in Bush’s request were funds for federal prisons, Kosovo debt relief, flood control on the Mississippi, nutrition programs in Africa, educational and cultural exchange activities around the world, disease control in South Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe, and salaries for U.S. marshals.

The request spread additional funding across seven major departments of the federal government. Such items were not only contained in the White House request for this year’s supplemental but have been part of nearly every supplemental the president has signed since the beginning of the Iraq war. One quarter of the money in last year’s $94 billion “Iraq” supplemental was directed at a variety of domestic programs.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/14/bush-pork/

What it demonstrates to me is that you dont know the purpose of supplemental appropriation bills...although I agree with you that are too often used for pork by both parties.

aceventura3 · 05-11-2007, 11:13 AM

First you say I should read the bill to understand our goals in Iraq, I say did not read the bill and indicate that it is full of b.s., then at your request I cut and paste stuff in the bill that had nothing to do with the Iraq question, and now you say I don't understand appropriation bills.

You are correct, I don't understand appropriation bills and have no interest in understanding them. In my simple world, if the issue is funding the war, that should be the only focus of the bill. If Bush signed other bills with pork, that is his issue. If I were President I would have had a problem with pork in any bill, but I will never be President.

You admit there is pork in the bill and pork in the last bill, I guess that means Bush is willing to compromise and build consensus ginven the fact that he signed the last bill.

All I wanted to know is what our long-term goals are for Iraq after we pull-out and what pulling-out actually means.

dc_dux · 05-11-2007, 11:24 AM

ace...most of those "non-war" funds are not pork ...as to the rest of it....if you dont want to understand what supplemental bills are all about..thats cool

and if you dont want to take the time to read or listen to what Democrats mean by strategic redeployment(beyond one floor speech by Murtha)...thats cool too

Quote:

You admit there is pork in the bill and pork in the last bill, I guess that means Bush is willing to compromise and build consensus ginven the fact that he signed the last bill.

For the record, this was mostly Republican pork in the last bill....to call it a compromise is an absurd conclusion.

aceventura3 · 05-11-2007, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...most of those "non-war" funds are not pork ...as to the rest of it....if you dont want to understand what supplemental bills are all about..thats cool

What I don't want to take the time to understand are things like why there are line items for the FBI, in the Iraq funding bill. Sure we can make a connection, but an agency like the FBI should be funded from a single soure with full justification for its activities. In the bill, funds were earmarked for the FBI without specific support on how the funds would be used. I don't want to understand this because the mmethod is flawed. Government is wasteful and this bill is an example why.

I also think the accounting for this spending, being "off budget" is a joke. Who is kidding who with this. so like I said it is full of b.s.

dc_dux · 05-11-2007, 11:42 AM

Then i wont try to explain it any further.

aceventura3 · 05-11-2007, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Then i wont try to explain it any further.

Please don't give yourself so much credit. I have not seen an explanation of anything. In answer to my question, you say read this, look at that, then you say I don't understand, I cut and past, and you say I don't understand. All of this over an issue that never addresses my question. Are you a politician? Man, are you good at diversion.

05-10-2007, 06:41 AM	#43 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I think public support for the war shifted a while ago, perhaps it takes some time for Washington insiders to get the message. Members of Congress should spend more with the folks back home. If they do, when they represent us, they can do it with more confidence. Unfortunatley, our President (any President) is going to be the most sheltered person in Washington. My hat is off to the Republicans who have gone in to tell the President he needs to consider bringing the troops home. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-11-2007, 06:54 AM	#48 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I am still not clear on the consequences. Does Congress want full withdrawal of our military, partial? What role should we play in Iraq if the bench marks are not met? If we remove troops from Iraq, do they want a build-up in a nearby country? __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-11-2007, 08:03 AM	#49 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace....the Dems took the redeployment timetable out of this specific bill as a concession to Bush and the Repubs in Congress. If the benchmarks are not met in the timeframe specified (or more likely by the end of the fiscal year, sept 30), Bush would have to make a new request for additional funding. And, if the benchmarks are not met, I assume the Dems will then send him another bill with a timeframe and specifics for redeployment similar to what was in the earlier version Bush vetoed: Directs the President to commence the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq no later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all U.S. combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number essential for: (1) protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure; (2) training and equipping Iraqi forces; and (3) conducting targeted counterterrorism operations. Requires redeployment implementation as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community to collectively bring stability to Iraq. Requires reports from the President to Congress every 90 days on progress made in implementing such redeployment. Hopefully, those Repub who have spoken publicly about the need for benchmarks to be met would support the follow-up bill in the numbers that would make it veto-proof. Its a tedious process and far from perfect, but that is how compromise works in politics. And compromise is the only way that we will find a way forward that a supermajority of Congress will support. It wont please the "fight to victory" crowd (whatever victory means) nor the "bring them all home now crowd"...but it will have.the support of the majority of the American people. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-11-2007 at 08:06 AM..

05-11-2007, 08:19 AM	#50 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I understand what is being done short-term, but I am interested in knowing what the long-term goal is. I think we are headed in the direction of removing our troops from Iraq, I just don't know what that means. And the problem is, I think it means different things to different people. I think we need clarity on this issue. Under the Bush plan our military comitment to Iraq was going to be virtually open-ended. Given the strategic location of Iraq, having a long-term military presence would be to our advantage as well as having a democratic Iraqi government supportive of our needs. If that is no longer our goal, what is? __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-11-2007, 08:22 AM	#51 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Read the original Iraq Accountability Act that Bush vetoed. Its long and also tedious, but pretty clear on the goals and objectives. Or google John Murtha and iraq funding and check out the youtubes with his remarks on meeting the stratgic goals in Iraq/Middle East as well as the goals of strengthening our military capacity that has been so depleted by the folly in Iraq. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-11-2007 at 08:31 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

05-11-2007, 08:49 AM	#53 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Take as long as you need to learn the facts ..and if you truly want to understand the position of some Dems ...have an open mind and listen to more than one commentary by Murtha (dont just listen to highly political floor speeches that are often a response to a speech you did not hear). __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-11-2007 at 08:52 AM..

05-11-2007, 08:57 AM	#54 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I am more inclined to read House and Senate bills than the average American, I would hope there is a better way to get the message to the public. Also, the bill was so full of b.s. it deserved to be veto'd on that issue alone. Where is a JFK or a FDR when you need one from the Democratic Party? __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-11-2007, 09:01 AM	#55 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace...I'm curious what specifc bs in the bill didnt you like? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

05-11-2007, 11:13 AM	#61 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	First you say I should read the bill to understand our goals in Iraq, I say did not read the bill and indicate that it is full of b.s., then at your request I cut and paste stuff in the bill that had nothing to do with the Iraq question, and now you say I don't understand appropriation bills. You are correct, I don't understand appropriation bills and have no interest in understanding them. In my simple world, if the issue is funding the war, that should be the only focus of the bill. If Bush signed other bills with pork, that is his issue. If I were President I would have had a problem with pork in any bill, but I will never be President. You admit there is pork in the bill and pork in the last bill, I guess that means Bush is willing to compromise and build consensus ginven the fact that he signed the last bill. All I wanted to know is what our long-term goals are for Iraq after we pull-out and what pulling-out actually means. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-11-2007, 11:42 AM	#64 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Then i wont try to explain it any further. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire