« Joyce Hatto - one of the greatest pianists Britain has ever produced - or not | Main | Ideas whose time have come -- and gone? »

A couple of challenges

I'm a bit short of time for a posting right now, so I'm going to take the lazy approach. Instead of offering my opinions on matters, I'm going to just toss out a few questions to some of our regular commenters. Some I've been kicking around for a while, some I'm going to shamelessly steal from other commenters.

1) To those who say the war in Iraq is "illegal." Please cite the specific laws and/or Constitutional sections being violated.

2) To those who say that the Bush's main justification for the invasion of Iraq was because Saddam possessed WMDs: please cite sources. (This one is going to be tough, because I've already done the opposite a while ago.)

3) To those decrying the budget cuts at the Veterans' Administration hospitals: please cite budget figures -- both those proposed by the Bush administration, and those eventually passed by Congress. (shamelessly stolen from ohiovoter).

I have a couple of other ideas I want to toss around, but work calls...


Comments (201)

I responded extensively to ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I responded extensively to #2 in the thread you linked, with no response from you. #1 & 3 don't apply to me (the first one is dumb, the third I'm uninformed about as yet).

The President LIED to convi... (Below threshold)
LJD:

The President LIED to convince Congress to give him the authority for war, LIED to convince the American people to elect him to a second term, but is too stupid to manage Iraq! (Sarcasm off)

Imagine that!

Actually, Mantis, you respo... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Actually, Mantis, you responded in that thread but DIDN'T actually come up with real answers.

You cited that he DID make the claims that Iraq had WMDs, but didn't ever make a case for it being the main justification (which was necessary - you can't take half of a clause, then discard the rest).

A (repeat, "A") reason we went in was because of the WMD issue, but there was a giant laundry list that folks like yourself keep skipping right over, including the primary reason - that Iraq wasn't complying with the cease-fire agreement they signed in the early 1990s. The WMD program (yes, they still had one), the other weapons programs, the Oil-for-Food fraud, and a huge list of other reasons were all part of that major issue.

But you keep pretending otherwise. Which is why you lost the challenge in the first place.

Conversely, to show that the invasion was not justified, you also have to show that Iraq was complying with inspectors, that the money from the Oil-for-Food program was being used correctly, and that all of the other rationales were false - not just the WMD claims that seem to be the only thing you can remember out of that huge laundry list.


You cited that he DID ma... (Below threshold)
mantis:

You cited that he DID make the claims that Iraq had WMDs, but didn't ever make a case for it being the main justification (which was necessary - you can't take half of a clause, then discard the rest).

Sure I did; you choose to ignore it.

including the primary reason - that Iraq wasn't complying with the cease-fire agreement they signed in the early 1990s.

You better tell Wolfowitz, he seems to think it was settled that weapons were the main justification:

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue -- weapons of mass destruction -- because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." - May 28, 2003

But I'm sure you know better than the Deputy Sec. of Defense at the time.

Conversely, to show that the invasion was not justified, you also have to show that Iraq was complying with inspectors, that the money from the Oil-for-Food program was being used correctly, and that all of the other rationales were false

I do? I'm just answering Jay's charge that WMDs were not the main justification for the war. I'm not saying there weren't other reasons, and I don't need to disprove them at all to show that the invasion wasn't justified. I can do that easily with one question. If there were absolutely no suspicion that Saddam had weapons or weapons programs, would we have been justified in invading and occupying Iraq on the basis of cease-fire violations and oil-for-food fraud? Even if you believe we would have been, do you think they could have sold it to the public? I don't.

Oh, btw, this is not an iss... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Oh, btw, this is not an issue I harp on. You don't see me bringing this up every time the war is mentioned (or any time really); I really only write about it when someone else brings it up, like Jay has now and last March, as a challenge of selective memory.

I do believe there are more important issues at hand and don't need to waste too much time quibbling about how we got into the war. We're in it. I'm more interested in getting out of it now.

Re #2. I've gone through th... (Below threshold)
BC Monkey:

Re #2. I've gone through this myself a few times. Mention Clinton's impeachment and you can easily reference the "I did not have sex with that woman" footage. Mention Bush Senior and you have the footage of the "read my lips- no new taxes".

Mention Bush on WMD- where's the footage? Where's the quote where Bush boils the reason for war down to WMD alone?

There are plenty of liberal sites with the pic of Bush on the carrier with the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Why not quotes from Bush and footage of Bush boiling the war down to WMD? It's not as if YouTube isn't available nowadays.

Occam's Razor: Such footage and quotes do not exist except in liberal imaginations.

In my experience through, liberals tell me they speficially remember Bush doing so, but cannot be bothered to provide their proof, citing "everybody knows that".

Mantis, I for one ... (Below threshold)
Chip:

Mantis,

I for one haven't been keeping up with your extensive responses. Could you please repost your sources?

Where's the quote where ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Where's the quote where Bush boils the reason for war down to WMD alone?

Well, I don't know if I would say "WMD alone" but here you go:

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.

That was from his address at the outset of the war. Notice how in that address the cease-fire violations, the oil-for-food program, and all the other "reasons" are not mentioned. Curious.

I for one haven't been k... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I for one haven't been keeping up with your extensive responses. Could you please repost your sources?

Follow the link to Jay's earlier post, as I noted. It's in #2.

Ok Mantis your right Bush d... (Below threshold)
Chip:

Ok Mantis your right Bush did say that Iraq was an imminent threat.

"2) Bush told the American people that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US.

Nov 3, 2002

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America. He's a threat to our friends. He's a man who said he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, yet he has them. He's a man that not only has weapons of mass destruction, he's used them."

Mar 6, 2003

"Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.... I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons."

Well I see that he does say that he is a threat and a direct threat.

Monkey, I took your advice ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Monkey, I took your advice and did a search. It took about 30-sec to come up with this:

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003

Barney, I read tha... (Below threshold)
Chip:

Barney,

I read that same September 12th United Nations Speech, I think you're ignoring a whole lot of other reasons he cited as well.

Chip,I'll admit th... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Chip,

I'll admit that Bush never referred to Iraq as an "imminent threat" (though that isn't really what we're discussing in this thread). In fact, I'll point out where he addresses this:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.

Now he doesn't say that the threat isn't imminent, what he says is we cannot wait until we know the threat is imminent, because by then it will be too late. Now this can be read to mean that the threat was imminent, or at least it could have been, but we couldn't wait until we had the proof of such. Or it could mean that the threat wasn't imminent and we had to strike first before it became imminent. However, what conclusion can one draw from the fact that the President was unwilling to give the weapons inspectors time, but preferred invading ASAP? If the threat wasn't imminent, why the rush?

Mantis, "If the th... (Below threshold)
Chip:

Mantis,

"If the threat wasn't imminent, why the rush?"

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio
October 7, 2002

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

You can start about paragraph 6 and read till you want, or read the whole thing if you prefer.

"do you think they could ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"do you think they could have sold it to the public? I don't."

Why do you say you doubt President Bush a (Republican) would have to sell anything to the Public via the (democrat Media)? Cause you know full well the Media is incapable of fullfilly it's basic job decription right? no longer hiding their left wing Bias? 90% voting for Gore & giving kerry an 15 point advantage?

You really meant to say he would have a hard time getting past the democrat media right?

I love the fact that Saddam... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

I love the fact that Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions for more than a decade, bombed by Clinton 5 YEARS prior to this war (I was involved in that bombing campaign) and ticked us off the point that the OFFICIAL POSITION of the US was that regime change was necessary...yet Bush rushed to war.

Mantis, you answered your own question.
Q:"However, what conclusion can one draw from the fact that the President was unwilling to give the weapons inspectors time, but preferred invading ASAP? If the threat wasn't imminent, why the rush"
A: "Now he doesn't say that the threat isn't imminent, what he says is we cannot wait until we know the threat is imminent, because by then it will be too late."

Duh.

Yeah, I've read it before, ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Yeah, I've read it before, and this is what he gave us:

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

The President's argument is based on the premise that not only is it certain that Saddam will get stronger and have "more dangerous weapons," but also that war with Iraq is inevitable. That's it. He entertains no other options, no possible way to ensure that Saddam doesn't acquire "more dangerous weapons" (in hindsight, more dangerous than none?), or won't grow "even stronger" (stronger than the weakest he'd ever been?), than outright invasion and occupation.

His entire "urgency" argument was that Iraq would be more of a hassle to invade and occupy later than it would have then. It is a foregone conclusion that war would be necessary, and he wanted to do it then rather than later. If this takes away from the argument that the administration pushed Iraq as an "imminent" threat, so be it. I think the alternative argument as presented in that speech is more of the "when all you have is a hammer" approach. Bush couldn't possibly see a non-military solution, or even a limited military solution. It is a shame that such single-mindedness blinded the administration to the consequences of occupying and nation-building in a nation such as Iraq (which, once again, I blame the British Empire for. Why we want to repeat their mistakes is beyond me).

Mantis, you answered you... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Mantis, you answered your own question.

No, I pointed out conflicting rhetoric. They were talking out of both sides of their mouths, and you want to ignore one side. Anyone remember that Fleischer agreed on multiple occasions when asked whether Iraq was an imminent threat?

"Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these--because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?"

Fleischer: "Absolutely."

If we're going to hem and haw about whether or not they said the word "imminent" or not, let me ask this: can my detractors admit the possibility that they implied that the threat was imminent even if they did not say that exact word?

Oh, and here's some more that's actually on the topic Jay presented:

That's a great question. Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. - Pres. Bush 03/06/03

Not nation-building. Not bringing Democracy to the Middle East. Not ending the oil-for-food program.

Very clear. Disarmament.

1) To those who say the ... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

1) To those who say the war in Iraq is "illegal." Please cite the specific laws and/or Constitutional sections being violated.

It seemed to me that reposing the query was in order.

How do canards get started?... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

How do canards get started? Let's go back in time...

Los Angeles Times headline on January 29, 2003:

"THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS; Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat"

Oh, and don't forget this beauty from PK and the Spindoctors:

Paul Krugman in the New York Times June 3, 2003:

"The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat."

And how could I forget little gem my home town. Oh the memories...:

Seattle Post-Intelligencer June 5, 2003:

"The justification for going to war against Iraq was the imminent threat..."

Post-Lacking-Intellgence is more like it.

Crickets and tumbleweeds so far on #1. No surprise there...

2) To those who say that... (Below threshold)

2) To those who say that the Bush's main justification for the invasion of Iraq was because Saddam possessed WMDs: please cite sources.

Come on Jay. Do you seriously believe the American people would have supported invading Iraq if the main purpose given had been to spread democracy in the Middle East? The idea of spreading democracy and freedom was a minor subtext to the primary message that Saddam was a dire threat to our national security because of his chem, bio and nuclear weapons programs.

The bottom line is that the American people would not have supported a war for nation building purposes alone. Bush and his crowd hyped the dangers and convinced many of us (including myself) that the threat was so serious that it had to be dealt with. Remember the chemical weapons drones that could hit the East Coast?

Whether Bush uttered all these words or not is beside the point since Cheney, Powell, and Rumsfeld all did. Bush is the President and the buck stops there.

"The President's argument i... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"The President's argument is based on the premise that not only is it certain that Saddam will get stronger and have "more dangerous weapons," but also that war with Iraq is inevitable. That's it. He entertains no other options, no possible way to ensure that Saddam doesn't acquire "more dangerous weapons" (in hindsight, more dangerous than none?), or won't grow "even stronger" (stronger than the weakest he'd ever been?), than outright invasion and occupation."

It's easy to make the claims you do, since you benefit from the answers we got as a direct result of the action you are lambasting. Never mind the 500 WMD projectiles we found after the invasion that the UN inspectors didn't find in more than a decade...or the drones that violated the cease-fire that the inspectors never found....or the missles with ranges longer than the caps specified by the cease fire that the inspectors never found. Why you insist that BUSH is the one with idiotic single-mindedness, for finally calling naieve individuals such as yourself on the fact that the methods you endorse FAILED after being attempted for more than a decade, is beyond me.

Mantis, "It is a s... (Below threshold)
Chip:

Mantis,

"It is a shame that such single-mindedness blinded the administration to the consequences of occupying and nation-building in a nation such as Iraq (which, once again, I blame the British Empire for."

President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly
New York, New York Sept. 12, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

the relevent part begins...
"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions. "...

There are three more...but Our President repeatedly gave Saddam ways out of war. Saddam refused to take any of those routes.

A year and a half build up ... (Below threshold)
914:

A year and a half build up is certainly not urgent?

And Hussien could have avoided the whole thing by simply letting the weapon inspectors back in and by not shooting at our U.N. authorized aircraft in the southern fly zone!

Why He gave up billions,palaces and whatever else He could have to swing by the neck is beyond Me?

Larkin, "Whether B... (Below threshold)
Chip:

Larkin,

"Whether Bush uttered all these words or not is beside the point since Cheney, Powell, and Rumsfeld all did. Bush is the President and the buck stops there."

Now can we ask if you're "moving the goal posts"?
All we hear is the President said, the President said, the president lied...etc...

I suggest you read UN resolution 1441 to find the real reasons for going to war with Iraq. Doubt you will though.

"For bureaucratic reason... (Below threshold)

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue -- weapons of mass destruction -- because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." - May 28, 2003

I'm wondering why this would be considered an indictment only on Bush. Or are you inferring that "everyone" is only those you hate? Wouldn't it be on everyone who was for the war? On everyone who went on and on over the previous decade about WMD in Iraq? On the majority who asserted that he did indeed have WMD?

Then we have those who believed there were WMD and still voted against the war. Yet now, "no WMD" is what they use as their anti-war platform. Are they afraid to openly admit that of the 23 (or whatever) resolutions, none or all were enough to actually do something about it?

They love their UN but have no problem with rendering all their resolutions toothless making them a useless organization, as we footed the bill maintaining no-fly zones, getting shot at anyway, and as little by little our allies lost their will; a couple even becoming accomplices to the OFF scam while pushing to lift sanctions because they were now Saddam's favorites.

While statements were indeed made, and strong ones, about WMD, it was NOT the only reason until the media and a significant number of the public focused on that to the exclusion of all else. Frankly, a good deal of the administration's comments on WMD was in response to that focus. It was all anyone wanted to talk about. Jay even wrote a post about it a long while back, but I can't find it.

"Mantis, you answered your ... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"Mantis, you answered your own question.

No, I pointed out conflicting rhetoric."

Actually, you provided your own conflicting rhetoric, I just used it against you. You mention in one of your previous comments where Wolfowitz admitted that "'For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue -- weapons of mass destruction -- because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." - May 28, 2003'" but do not add the context that this was in response to complaints...especially by the press..that Bush was using too many justifications for invasion. They then changed tactics to use the scariest motivation to make the case. Which is what they were criticized for NOT DOING in the first place. This is before they realized that certain people were going to criticize them no matter what they said.

You have used many qhuotes from after this switch in tactics while ignoring all the argumants made before. And I'M the one who wants to ignore one side?

re: <a href="http://www.cnn... (Below threshold)
Lee:

re: VA Cuts -- CNN.com.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration's budget assumes cuts to veterans' health care two years from now -- even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.

Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012. But even administration allies say the numbers are not real and are being used to make the overall budget picture look better.

After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly -- by more than 10 percent in many years -- White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.

The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends -- its medical care budget has risen every year for two decades and 83 percent in the six years since Bush took office -- sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better.

Mantis and friends should d... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Mantis and friends should drink a quart of clorox to cleanse they're brains. Maybe a tad of toilet bowl cleaner since they are so full of sh**.

Before Mr Bush came to Washington:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.


Just a reminder that after it happens we can truthfully say: Told you so.

If the premise is that the ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

If the premise is that the administration had additional reasons for invading Iraq (beyond destroying WMDs), then I agree with you. If you believe that the other reasons were why Americans and the Democrats in Congress originally supported the war, I think you are mistaken.

Of course, you don't need to me to locate the administration's statements about WMDs, or the conservative press's statements. We ALL remember the references to a mushroom cloud rising above one of our cities. And we all remember the claims that WMDs WERE found (still being repeated by commentators here.) I can only suggest that what WAS found did not shock or frighten Americans about the potential of a WMD attack from Iraq.

Of course, I cannot prove to you that popular support for the war wasn't based on hope for spreading democracy in middle east, etc. And you are free to believe that if you wish.

I don't.

Off topic: Today is the 45t... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Off topic: Today is the 45th anniversary of the space mission Freedom 7, the first American orbital spaceflight!

(Frankly, I'm more interested in the adventure of space exploration that politics...)

Publicus:<blockquote... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Publicus:


We ALL remember the references to a mushroom cloud rising above one of our cities

Was the following statement that to which you were referring ?

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
Of course, I cannot prov... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Of course, I cannot prove to you that popular support for the war wasn't based on hope for spreading democracy in middle east, etc.

I can't say that either, but we can say this:

An overwhelming 87% said "the Bush administration, before the war, did... portray Iraq as an imminent threat to the US." - From the 11/13/03 PIPA/Univ. Maryland Poll (.pdf)

Of course that doesn't mean that the administration portrayed the threat as imminent, just that 87% of Americans believed they did. What a bunch of dopes!

Lee, The funding is still i... (Below threshold)
BChoinski:

Lee, The funding is still increasing from one year to the next. The "decrease" is in the rate of yearly increase. In no way is it a "cut" in funds.

Constant, blatant dishonesty like that from you, day after day, is why everyone thinks you are complete jerk.

Why don't you grow up and start acting civilized.
BC

Since Mike is being willful... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Since Mike is being willfully ignorant (of course, everything bad is the Clinton administration's fault!), here's the more famous and memorable quote from Rice:

"There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly [Saddam] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

We also, of course, remember Colin Powell's dramatic presentation at the UN.

(This one is going to be to... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

(This one is going to be tough, because I've already done the opposite a while ago.) Jay

I had to check this out. According to Jay, the reason to go to war was to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. His proof is a speech Bush gave to AEI in Feb 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html


"The rest of the discussion on Iraq was on how the rebuilding of Iraq would take place, and his vision of freedom blooming in the Muslim world."

He also said this:
"The sole mention of the threat Iraq posed is contained in one paragraph:
In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed."

That is odd, because I read the transcript, Jay left out these nuggets:

"We learned a lesson: The dangers of our time must be confronted actively and forcefully, before we see them again in our skies and in our cities. And we set a goal: we will not allow the triumph of hatred and violence in the affairs of men."

"..And we are opposing the greatest danger in the war on terror: outlaw regimes arming with weapons of mass destruction."

"The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world."

"High-minded pronouncements against proliferation mean little unless the strongest nations are willing to stand behind them -- and use force if necessary."

"The threat to peace does not come from those who seek to enforce the just demands of the civilized world; the threat to peace comes from those who flout those demands. If we have to act, we will act to restrain the violent, and defend the cause of peace. And by acting, we will signal to outlaw regimes that in this new century, the boundaries of civilized behavior will be respected."


"If war is forced upon us by Iraq's refusal to disarm, we will meet an enemy who hides his military forces behind civilians, who has terrible weapons, who is capable of any crime. The dangers are real, as our soldiers, and sailors, airmen, and Marines fully understand. Yet, no military has ever been better prepared to meet these challenges."

Jay, if the reason to go to war with Iraq was to bring peace to the ME, why did Bush spend so much time talking about the threat of WMD, and why did he make this speech at AIE and not in public, and why did he make this speech in Feb of 2003 and not Oct of 2002 when his administration was making the case for war?

Saddam had a way out. He ju... (Below threshold)

Saddam had a way out. He just had to prove that he had no WMD's. He did not. Both Dr. Blix and the American investigators that followed discovered deception after deception, and multiple violations of the cease fire. Violation of a cease fire is causa belli enough to resume military action. That is the primary legal basis for the war.

To this day, there has never been an accounting for the missing WMD's. They existed. But in a culture that documented everything, only the documentation of the destruction of the WMD's by Saddam's thuggocracy is missing.

WMD's have been used on at least two occasions against American forces, and have caused injuries. Over 500 munitions with WMD have been found. The goal line has been shifted from "no WMD's" to "not enough WMD's".

As for the budget "cuts". What hooey! You cite a projection of future budgets that have not even been created yet. If you really want a criticsm of the VA, Michelle Malkin today does a great job of reminding us of President Clinton's record in that respect.

As a Milblogger has pointed out, if you create a giant bureaucracy, it will behave like a giant bureaucracy. No amount of additional money can fix that.

Publicus, Rice, Po... (Below threshold)
Chip:

Publicus,

Rice, Powell, Clinton, Albright, between them about eight to ten years. What happened in those eight to ten years that would lead you to believe that anything changed within Saddaam's regime?

Whether Bush "lied" is one ... (Below threshold)

Whether Bush "lied" is one of these endless circular arguments that leads nowhere.

The bottom line is that Bush, Cheney, Rummy and many in the CIA chose to believe a proposition (namely that Saddam had WMD) when there was little hard intelligence to indicate that was the case. Bush trusted his "gut" on this and he was wrong.

Yes, Chip, I've read 1441. Don't fool yourself for a minute that we went to war to uphold the sanctity of UN resolutions. We haven't invaded Israel to enforce the resolutions that call upon them to withdraw from the West Bank.

We went to war (ostensibly) because there was a threat to our national security. That threat was purely fictitious. Saddam's Iraq posed no immediate, short-term or long-term threat to us. If Bush wasn't lying and truly believed there was a threat he was guilty of extremely poor judgment.

This is all academic anyway. In my business, I get judged by results. If I screw something up the CEO doesn't care how or why. With Iraq, we've now got a situation that is much worse for our national security than it was before. In the process, we've lost 3,000+ troops, squandered hundreds of billions of dollars, and earned generations of hatred from thousands of young Muslim men who are dedicating themselves to a life of terrorism because of Iraq.

I say, judge Bush by the results. If we had been successful at nation building in Iraq no one would care about the WMD and we wouldn't be discussing it now.

Publicus, you're the one be... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Publicus, you're the one being willfully ignorant here. No one is blaming Clinton for anything. What we are doing is showing your willing hypocrisy in insisting that despite YEARS of Democratic insistance that Saddam had WMD programs the whole thing was in Bush's head. And that somehow intelligence gathered by a Clinton appointee in Tenet was a Republican snow-job.

Publicus:<blockquote... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Publicus:


Since Mike is being willfully ignorant (of course, everything bad is the Clinton administration's fault!), here's the more famous and memorable quote from Rice:
"There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly [Saddam] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
We also, of course, remember Colin Powell's dramatic presentation at the UN.

Since you seem unable to grasp my point, I'll spell it out. You stated "We ALL remember the references to a mushroom cloud rising above one of our cities" as if it were somehow an indictment of the Bush Administration. Yet, as the citation I provided proved, the language was being used for years by the prior administration.

So, either you're attempting to obfuscate by attributing such language as being started by the Bush Administration or your partisanship (BDS?) blinds you to the historical facts.

Larkin, Would you ... (Below threshold)
Chip:

Larkin,

Would you say that you occasionally get "judged" by in-action as well? What would be the consequences of in-action on the part of ANY President following 9/11 to respond to ANY threat that your intelligence community says is gathering?

Once again, Larkin, read th... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Once again, Larkin, read the damned quotes Scrapiron listed above. Iraq having WMD's was accepted as gospel among fools like you when Clinton bombed Iraq in '98, but now there's "little hard intelligence" and this all came from Bush's "gut." NO ONE has even been able to show what changed their opinion between '98 and '03...excepting an election...but it sure as hell wasn't UN inspectors or Saddams goodwill.

Of course that doesn't m... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Of course that doesn't mean that the administration portrayed the threat as imminent, just that 87% of Americans believed they did. What a bunch of dopes!

The folks who believed that were listening to the same folks who said, well, the crap you're trying to sell.

From the State of the Union, 2003:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

...and this was the same State of the Union that gave rise to the "imminent" headlines quoted above in the thread. The above quote was the only time the word "imminent" was used in the whole speech, yet the press reported that Bush had characterized the threat as imminent - the exact opposite of the truth.

If you want to blame someone, blame the newspaper editors and reporters, who lied through their teeth to try and make the Iraq war a one-issue conflict.

Go back and read the whole 2003 State of the Union Address, and try to realize what was actually said as the real justification for the invasion.

If we had been successfu... (Below threshold)
mantis:

If we had been successful at nation building in Iraq no one would care about the WMD and we wouldn't be discussing it now.

And the opposite is an interesting hypothetical, too. Imagine if there were WMDs, for instance Saddam had several chemical weapon plants in operation, or a nuclear program that was progressing (i.e. something that actually did constitute a threat). What do you think the response would be to criticisms of the occupation and democracy-building (civil war, etc.)?

I imagine it would be something along the lines of, "We didn't promise the post-war period would turn out well, that there would be an easy road to Democracy. We went in to get the weapons, to disarm Saddam, and that's what we did."

Saddam's Iraq posed no i... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Saddam's Iraq posed no immediate, short-term or long-term threat to us.

1 out of 3 ain't bad. But the onus of proving the last two lies on you, friend. I wish you luck in proving by conjecture or speculation if Saddam's Iraq was not a short or long-term threat. Alone, Saddam's history of erratic behavior--invasion of Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia (let's remember that happened in GW 1), gassing the Kurds, funding of terrorists, etc.--doesn't do a whole lot to support your case that he wasn't a possible future threat to our interests.

BChoinski: "Lee, The fun... (Below threshold)
Lee:

BChoinski: "Lee, The funding is still increasing from one year to the next. The "decrease" is in the rate of yearly increase. In no way is it a "cut" in funds."

I linked to a news report that says otherwise -- if you have numbers or quotes that support your position, post 'em. It will be easy to assume you're just another lying Republican if you don't.

Lee:<br ... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Lee:


I linked to a news report that says otherwise -- if you have numbers or quotes that support your position, post 'em. It will be easy to assume you're just another lying Republican if you don't.

Looks like Lee is lying yet again! /feign shock!

http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html


Gee, Lee, let's visit your ... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Gee, Lee, let's visit your article: "The budget for hospital and medical care for veterans is at $35.6 billion for the current year, and would rise to $39.6 billion in 2008 under Bush's budget. That's about 9 percent. But the budget faces a cut to $38.8 billion in 2009 and would hover around that level through 2012."

So, yes, there is a slight cut...AFTER A 9% INCREASE. So the administration is giving them a HUGE increase for a time, then scaling it back to a slightly lower level that is still MUCH HIGHER THAN IT IS TODAY. The unmitigated gall of the man, huh?

<a href="http://www.washing... (Below threshold)
BChoinski:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget07/agencies.html

Under vet affairs:

Department of Veterans Affairs logo

The Department of Veterans Affairs would see one of the biggest increases in discretionary spending for any agency: a boost of $2.6 billion to $35.7 billion. Most of the spending goes to health care -- the department expects to treat 5.3 million veterans next year.

Once again the VA budget calls for increasing prescription drug co-payments for non-disabled, higher-income veterans from $8 to $15. It would require them to pay an annual enrollment fee of $250. Congress has rejected this in the past.

Overall, the VA budget would rise to $80.6 billion, including $42.1 billion for entitlements, such as disability payments and rehabilitation programs. Officials hope to avoid a repeat of last year, when the VA received $1.2 billion in emergency funding after it had underestimated the number of personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who would seek VA medical treatment.

Like I said, stop acting like a spoiled child, Lee. It does your political side no good and harms real discourse to solve the true problems out there.

_Mike_, I saw that fact che... (Below threshold)
BChoinski:

_Mike_, I saw that fact check article as well, but it's 3 years old so I had to search onward.

Lee's still wrong, though, but the democrats played this "cutting the VA" record in 2004 as well, despite these refutations.

Well if you guys are waitin... (Below threshold)
Chip:

Well if you guys are waiting for an apology from Lee for the lying republican flap, trust me it'll probably be a while.

Per CNN:... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Per CNN:

The budget for hospital and medical care for veterans is at $35.6 billion for the current year, and would rise to $39.6 billion in 2008 under Bush's budget. That's about 9 percent. But the budget faces a cut to $38.8 billion in 2009 and would hover around that level through 2012.

I manage large projects for a rather large company (we are the largest in our industry), and the first thing I thought of was capital expense.
How much of the budget is Operational/Maitenance and how much is Capital?

Until I see a break down, I can't say if those numbers mean anything.

Using one of my own projects as an example, in 2006 I had $1.8 million, in 2007 I had $925k. I didn't consider that a cut. The reason was in 2006 I had to buy an entire server farm (hardware, install labor, licenses) and that was a one time capital expense. This year I am paying for recuring labor and maint. fees, but no big one time expenses.

Looking at the VA, if they had an increase one year to cover new equipment, say MRI or X-ray machines, a smaller combined budget the next year is not a cut. So I'll wait for a breakdown to pronounce if it is a real cut or a phantom one.

Heh. Was this you, Lee?<br ... (Below threshold)
brainy435:
"what changed their opinion... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"what changed their opinion between '98 and '03...excepting an election." by brainy435

I will tell you what changed, Desert Fox. In Dec. of '98 Clinton authorized the bombing of Iraq (military and WMD sites).

The bombing convinced Saddam, that he could not win, and America would not just go away.

The proof of this, there were no WMD found, not before the invasion or after as indicated by the UN final report:

On March 7, Mr Blix pleaded for more time to complete his mission and reported that lethal weapons such as Samoud 2 missiles were being destroyed.

Mr Blix said last night: "The things found were all small things. We found dozens of munitions for chemical weapons. They were empty and in a site declared. In relation to Samoud that went beyond 150 kilometres, they (the US and Britain) said it was beyond the permitted limit but I did not feel particularly indignant about that."

On the same day, the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, reported that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any nuclear weapons or was in the process of acquiring them.

"We reported consistently that we found no weapons of mass destruction and I carried out inspections at sites given to us by US and British intelligence and not found anything."

"But the budget faces a ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"But the budget faces a cut to $38.8 billion in 2009 and would hover around that level through 2012."

So, yes, there is a slight cut...AFTER A 9% INCREASE."

So you admit that there is a cut - at a time that health care costs are increasing astronomically - far more than 9% a year I would guess -- and then there is essentially a freeze through 2012?

Damn Republicans - they cut funds, then lie about it.

All sorts of words and "int... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

All sorts of words and "intentions" are being put into my mouth. My point is very simple; I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm trying to highlight an area of disagreement. Here it is (again):

I believe that the American people were persuaded to (initially) support the war on Iraq because they were led to believe by the Bush administration that Iraq could destroy an American city with a nuke.

Many of you believe that the nuke thing wasn't the heart of the president's case, just one of many. I agree with this. However, I believe that the nuke thing was THE part of the case that the American people were concerned about, and that won their support.

I don't claim to have proved this. I am simply stating an opinion. You may believe that, of all the oppressed people in the world, the American people have a special soft-spot for Iraqis. Or that Americans are strongly motivated to invade other countries to create democracies. Or one of many other possible reasons to invade Iraq. I simply disagree with this.

It's an opinion. You might want to ask people who actually supported the war and then changed their minds what led to their change. I suspect many would say----Iraq didn't post the threat to us that was originally portrayed.

BChoinsky -- your WaPo arti... (Below threshold)
Lee:

BChoinsky -- your WaPo article is a year old, fathead. That isn't the budget being discussed.

I take back what I said about you lying - you're just an idiot.

I reiterate -- acting like ... (Below threshold)
BChoinski:

I reiterate -- acting like a spoiled child (again) kills any of your arguments.

Names and invective -- is that all you are made of, little boy?

http://veterans.senate.gov/ranking_member_news.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Home&month=2&year=2007&release_id=915
That recent enough for you, or do you need more time to troll up some more insults to cover your lack of logic or shaky argument?

And a three year freeze in ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

And a three year freeze in funds is huge a cut in services given the increasing costs of health care.

Some of you aren't smart enough to figure that out - so you may need to ask your parents for help - they can explain it to you.

Why does the GOP hate veterans so much? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

You can find the link to th... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

You can find the link to the '08 budget from the Whitehouse...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/veterans.html

Total outlays for VA -
2006 - 69,809
2007 - 72,327
2008 - 83,290

Correct my math but 83/69 is roughly a 20% increase from 2006 to 2008.

Damn lying, illiterate Democrats.

Wow, Barney: " ...they (the... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Wow, Barney: " ...they (the US and Britain) said it was beyond the permitted limit but I did not feel particularly indignant about that."

I feel better knowing the UN inspector didn't feel indignant about Saddam violating the cease-fire, which is an act of war.


Of course, this doesn't cover the munitions we found SINCE the war, since he was speaking before we went in. And it doesn't cover the drones we found, either. Also if you needed proof that could only come after the invasion, that pretty much confirms its necessity.

"and then there is essentia... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"and then there is essentially a freeze through 2012?

Damn Republicans - they cut funds, then lie about it"

Lee, check my math, but a decrease of 0 is not actually a decrease, right? Hence, not a cut. Retard.

Oh, right, but now it's a cut in CARE, not money like your original comment. Sorry, I didn't see you move the goalposts.

Once again, Jay Tea gets ca... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Once again, Jay Tea gets called out. Pretty hard this time.

You can always tell when someone is wrong when they keep having to try and prove themselves right years and years down the line. A form of guilt, but a lack of guts.

BChoinksy - You linked to a... (Below threshold)
Lee:

BChoinksy - You linked to a senate resolution --which is off-topic - and isn't the same as the Bush budget cut, idiot. Craig's resolution is in response to the Bush administration's efforts to cut the VA budget!!!!

Read my lips - Bush'[s budget proposes to cut the VA budget!

Nothing you've linked to shows that the Bush administration's proposed budget cuts aren't exactly as quoted in the CNN article. You just keep coming back proving you're a moron - makes my job easy!

Some other idiot burped: "Lee, check my math, but a decrease of 0 is not actually a decrease, right?"

A freeze is a cut in services given the increasing cost of health care. Ask you Mom or Dad to explain it to you.

"Why does the GOP hate vete... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"Why does the GOP hate veterans so much? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?"

I actually am a veteran who qualifies for VA benefits, though I choose to provide my own coverage. As is my little brother who just got back from a tour in Anbar. Nice try, though.

Does Lee lie and distort be... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Does Lee lie and distort because he's a Democrat or is he a Democrat because he lies and distorts ? The age old chicken or egg question...

In his book <a href="http:/... (Below threshold)

In his book On Bullshit, Princeton University Philosophy Professor Harry Frankfurt discusses the distinction between the liar and the bullshitter.

With respect to some commenters here, the distinction is inconsequential.

Lee, before you call someon... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Lee, before you call someone an idiot, maybe you should learn to differentiate between a budget cut and a cut in care, moron.
You say: "Read my lips - Bush's budget proposes to cut the VA budget!" and then call me an idiot for saying that leaving the BUDGET the same is not a cut by arguing about the CARE provided. THEY ARE DIFFERENT ISSUES. I know anything without pictures is almost impossible for you to grasp, but try and get a coherent argument together.

Yeah, the consensus is that... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Yeah, the consensus is that Bush is just bullshitting on the VA budget cuts - just some slight of hand he's doing to make him appear fiscally responsible.

After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly -- by more than 10 percent in many years -- White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.


The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends -- its medical care budget has risen every year for two decades and 83 percent in the six years since Bush took office -- sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better.

"Either the administration is willingly proposing massive cuts in VA health care," said Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, chairman of the panel overseeing the VA's budget. "Or its promise of a balanced budget by 2012 is based on completely unrealistic assumptions."

A spokesman for Larry Craig, R-Idaho, the top Republican on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, called the White House moves another step in a longtime "budgeting game."

"No one who is knowledgeable about VA budgeting issues anticipates any cuts to VA funding. None. Zero. Zip," Craig spokesman Jeff Schrade said.

Edwards said that a more realistic estimate of veterans costs is $16 billion higher than the Bush estimate for 2012.

In fact, even the White House doesn't seem serious about the numbers. It says the long-term budget numbers don't represent actual administration policies. Similar cuts assumed in earlier budgets have been reversed.

The veterans cuts, said White House budget office spokesman Sean Kevelighan, "don't reflect any policy decisions. We'll revisit them when we do the (future) budgets."

Translation - Bush is just bullshitting, and we'll make the budgets right later.

brainy - read above ref the $16 billion shortfall in Bush's proposed budget. $16 billion. $16 billion! - Quit being so damned Republican and think for a change.

I feel better knowing the U... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I feel better knowing the UN inspector didn't feel indignant about Saddam violating the cease-fire, which is an act of war.


Of course, this doesn't cover the munitions we found SINCE the war, since he was speaking before we went in. And it doesn't cover the drones we found, either. Also if you needed proof that could only come after the invasion, that pretty much confirms its necessity.

Posted by: brainy435

Brainy (hardly) coalition forces flew over 50,000 sorties during the 12-years of operation desert shield with only two reported cases of enemy fire. There were no causalities reported.

The drones did not have WMD delivery capabilities.

The munitions were pre desert storm, and highly degraded. You can find WWI munitions buried in the fields France, so what.

The bottom lie is, if any of the crap the Bush administration said was true, Bush would be screaming about it every chance he had, but did he? No, in fact he has had to admit that there were no WMD, and no links to al Qaeda.

Heh. Was this you, Lee?... (Below threshold)
marc:

Heh. Was this you, Lee?
Posted by: brainy435 at February 20, 2007 03:04 PM

Not very likely. In fact after being shown to be a fool (again) by BChoinski and yourself he won't have the intestinal fortitude to revisit this thread so having the guts to move from his keyboard cacoon to physically attack someone is far from possible.

The munitions were pre d... (Below threshold)
mantis:

The munitions were pre desert storm, and highly degraded. You can find WWI munitions buried in the fields France, so what.

Germany still has WMDs! Invade!

Jesus, Lee, you really will... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Jesus, Lee, you really will believe anything that fits your preconcieved notions.

The buerocrat who is getting the 4 BILLION DOLLAR INCREASE is angry that it isn't enough. I'm so damned surprised.

And to recap:
First you were mad that the budget was being cut...till we showed you it was actually being increased.
Second you were mad that the level of care wouldn't be met..till you couldn't find anything to back that up.
NOW you're mad that the budget will be less than the guy getting it wants, even though he is getting an increase and can't show how care would decrease without him getting what he wants.

And getting more and more shrill in your fake outrage.

Funny how Lying Lee misses ... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Funny how Lying Lee misses this in his own excerpt:

"No one who is knowledgeable about VA budgeting issues anticipates any cuts to VA funding. None. Zero. Zip," Craig spokesman Jeff Schrade said.
The munitions were pre d... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

The munitions were pre desert storm, and highly degraded. You can find WWI munitions buried in the fields France, so what.

Yet another reason NOT to visit France...

Well Lee, frankly I very su... (Below threshold)
marc:

Well Lee, frankly I very surprised you slithered your way back into the thread, however not by the response:

brainy - read above ref the $16 billion shortfall in Bush's proposed budget. $16 billion. $16 billion! - Quit being so damned Republican and think for a change.
Posted by: Lee at February 20, 2007 03:40 PM

Read, noted and tossed into the trash heap.

First of all that's Edwards thoughts on the matter and secondly unless Bush is reelected (QUICK, amend the Constitution) the 2012 budget isn't germain to the argument.

""No one who is knowledg... (Below threshold)
Lee:

""No one who is knowledgeable about VA budgeting issues anticipates any cuts to VA funding. None. Zero. Zip," Craig spokesman Jeff Schrade said."

As I said, the consensus is that Bushy is bullshitting just to make the budget look good.

Translation - Bush is just bullshitting, and we'll make the budgets right later.

Always two steps behind, aren't you Mike? Why is that? Were you slow as a child, and just never "caught up"?

Lying Lee:<blockquot... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Lying Lee:


As I said, the consensus is that Bushy is bullshitting just to make the budget look good.

Translation - Lee is lying yet again. Of course, he's just regurgitating the lies he's been feed like a good automaton.

So, Lee are you incapable of reading what you post or do you also find your posting so inane that you don't want to bother reading them either ?

"The munitions were pre des... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"The munitions were pre desert storm, and highly degraded. You can find WWI munitions buried in the fields France, so what."

The "so what" is that to the best of my knowledge, the US accepting the surrender of the Germans was not based on their accounting of the munitions they left in France, while Saddam was left in power only because he agreed to VERIFIABLY destroy all his WMD's. But you just admitted that he didn't do that. Act of war. Not rocket science.

"Brainy (hardly) coalition ... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"Brainy (hardly) coalition forces flew over 50,000 sorties during the 12-years of operation desert shield with only two reported cases of enemy fire. There were no causalities reported."

I almost missed this. There were times when we were receiving fire almost daily. So unless you can back this up, I call shenanigans. Regardless, only ONE instance constitutes an act of war, regardless of casualties.


You get the bonus, as well. I was wondering how long you'd take the drubbing before retorting with 2nd grade-level comments about my screen name.

Give up on Lee. He won't a... (Below threshold)

Give up on Lee. He won't admit he's wrong. He just keeps shifting focus in small increments until you're arguing the price of corn with him. He can be a bit obtuse at times :-)

Show me where I'm wrong, Oy... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Show me where I'm wrong, Oyster.

FACT: Bush's budget proposal would result in a decrease in services to Veterans.

That's pretty broad stroke - where is it factually incorrect?

Brainy, I just call'em like... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Brainy, I just call'em like I see'em.

"Regardless, only ONE insta... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Regardless, only ONE instance constitutes an act of war, regardless of casualties." by Brainy

But, was it worth the lives of 3,500 Americans? Was it worth $1-Trillion? Was it worth the BS we have had to deal with?

Would another course of actions been better? That is what the left has argued.

Odd... no one has attempted... (Below threshold)
marc:

Odd... no one has attempted to provide anything on the first question posed by JT. Wonder why that is?

That aside I have a question that relates to what always comes up on how the Iraq war was "sold."

I defy anyone to give an example of ANY U.S. war that the centerpiece of "saelling" the war didn't use the worst case.

Example:

During the war on Yugoslavia, Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen claimed that the Serbs were perpetrating genocide in Kosovo. He claimed that they had killed as many as 100,000 Albanians. The same figure was used by other U.S. officials and by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and others in the United Kingdom, but as time went on the figure was scaled down to 10,000 by some. I found a source at the State Department who admitted that their best estimate actually was only 5,000, but that number was never publicized by the establishment media.

Why no uproar over "hyped" war then? Why no "Clinton lied?"

Would another course of ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Would another course of actions been better? That is what the left has argued.

And exactly what other "course of action" would that be, Barney? More appeasement? More punchless resolutions? More "bomb, run and then attempt to verify"? More inspectors on the ground, uncovering, um, er, well, nothing because the depths of Saddam's active deception program weren't fully known and revealed until AFTER the 2003 invasion by the Iraq Survery Group? Hmm, so what big plan did the left have that they failed to divulge to the rest of the world?

The simple fact is NO one of the left came forth with a reasonable or plausible solution to deal with Saddam that didn't included one if not all of the aforementioned "solutions" I just cited.


brainy435:

A little word of advice and caution: Whenever Barney here cites or quotes a source make sure he provides a link; more than once I've found him to misattribute or misrepresent or fail to give context to the information he is quoting.

Well, Barney, at least you ... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Well, Barney, at least you admit that you "see'em" with the same mentality as a second grader. thats a step above most libs.

As to whether it was "worth it" to lessen the threat of terrorism in the US, while simultaneously liberating millions of oppressed people and trying to foster democracy in a wasteland of oppression...yeah, I think it was. And it would be worth it no matter the casualty rate, BECAUSE CASUALTY RATES DO NOT DETERMINE WHETHER A WAR WAS RIGHT OR WRONG. Outcomes do not determine whether a war is right or wrong: if we had lost WWII it would not have been wrong just as it was not wrong although we lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

"Would another course of actions been better? That is what the left has argued." We tried another course for 12 years and Saddam killed tens if not hundreds of thousands while laughing his way around international sanctions. Besides, the left hasn't ARGUED anything, you've made baseless accusations, lied about your positions prior to the war and been spineless bastards in general.

Thanks for the advice, Pete... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Thanks for the advice, Peter, but that's usually the stance I take to libs in general anyway :o)

Peter F, another administra... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Peter F, another administration lie was hyping the link to terrorists. Feith has been proven a liar (as I said before). Peter you wanted proof, so here it is:
WALLACE: Now a follow-up to our interview last Sunday with former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. Many of you asked us to check out the claim. Here's what he said to us.

FEITH: Nobody in our office said there was an operational relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. It's not correct. Words matter.

WALLACE: But it turns out he did make that case in a memo he sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee in October of '03. "The Weekly Standard," which saw the memo, described it this way. "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training and explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda."

What do you think of that Peter?

"(T)wenty-seven rationales ... (Below threshold)
SamAl:

"(T)wenty-seven rationales for the war were used at one time or
another, and, of the sixteen rationales that emerged before the final phase of research, thirteen
appeared in later phases. Thus, the campaign for the war on Iraq was broad and there seemed to
be a great deal of continuity between the phases. To further explain this idea, five rationales
were prominent in all three phases: war on terror, prevention of the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, lack of inspections, removal of the Hussein regime, and Saddam Hussein is
evil. In addition to those five, another rationale was used very prominently throughout the
phases: liberation of the Iraqi people. It was a popular rationale for Don Rumsfeld, as he
mentioned the reason in all three phases, and eventually appeared in many other officials'
statements, as well. Yet, a lot of new ideas arose over time, some of which came to be favored
among the sources used here. For example, the broken promises rationale emerged in Phase
Two and was used only by President Bush. Yet, by Phase Three, every member of the
administration mentioned in this work, John McCain, the Congressional Record, and the media
were using the rationale, too. Another example is the imminent threat rationale, emerging in
Phase Three with President Bush's speech to the United Nations. This rationale was then
adopted by Powell, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Daschle, Lott, and the Congressional Record.
Interestingly, Daschle was the only official to use the words "imminent threat," though he only
used them once; no administration official actually said "imminent threat." The secondary
rationales were: because we can, unfinished business, disarmament, connection to al Qaeda, and
safety of the world. And the remaining rationales were: revenge, war for oil, threat to the region,
for the sake of history, preservation of peace, threat to freedom, the uniqueness of Iraq, the
relevance of the U.N., commitment to the children, gaining favor with the Middle East,
stimulation of the economy, setting Iraq as an example, because Saddam Hussein hates the U.S.,
and Iraq's violation of international law."

Uncovering the Rationales for the War on Iraq: The Words of the Bush Administration,
Congress, and the Media from September 12, 2001 to October 11, 2002
Thesis for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
By: Devon M. Largio
http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio.htm

The Media often introduced ideas about the dangerousness of Iraq and its leader even before the Bush administration did. It was the media that, as early as the fall of 2001, "brought the idea that Iraq may be connected to 9/11 to the forefront, asking questions of (administration) officials on the topic and printing articles about the possibility."

Marc, it is because history... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Marc, it is because history starts with the election of President Bush. Policies and beliefs held by previous adminstrations are irrelevant to the liberal liars on the left. Mantis, Lee, Barney google, et al; are akin to those who in past years abandon our allies in SEATO to the loving hands of the communist powers, costing millions of lives. If you notice the casualty count in this war, then compare it to any perpetrated by democrats in the past, not withstanding the fact that those wars were not sucessfully concluded, one can only believe modern day liberals are not willing to lose any of our fighting men, who are volunteers, for any cause. Person like Lee, Mantis and those on the left are traitorous bastards who in Lincoln's time would have been tried and hung by now.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III... (Below threshold)
marc:

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III

They don't forget ALL history. That's why in threads such as this some still point to the Rumsfeld/Saddam picture as if it's the Holy Grail.

Show me where I'm wrong, Oy... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Show me where I'm wrong, Oyster.

FACT: Bush's budget proposal would result in a decrease in services to Veterans.

That's pretty broad stroke - where is it factually incorrect?

Barney, Follow alo... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Barney,

Follow along (again) if you can:

When someone like Wallace says "The Weekly Standard, which saw the memo, described it this way..." this automatically tells the reader/listener that what you are about to hear/read is the opinion of the Weekly Standard, not Fieth. Fieth certainly made the "case" and presented evidence of an operational relationship in the memo, that's his job, but there were NO CONCLUSIONS reached by Fieth in the memo. Reaching conclusion is NOT intelligence officer's (Fieth) job; he collects and presents intelligence to his superiors who draw conclusions. For even more distinction, what Wallace quotes are the direct and exact words of The Weekly Standard made by Stephen F. Hayes who came to those "conclusions" The italisized material/portions in the Weekly Standard is part of Fieth's memo; what Wallace is citing, however, are Hayes' words. There is NO arguing this unmitigatible fact (though I'm sure you'll try).

IF Wallace is attributing those conclusions made by the Weekly Standard to Fieth (and it loosely appears that way), thus attempting to implicate Fieth for somehow being misleading or "lying" then he too, like you, is wrong.

So what do i think of THAT, Barn? I think Wallace's researchers (or even Wallace himself, though I doubt that) did as sloppy of a job as you've done in citing the WS as "evidence" that Fieth is a "liar".

(Please provide the link with the FULL text of Wallace's follow-up. I believe there is more to the follow up than what you're presenting here and I would like to see it. If you don't know HTML, fine; just cut and paste the URL into a post.)

Fieth's 100% right. "Words matter".

brainy435:Taking y... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

brainy435:

Taking your stance would save me from wanting to put my fist through my computer screen and choke the lviing crap out them, huh? ;-)

I see that we have made pro... (Below threshold)
ohiovoter:

I see that we have made progress.

This morning the claim was that "Bush CUT the budget to the VA".

Now, the complaint is that Bush's 6 years out budget proposal does not indicate an increase in the VA budget. So, we have agreed that there has been no budget cut to the VA then.

Lee, somewhere earlier in the arguement, you claimed something (paraphrase) Republicans are stupid because they don't understand that Bush's 6 years out budget proposal is proof of Bush cutting the VA budget.

Actually, the Republicans just understand that Bush won't be President in 6 years. If that budget proposal remains the same, it will be a different president who made the proposal.

It is ironic - as unlikely as it may be that Hillary Clinton is elected President AND Bill Clinton is appointed to fill her Senate seat from New York - it is far more likely that former President Clinton will have influence over the 2012 budget than (then) former President George Bush will.

Poor Peter, you were totall... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Poor Peter, you were totally spanked! Keep believing that Feith is an honest servant of the American public. Libby didn't lie either, he just forgot the conversation he made-up.

Now why would Bush propose ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Now why would Bush propose a budget that cuts Veteran's services? One estimate (quoted above) is that the Bush has underestimated the costs for Veteran's services by $12 billion for 2012 alone.

Now why would he do that? OhioVoter offers on answers - just more lies and spin and "blame it on the Dems" smokescreen -- anyone?

Bueller? Anyone?

Nice to see you counter my ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Nice to see you counter my irrefutibale evidence with a condescending and pointless 4th-grade taunt, Barney. The only thing you left out was "nah-nah, poopy pants".

You're living up to your trollish reputation...congratulations.

Peter:The Weekly S... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Peter:

The Weekly Standard, FOX News and the Senate Select Committee all came to the same conclusion that Feith lied, but you just stay in your fantasy world.

The libs are getting their ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

The libs are getting their clocks cleaned on this thread. Way to go guys! This has been a joy to read.

Now why would Bush... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:
Now why would Bush propose a budget that cuts Veteran's services? One estimate (quoted above) is that the Bush has underestimated the costs for Veteran's services by $12 billion for 2012 alone.

I see that you have changed the goal post again, Lee. Instead of "cutting the VA budget" - which you have been unable to prove - it is now "VA services". LOL!

What you haven't answered is why you think Bush will still be President in 2012. Have you never read the Constitution?

If Bush is responsible for the budget in 2012 - when he consitutionally barred from being President again - wouldn't that mean that Clinton - who was constitutionally barred from being president again - was responsible for the budget through 2004 according to YOUR LOGIC?

Personally, I find that logic to ... well, not be very logical.

Now why would he do that? OhioVoter offers on answers - just more lies and spin and "blame it on the Dems" smokescreen -- anyone?

Well, since I said that Bush cannot be reelected to the Presidency again, you must believe that he can if you believe that I lied.

Since I said Congress actually passes the budget, not the President, then you must believe the President passes the budget, and not Congress, if you believe that I lied.

Rethink the PoliSci101 class.

As to "blame it on the Democrats" ... that is funny!

I'm going to have to assume that your lack of understanding of how the US government works is responsible for your lack of understanding of what I actually said.

In the unlikely event that Bill Clinton were appointed to fill a vacant NY Senator's seat during the current term of that seat, he would have the opportunity to vote on the 2012 budget. As unlikely as that is, it is more likely than a man - who is constitutionally barred from running for president again and couldn't vote on the budget when he was president - voting on that budget.

Again, rethink taking that PoliSci101 class.

"Instead of "cutting the... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Instead of "cutting the VA budget" - which you have been unable to prove - it is now "VA services"."

Freezing the budget is the same as a reduction, given the ever-increasing costs of health care.

This is the President's budget proposal we're discussing OhioVoter -- why are you avoiding the question? Nobody is suggesting that the Bush is going to be re-elected - what a stupid thing to say. This has nothing to do with Bill Clinton.

Is the President's position indefensible?

Why did the President propose a budget which reduces services to Veterans, OhioVoter?

Freezing the budget is t... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Freezing the budget is the same as a reduction, given the ever-increasing costs of health care.

...except that most of the current high rate of increase in civilian health care is to allow for profit after malpractice suits, legal fees and other costs that the VA is not having to deal with at the same level.

This isn't included in the VA budget (the US government is either not susceptible to many of the more frivolous suits, or takes the money out of other, non-VA accounts when they lose).

If you look at actual healthcare costs (not costs plus profits plus legal fees plus the amount the hospitals have to charge extra to cover the losses for "free" indigent care), the price of medical care is fairly stable (the cost of most of the commonly-used drugs and equipment is actually going down, when you take the legal costs out of it).

Freezing the budge... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:
Freezing the budget is the same as a reduction, given the ever-increasing costs of health care.

This is the President's budget proposal we're discussing OhioVoter ...

No, what we WERE discussing was the claim that the VA budget had been already been cut.

When that could not be proven, the tangent about future services was introduced.

....why are you avoiding the question?

Actually, I have responded to the question about whether the VA budget had been cut already several times.

Nobody is suggesting that the Bush is going to be re-elected - what a stupid thing to say. This has nothing to do with Bill Clinton.

Actually, it is more likely that the 2012 budget will be impacted by Bill Clinton than it will be by George W. Bush ... and that is from someone who thinks it less than 1% possibility that Bill Clinton will have any impact whatosever on that 2012 budget.

Yes, your comment is stupid - but it was YOUR comment.

Is the President's position indefensible?

Why did the President propose a budget which reduces services to Veterans, OhioVoter?

Why did Bill Clinton?

Have you ever done budgeting for a business, Lee? Projections 6 years out are just that - projections. As further information becomes available, projections are revised.

Claiming that the 2012 budget is set in stone - especially given that Congress, not the President approves the budget - is also a stupid comment.

If Bush is not the President in 2012 - which you now have admitted that he won't be - then obviously he won't have cut the VA budget.

You disproved your own thesis.


That's an interesting set o... (Below threshold)
Lee:

That's an interesting set of lies you just made up, cirby -- do you have any suppporting information to back up your claim?

This proves you're a liar:

After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly -- by more than 10 percent in many years -- White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.

Hmmm - we can now see that cirby was making it up - the truth is that " the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly -- by more than 10 percent in many years"

Who's the next lying Republican moron troll to try to answer the question -- Why is Bush cutting services to veterans? OhioVoter is still hiding under a rock, and it took all of 20 deconds to prove cirby is a lying little troll monkey - anyone else care to try?

Who's the next lyi... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:
Who's the next lying Republican moron troll to try to answer the question -- Why is Bush cutting services to veterans? OhioVoter is still hiding under a rock, and it took all of 20 deconds to prove cirby is a lying little troll monkey - anyone else care to try?

Didn't you just say that Bush would not be reelected in 2008 (and therefore won't be President in 2012)? In fact, I believe you said that it was 'a stupid thing to say'.

So, please explain how a man who even you admit WON'T be president in 2012 is going to cut services to veterans in 2012.

Bush's budget proposal cuts... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Bush's budget proposal cuts services to veterans, OhioVoter.

Why would President Bush propose cutting service to veterans? Why can't you answer that question for us?

Wow, Lee, you can't even qu... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Wow, Lee, you can't even quote yourself correctly. Previously you stated that the budget would have a 16 billion shortfall and in just a few hours it's been reduced to 12 billion! You keep up these arguments and just imagine how much cash the VA will be rolling in by 2012.

The interresting part is that I can pretty much GUARANTEE Lee couldn't possibly care less about us vets, he just wants to ignore these economic lessons to stick it to Bush a little more. It's a variation on the chickenhawk meme, which seems to be the only thing the left has left. Tell you what, Lee: You join the service now and you can be a vet by 2012, then you can come back here and re-open this debate IF service is cut...which it won't be. Dig? Take your own damn medicine.

So brainy can't explain why... (Below threshold)
Lee:

So brainy can't explain why Bush would propose cutting veterans' services either -- anyone else care to try?

Bush's budget prop... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:
Bush's budget proposal cuts services to veterans, OhioVoter.

Why would President Bush propose cutting service to veterans? Why can't you answer that question for us?

So far, Lee, you can't explain how a man - who even you admit won't (and can't) be President in 2012 can cut services (according to you) in 2012.

The chances that you could understand the answer to a budget question are not very promising.

RE: VAA huge porti... (Below threshold)
epador:

RE: VA

A huge portion of the VA budget is outpatient medications. A huge portion of those meds are delivered to vets who have physicians outside the VA system but poor coverage for medications, and the 9-15 dollar per month co-pay makes a once a year trip to the VA to remain an "active" VA patient and continue to receive your meds well worth your while. Imagine the VA budget shrinking with a change in reimbursement patterns coupled with the increase in co-pays for folks who can afford them. I bet that's one of the reasons the VA budget "levels off."

Ohio, You're attempts at do... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Ohio, You're attempts at dodging the questions are very obvious. It isn't a budget question, OhioVoter - it's about integrity. It's about standing up for your fellow Americans, Ohio -- whether they are Republican or Democrat -- these veterans deserve answers, not excuses and pot shots and cheap jokes.

So far not a single Republican has a real answer to this very simple question -- just lies and dodges.

Why did Bush propose a budget which reduces services to veterans?

Dang, it reflects poorly on... (Below threshold)
Herman:

Dang, it reflects poorly on education in this country that we even have to have this discussion.

Look, Conservatives,

When you launch a pre-emptive war that turns out not to have been pre-emptive after all, YOU'VE VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW. The UN Secretary General at the time (Kofi Annan) has indicated that the US invasion was in violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter. Understand, conservatives, that the treaties the US ratifies (such as the UN Charter) are the law of our land under our Constitution, okay???

And I don't think that Bush and his buddies lying to Congress to get the war he wants (think, for example, aluminum tubes) is permissible under domestic law, do you, conservatives???

Please don't give me your typical poorly-thought-out arguments that a member state of the UN can on its own volition violate the UN Charter in order to enforce a UN Resolution without Security Council approval. WHY DON'T YOU TRY DOING SOME RESEARCH FOR ONCE???

Say, for example, here:

http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2230.cfm :

"But others saw things differently [with regards to Resolution 1441]. The French ambassador expressed relief that "a two-stage approach" would ensure "that the Security Council would maintain control of the process at each stage." The Russian representative made clear that "the resolution just adopted contains no provisions for the automatic use of force" and warned against "yielding to the temptation of unilateral interpretation of the resolution's provisions." The Chinese delegate similarly said: "China supports the two-stage approach." Several nonpermanent Security Council members agreed. The Irish delegate noted: "As far as Ireland is concerned, it is for the Council to decide on any ensuing action." The Mexican ambassador stressed that "the use of force is valid only as a last resort, with prior explicit authorization required from the Security Council." The Bulgarian delegate said: "This resolution is not a pretext for automatic recourse to the use of force." The Colombian representative noted: "This resolution is not, nor could it be at this time, a resolution to authorize the use of force." Similarly, the ambassador from Cameroon expressed relief that the resolution "does not contain traps or automaticity." And the Syrian ambassador said: "The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue."

Finally, please read what one of the primary neocons who helped plan the whole damn thing had to say about the war's legality:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

Dear Herman: 1. Kofi's pro... (Below threshold)
marc:

Dear Herman: 1. Kofi's pronouncement that the war was illegal was at the height of the Bush/Kerry race. Gee, ys think Kofi may, just may have being talking out of his ass and been playing politics as he did so?

2. Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Hmmm... nothing applies, wonder why?

That aside 1441 gave all the legal precedent needed.

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance
in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein, Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without
conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other
relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the
governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

resolution 687 was never complied with and as a result the hostilities could have been resumed at any time.

Gee, Herman... with the acute cases of BDS around, and in many parts of the world, one would think Bush would have been charged, by the UN, or others in the ICC.

It hasn't and never will. The was was legal.

Herman, let's get this str... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Herman, let's get this straight ...

You are complaining - your definitive source on the "legality" of the war is Kofi Ananan.

The same Kofi Ananan who presided over the largest fraud ever carried out in the name of the UN for the personal enrichment of its staff?

The same Kofi Annan who created a commission to "investigate" the scandal and authrorized the UN to legally threaten anyone from actually talking honestly to the commission created?

The same Kofi Annan who's own son had questionable ties to those involved in the scandal, but refused to cooperate in investigating that and other instances of his son's using the UN to enrich himself illegally?

The same Kofi Annan who headed the UN during Rwanda and who said "Never again" - until it happened again in Darfur and Zimbabwe and he responded by arguing that it wasn't "genocide there while doing absolutely nothing?

The same Kofi Annan who willfully supported dozend of resolution condemning Israel but couldn't find anything wrong with Israeli civilians being massacred on busses on their way to church or while having pizza for lunch?

The same Kofi Annan who was the head of the UN while it's own employees (peace keepers and some full-time) members used the money donated to the UN for humanitarian relief to coerce children (some younger 12) into sex?

Is that the Kofi Annan who you are holding up as an example of integrity?

Lee's method of argument re... (Below threshold)

Lee's method of argument reminds me of John Clees inthis.

Dang, it reflects ... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:
Dang, it reflects poorly on education in this country that we even have to have this discussion.

I do agree with you on that though, Herman.

We started out discussing whether or not Bush CUT (past tense) the VA budget. After reviewing all the date in this thread, it became clear that Bush did not cut the budget during his presidency - in fact he INCREASED the budget.

So what is Lee discussing now?

Why Bush is responsible for a budget cut that hasn't - and most likely will never happen - four years after Bush is no longer president.

Now, if Bush were responsible for budget four years after he was no longer President, then it would appear logical that Clinton was responsible for all budgets four years after he was no longer President (until 2004 - in other words) as well. So Lee should be asking why President Clinton didn't anticipate 9-11 and provide in his 2004 budget proposal for all expenses related to 9-11, the family compensation, and the subsequent clean-up AND the additional VA needs as well.

Unless you are Lee, of course. He said Bill Clinton "has nothing to do" with the 2004 budget - which I agree with BTW - but then he demands that Bush be responsible for the 2012 budget.

Lee dodged the question of why he has two different standards depending on the party of the President, of course.

Then he was asked why he thinks that Bush will be President in 2012. He agreed that Bush will, in fact, NOT be President in 2012 - and then demanded that Bush be held responsible for the 2012 budget. This is the same budget that Lee agrees that Bush will have absolutely no control over, but, nonetheless, Lee wants him held repsonsible.

Lee repeatedly dodged the question as to how someone - he agrees will NOT be president in 6 years - will be responsible for a budget 6 years after he is no longer president.

Lee appears so bent on getting Bush on something that he has gotten incoherent.

Now, he is saying

It isn't a budget question, OhioVoter

So, now he is demanding that someone explain why a person who has nothing to do with the 2012 budget shouldn't be responsible for the 2012 budget AND claiming that it has nothing to do with a budget question.

He is also claiming that no one responded to his question although I have responded at least twice. I know it is uncomfortable for him to hear anything that doesn't consist of "it's Bush's fault", but it doesn't make what I said incorrect.

Bush's projection is A PROJECTION. That projection will be updated yearly based on information available at the time. At least four of those updates will not be done by Bush, but his successor. It will still be a proposal at that point because Congress - not the President as he implies - is responsible for passing the budget.

Lee, Bush supplied a budget projection 6 years out with the best information available at the time. By setting a minimum amount - which reflects the 8 years of increases during his presidency and the 3 years of proposed increases after his presidency - Bush ensures that the VA will be funded at least to that amount or his successor - the one actually responsible for 2012 budget - will have to explain WHY he/she is cutting services to the VA if he/she lowers that amount.

Get this through your thick... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Get this through your thick, empty skull Lee: just because you ignore an explanation does not mean that one was not given. You've been shown that the "cuts" you deplore are actually a 4 billion dollar increase, how the money you are talking about covers less than 50% of the total budget of the VA, shown the reasons that there would be a huge spike in the budget for a year followed by a slight reduction that still leaves the budget higher over todays budget, and had it explained to you that the projections you rail against are just that:PROJECTIONS and that the next administration will be revisiting these numbers based on need at the appropriate time. You have ignored all these points and continue to rail against the president while sticking your fingers in your ears and trying to drown out all evidence that you're full of shit. You. Are. Pathetic.

Brainy,My guess is... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Brainy,

My guess is that Lee is doing nothing more than trying to distract the discussion.

By reflexively repeating the same comment over and over and over and over without reading responses, he believes he can keep the conversation from being about the challenges issued by Jay earlier.

In other words, he fears an honest discussion.

Just in case there's room f... (Below threshold)

Just in case there's room for one more nail in the coffin lid of Lee's argument:

When Bush submitted his proposed budget to Congress for this year, the Democratic leadership declared it "dead on arrival." Yet Lee would have us presume that Bush's projections for 2012 will actually be taken as gospel...

I'd have to say, though, Lee's coffin lid has enough nails in it right now to disrupt compasses...

J.

"When Bush submitt... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:


"When Bush submitted his proposed budget to Congress for this year, the Democratic leadership declared it "dead on arrival."

When dingy Harry held it up it was still wrapped in plastic.

"My guess is that Lee is doing nothing more than trying to distract the discussion."

That's all they can do , deny, distract, distort and destroy. It's so much easier than actually having to work and earn something through merrit.

WOW! Lee has been in this t... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

WOW! Lee has been in this thread from the start to the present.

What's the matter, Lee? Get grounded by your parent's again?

One of the reasons that VA expenditures are rising faster than medical costs in general is the changing demographics of its patients. It is impossible to predict the level of funding necessary for the VA 5 or 6 years out. The bureaucrat always asks for more money regardless of need.

Question: Who covers the cost of treating active-duty military? DOD? I'd like to know. It certainly will affect VA budget needs in the future depending on when our wounded and rehabbing heroes enter the VA system.

Lee, how do you keep warm in the basement?

For Barney's <a href="http:... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

For Barney's elucidation on the Feith memo.

Not too ironically, Chris Wallace never offered a public retraction or issued an apology (which was clearly forthcoming) to Feith. Oh, and the SIC report, for lack of a better word, "acquitted" Feith of any wrongdoing (that is, unless you still believe the original and grossly erroneous WaPo article that the WaPo has since retracted). And the Weekly Standard never said Feith was wrong. Ever. So you just keep living in your little conspiratorial, all-neocons-are- evil fantasy world. I've only got four words left to say to you on this subject:

Game. Set. Match. Tool.

"Yet Lee would have us p... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Yet Lee would have us presume that Bush's projections for 2012 will actually be taken as gospel..."

Nothing Bush said is taken for gospel these days, but I see that Jay was also at a loss to explain why Bush's budget proposal contained cuts for veterans services.

I actually did the unthinka... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

I actually did the unthinkable, I went back and looked at Lee's original post. It was an AP story. You know, THAT AP. It had the classic phrase "...critics say...". Other than the author of the article, Lee, and the MN (moonbat nation), who are these "critics"? Cindy Sheehan and Osama Bin Laden?? Inquiring minds want to know.

Lee, glad to see your parents let you out of the house for a few hours. Its sunny and warm here in the Gateway city. How's it under the bridge??

Come on, that last one HAS ... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Come on, that last one HAS to be someone else posting as Lee for our amusement, right? He can't be THAT mentally stunted.

Can he?

Ohio Voter dodges the quest... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Ohio Voter dodges the question again" "By reflexively repeating the same comment over and over and over and over without reading responses, he believes he can keep the conversation from being about the challenges issued by Jay earlier."

And how exactly am I stopping any conversation about Jay's question, Ohio? That's just an outright, bald-faced lie.

None of the responses addressed to me answered this simple question - they all dodged the question completely - except for cirby's - where he just made it up.

Why did Bush propose a budget that cuts veterans services?

Well, I tried to give you t... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Well, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, Lee, but you proved your diminished faculties. Congrats.

Although, technically, Lee is correct: since we have shown that THERE WILL BE NO CUTS TO SERVICE, technically we can never directly address Lee's question as to why Bush is cutting service. I can't answer WHY someone did something when they didn't actually do it.

Google Groups is still *&#$... (Below threshold)
BC:

Google Groups is still *&#[email protected]! messed up, so let me slum here again for a moment:

1) Was the invasion of Iraq illegal? If Iraq wasn't posing an immediate threat, evidently yes, at least according to international law.

2) Was Bush's main justification for the invasion of Iraq was because Saddam possessed WMDs? Duh, yes. Go check the first paragraph
here and see where "disarm" appears.

3) Budget cuts at VA hospitals? Apparenty, by the latest reports.

Hope this clarifies.

Thanks, BC, for re-posting ... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Thanks, BC, for re-posting all the tired liberal arguments we already shot down while adding nothing new to the debate.

>

And in the article linked b... (Below threshold)
Lee:

And in the article linked by BC the AP offers an answer as to why Bush's budget proposes cuts in veterans services.

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration assumes cuts to funding for veterans' health care two years from now - even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.

Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012. But even administration allies say the numbers are not real and are being used to make the overall picture look better.

He's lying! Of course, why didn't I think of that. It's all just a ruse so the Republican'ts can lie to the American people, and claim they are attempting to balance the budget.

Bullsh*t. Nothing but more Republican bullsh*t. Screw with veterans so you head fake the American voters.

And every single one of the Republicans above who dodged the question knew the correct answer - and they couldn't bring themselves to be honest about it and admit the President is lying to the American people again.

So you finally admit that t... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

So you finally admit that there are no cuts, but now the president is lying? So to improve his image the President is falsely claiming that he is cutting funding to the troops, is that your position? How the hell can you manage to breath and chew at the same time?

Cutting "funding to the tro... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Cutting "funding to the troops"? Who said that?

And you say there are no cuts intended? That's not true according to Bush's budget proposal. So you're saying that he is lying also?

You believe what his critics say - that it's just a ruse to appear fiscally responsible - thanks for finally admitting that brainy. Although his proposal has cuts - he's lying and there won't be any cuts after all - is what you're telling us?

Why didn't you just say he was lying when I asked why he was proposing cuts earlier? Too painful?

Damn you're dumb, boy. My s... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Damn you're dumb, boy. My stance is that there is no lying...except that done by you...and there are no cuts. AND WOULD YOU STOP CONFUSING BUDGET CUTS AND SERVICE CUTS YOU IGNORAMOUS?!?! You first claimed there were budget cuts...except the only thing that comes close to meeting the definition of a budget cut in the article you mentioned is the slight dip a year after a massive increase, which still keep funding well above current levels. Then you admitted there were no budget cuts but claimed there would be cuts in service..except you can't back that up. Then you moved to this stupid argument about a budget assumption being akin to lying. Now you're back to claiming Bush will cut the budget AND Bush is lying about cutting the budget...which you admitted earlier this wouldn't do. You guys really can't tell when to stop digging, can you?

Brainy435, ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Brainy435,

Lee is on a mission and their is no exit strategy. His mission like many others here is to "Clintonize" President Bush and his Administration.
The Clintonistas are desperate for a legacy for their Master. They can't even buy one that puts him in a good light. They think that they can make the Democrats look good buy making the Republicans look bad.As if they need help. They want to make them look "DEMOCRAT BAD". They think they can bring them down to their level ,lol. I don't think even God could help them in that department. I always laugh when a liberal eventually blurts out in frustration "ALL POLITICIANS LIE!"

Lee is simple to understand... (Below threshold)

Lee is simple to understand once you take into account his standards.

If something makes Bush look bad, then the standard of evidence is minimal. For example, a news account that says that "critics say" something bad about Bush must be taken as gospel.

On the other hand, if something might make Bush look good, the standard is much tougher. In fact, to Lee to accept something pro-Bush as true, then...

Damn. I don't think that standard has ever been reached. Maybe if it's issued by a burning bush, or seen in flaming letters on graven tablets...

Nah. I can't see Lee respecting even divine intervention as authoritative.

J.

brainy435 wrote:<i... (Below threshold)
BC:

brainy435 wrote:

Thanks, BC, for re-posting all the tired liberal arguments we already shot down while adding nothing new to the debate.

Your concept of "shot down" seems to be faulty -- it doesn't mean, "We will continually ignore your demonstable facts and logic, and keep raising BS rumors, obsolete and disproven facts, and crackpot reasoning. Checkmate. That's how the horseshoe falls. We win, nah, nah, ni-nah, nah...."

My fellow citizens, at t... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

My fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

From the speech you cited, mantis. You still failed to make your point.

And, Barney, selectively cutting a speech hardly makes your point. As I showed here, you tend to leave A LOT out.
-=Mike

Marc,First have yo... (Below threshold)
Herman:

Marc,

First have your teacher help you with your reading comprehension problems, then turn your attention to Article 2, Section 4, of the UN Charter, which you yourself conveniently cite above.

I thought it was quite possible that some conservative or other would bring up Resolution 687 without thinking in depth regarding exactly what he or she was citing. But I did not want to mention 687 in my last post, as my post was already getting rather long, and I was hoping (against hope) that I wouldn't have to deal with another superficial conservative argument. So for you, Marc, I suggest you read paragraph 34 of the resolution:

"The argument that the council alone is authorized to decide how to deal with a violation of Resolution 687 is bolstered by the text of the resolution itself. Paragraph 34 says: "The Security Council decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required." This language indicates that the decision to use "all necessary means" is left to the Security Council--not to individual states."

Moreover, Marc, you may want to pay special heed to what your beloved Bush had to say:

"My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. ... We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the NECESSARY [emphasis added] resolutions." -- The Lying Chimp, Sept. 12, 2002.

What possible NECESSARY resolutions could Bushie be talking about, Marc??? WHAT'S YOUR ANSWER, DUDE??? Hint: Bush would later give up on the idea, once it became clear that China, France, Russia, and indeed, the majority on the UN Security Council wouldn't go along with his [expletive-deleted] manure.

OhioVoter,You make... (Below threshold)
Herman:

OhioVoter,

You make a lot of unsubstantiated allegations against Kofi, which, of course, are ultimately meaningless. He was just the UN Secretary General, he can't singlehandedly solve all the world's problems (especially when no member nation wants to contribute enough troops to Rwanda or elsewhere) and keep the UN completely free of those with criminal intent (just like Bush would be unable to stop a homicidal postman).

But the Kofi Annan whom I speak of was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts, sharing it with the UN itself. (In winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Kofi joined such illustrious individuals as Albert Schweitzer, Mother Theresa, Mikhail Gorbachev, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, etc.). You have to go all the way back to Kissinger (three decades +) to find an example of a neocon winning the Nobel Peace Prize. AND I DON'T SEE ANY OF YOUR NEOCONS WINNING IT AGAIN ANYTIME SOON, DO YOU????

Herman, please contain your... (Below threshold)

Herman, please contain yourself. You're positively frothing. Get yourself a bib.

Kofi was up to his crooked eyeballs in corruption, and your attempt to whitewash his culpability are positively embarrassing. In fact, his reception of the Nobel Peace Prize puts him in fine company -- alongside Yassir Arafat, UN Refugee Rapists Peacekeepers, and Jimmy Carter. I'd even go so far to say that that award is the most damning of all.

J.

Jay, that Herman finds the ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Jay, that Herman finds the Nobel Peace Prize impressive is borderline adorable.

I'm sure the kids starving in Iraq due to the looting of Oil For Food and the girls in Africa raped by UN peacekeepers think quite highly of Kofi.
-=Mike

From the speech you cite... (Below threshold)
mantis:

From the speech you cited, mantis. You still failed to make your point.

If you say so, then it must be true.

BC, you have still not adde... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

BC, you have still not added one single original thought to this debate. Not that I'd expect a lib to HAVE an original thought...

It's interresting that when we use information from your own source material against you, it suddenly becomes "...BS rumors, obsolete and disproven facts..."

Herman I think you may want... (Below threshold)
marc:

Herman I think you may want to borrow the astronuts diaper to keep that spittle from staining your shirt.

Lets start here with you quoting Bush:

"My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. ... We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the NECESSARY [emphasis added] resolutions." -- The Lying Chimp, Sept. 12, 2002.

[Boldface mine] And just when do you think UN resolution 1441 was implemented nitwit?

It was addressed as a provisional resolution on 7 Nov 2002, and adoption occurred on 8 November 2002. In case you're as mathematically challenged as you're devoid of honesty that just so happens to be 58 days after the Bush quote you provided.

Question answered; DUDE!

As for my reading of paragraph 34 of the 687 resolution there is absolutely no need; DUDE!

However you may do well to read the relevant section of 1441 (Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations) starting with para 1 up to and including penultimate pare 13 which reads "13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;"

To be fair I fully realize you and your ilk believe "serious consequences" is defined as another toothless resolution or perhaps a personal visit by Kofi to have chi tea with Saddam. But that's a fantasy world that was lived in for 12 years with zero results except larger palaces, more dead Kurds and Shias, drones and missiles that exceeded UN mandates and no full accounting of WMD's. (not to mention countless Israelis killed by Saddam supported suicide bombers)

DUDE!

P.S. Babies R US has a fine selection of dribble cups. At least then you'd have a legit excuse spittle running down your chin.

brainy435 wrote:<i... (Below threshold)
BC:

brainy435 wrote:

BC, you have still not added one single original thought to this debate. Not that I'd expect a lib to HAVE an original thought...

What's there to "debate"? Seriously. Iraq was never an immediate, grave threat -- there was never a shred of good, solid evidence Bush had in hand to justify a pre-emptive invasion -- so by international law, we had no good business invading. If some minor little country did the exact same thing under the exact same circumstances, there would be screams for sanctions at the very least.

Were WMD's the main justification for invading Iraq? Well, duh, yeah. 9/11 fears were exploited like crazy by Bush and his people, so much so that to this day an awful lot of gullible folks still believe that we invaded because Hussein had something to do with 9/11, nevermind that he was going to give his good buddy bin Laden piles and piles of WMD's to attack the US some more with.

And as far as the VA budget cuts go, my link was only a week or so old and that showed that Bush indeed cutting the VA hospital budget over the long run. Here is another link.

It's interresting that when we use information from your own source material against you, it suddenly becomes "...BS rumors, obsolete and disproven facts..."

Do you guys have any idea what a "non sequitur" actually is? I've seen that term used here randomly and very inappropriately, but in this case, it totally applies to that last comment of yours.

Hope this clarifies, but I'm doubtful for some strange reason....

BC:And as far ... (Below threshold)
marc:

BC:

And as far as the VA budget cuts go, my link was only a week or so old and that showed that Bush indeed cutting the VA hospital budget over the long run.

And your link also says this:

Veterans: The budget proposal would reduce funds for health care for veterans by 2% in FY 2009 and would freeze funds at that level from FY 2010 through FY 2012, although the cost of health care for veterans continues to increase, the AP/St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports. The budget proposal would increase funds for health care for veterans by 9% in FY 2008.

Presumably you're fond of definitions, (i.e. "non sequitur") so I also assume you understand, and can put into context, the term "proposal" as it relates to 2009 thru 2012 budgets.

Proposals that will be ripped to shreds and all recognition by Congress just as every Bush submitted budget has for the last 6 years has been.

Then there is a "little matter" of Bush being long history before any of those three budgets are up for debate, which will occur in the Spring of 2008

Seriously. Iraq was neve... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Seriously. Iraq was never an immediate, grave threat -- there was never a shred of good, solid evidence Bush had in hand to justify a pre-emptive invasion -- so by international law, we had no good business invading.

Which international law are you citing to go with this? I mean, the one that says a country has to pose "an immediate, grave threat?"

You might note that there isn't one. The most you can come up with is some guidelines or practices that most countries go along with.

As far as that goes, the only thing that kept the US from going in and kicking out Saddam was the cease-fire agreement from the early 1990s, which the Iraqis had violated, at minimum, a couple of dozen times. Any one of those many violations (firing on our aircraft which were patrolling the no-fly zones, for example) were more than enough justification, under "international law."

You might note that, for the most part, there isn't really anything like a binding "international law," outside of a handful of treaties that one or more countries have agreed to. "Not invading Iraq until the UN gives permission" isn't one of those treaties, by the way. We just went through the motions to give the rest of the UN a chance to stand up and do the right thing, but the bribery of Kofi Annan and the rest obviously had its effect.

Ohio Voter dodges ... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:
Ohio Voter dodges the question again" "By reflexively repeating the same comment over and over and over and over without reading responses, he believes he can keep the conversation from being about the challenges issued by Jay earlier."

And how exactly am I stopping any conversation about Jay's question, Ohio? That's just an outright, bald-faced lie.

Reading comprehension can be your friend, Lee. You shouldn't have given up on it so soon.

I said "He (Lee) believes ....". I never said that you could do that.

You repeated the same "Has Bush stopped beating his wife?" question at least a dozen times - in various forms - so you hardly claim that you weren't trying to direct the conversation and still expect to be taken seriously.

from Lee....

And every single one of the Republicans above who dodged the question knew the correct answer - and they couldn't bring themselves to be honest about it and admit the President is lying to the American people again.

Well, every single Republican knew that Bush wouldn't be President in 2012 - which you apparently still don't understand.

Every single Republican knew that Congress - not the President - approves the budget - which, again, you apparently don't understand.

Every single Republican understand the word "projection" - which you apparently have no experience with in the real world.

And, most importantly, every single Republican understand that your question was carefully constructed - re: "Has Bush stopped beating his wife?" - so that you could get the answer that you wanted instead of the truth.

You, of course, did not disappoint us.

A quote from a post by Lee ...

Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012. But even administration allies say the numbers are not real and are being used to make the overall picture look better.

First, thanks for the laugh. Weren't you one of those - just a week or so ago - that said any article that didn't NAME the source of information could not be believed? Now, you are taking Bush's unnamed critics as a definitive "source" of information.

Second, "Bush's critics" IS your definitive source of "proof"? He is wrong - not because of any factual information they provided - but because they said so?

Third, your question was:

Why did Bush propose a budget which reduces services to veterans?

And you claim that your above comment "proves" the reason.

Therefore, when you claimed that no one answered your question, you lied. Any number of people spoke to why he would make the budget projection that he did. They simply weren't the preconceived answer you were looking for to your "Has Bush stopped beating his wife?" question.

The answer you claim is the "truth" has nothing whatsoever to do with any ACTUAL cuts in budget services either.

Nice, BC. At least you admi... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Nice, BC. At least you admit that you won't debate, because there's noting anyone can say that would sway your preconcieved notions about the war. And since the link you provided contained the same information as the last one, a 9% INCREASE in the 2008 budget followed by a small dropoff that still leaves the budget higher in 2009, you still haven't provided anything new.

As for your supposed brilliance, "non sequitir" means: "noun
1 An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2 A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it."

Well, see if you can follow this sequence:
1) You guys screamed about VA budget cuts, providing a link to your "proof"
2) We used the numbers and quotes from that link to show how full of shit you are.
3) YOU called our argument "...BS rumors, obsolete and disproven facts..."
4) I called you on it.
5) You had a meltdown and tried to use big words to shout me down.

All of that flows logically from what preceeded it...well, all except your thought process.

My apologies for my previou... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

My apologies for my previous stretched out comment. I must have missed an "end quote" mark. Please delete my streched out version for me. Editor's note: done.

I will use this post to say hello to BC to dropped by to - what did he say to "slum" - with us.

BC, I won't bother to respond to anything you say because you tend to leave as soon as you are challenged on anything.

How is your "9-11 was an inside job" and "Kerry was absolutely correct about Viet Vets committing atrocities" life going?

From Herman ...<block... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

From Herman ...

You make a lot of unsubstantiated allegations against Kofi, which, of course, are ultimately meaningless. He was just the UN Secretary General, he can't singlehandedly solve all the world's problems (especially when no member nation wants to contribute enough troops to Rwanda or elsewhere) and keep the UN completely free of those with criminal intent (just like Bush would be unable to stop a homicidal postman).

I am beginning to wonder if people even read the news websites (ABC,NBC,etc) - or, for that matter, just a regular newspaper - anymore or if some people just GOGGLE "Bush is a criminal" and just quote what they read there.

Earlier someone claimed that there were only two instances of Iraq firing on US and British "flyover" planes in the entire history of that program.

Ramsey Clark wouldn't even agree with that piece of fiction. When Ramsay Clark doesn't even deny it, it is a pretty good guess that you haven't done your homework.

Now, Herman is claiming to have never heard of Darfur or Rwanda or the Oil for Food scandal or peacekeeper rape of children.

KOFI ANNAN, himself, has acknowledged the issue of peacekeeper rape of children - each and every time it has occurred over the history of his "leadership" of the UN.

He hasn't put an end to it, however. He simply moves them to another country to do it all over again.

Since he appointed the commission to investigate the Oil for Food scandal, he isn't denying a problem there either.

To Herman, however, they are "unsubstantiated" claims.

Now, Herman has made an excellent case for the UN being useless. I agree with him that the UN has been unable to do anything to stop the violence and Kofi Annan, in particular, has not provided leadership of that organization.

"You repeated the same "... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"You repeated the same "Has Bush stopped beating his wife?" question at least a dozen times - in various forms - so you hardly claim that you weren't trying to direct the conversation and still expect to be taken seriously."

You're still dodging the question -- just spending more words to say less.

It's really simple, OhioVoter. Bush's budget proposals cut benefits to veterans.

Can you explain why he'd do that?

No, Lee, we've simply caugh... (Below threshold)

No, Lee, we've simply caught you in a lie. You kept saying that Bush HAS CUT funding for VA hospitals, and you've rewritten your accusation to "Bush WILL cut spending several years after he leaves office," and that has been answered as "Bush has proposed spending a LOT more in the next couple of years, then pulling back a little."

Of course, by 2012, according to your little fantasies, the Democrats will have had Congress for six years and the presidency for four, so Bush's projections will be utterly null and void, so what's the big deal?

It's time for you to go run and hide from this discussion, Lee. You've gone way, way beyond embarrassing yourself to mildly amusing laughingstock.

J.

Jay: "You kept saying th... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Jay: "You kept saying that Bush HAS CUT funding for VA hospitals"

Nope, I've said Bush has proposed budget cuts for Veterans' services:

Posted by: Lee at February 20, 2007 01:34 PM
"The Bush administration's budget assumes cuts to veterans' health care two years from now -- even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system."

Posted by: Lee at February 20, 2007 03:25 PM
"Read my lips - Bush's budget proposes to cut the VA budget!"

Posted by: Lee at February 20, 2007 03:40 PM
brainy - read above ref the $16 billion shortfall in Bush's proposed budget

Posted by: Lee at February 20, 2007 05:01 PM
"FACT: Bush's budget proposal would result in a decrease in services to Veterans."

Posted by: Lee at February 20, 2007 08:17 PM
"Now why would Bush propose a budget that cuts Veteran's services?"

Posted by: Lee at February 20, 2007 09:41 PM
"Why did the President propose a budget which reduces services to Veterans, OhioVoter?"

Jay: "Of course, by 2012, according to your little fantasies, the Democrats will have had Congress for six years and the presidency for four, so Bush's projections will be utterly null and void, so what's the big deal?"

No big deal actually - just a simple question.

Why did Bush propose a budget that cuts services to veterans?

Any idea, Jay?

Jay#2 I don't know... (Below threshold)
Fran:

Jay

#2 I don't know if this constitutes the 'main' reason for going to war with Iraq, but it's a lie.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/print/20020826.html

At the 103rd VFW National Convention, Cheney said:
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

same speech:
What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness. We will not simply look away, hope for the best, and leave the matter for some future administration to resolve. As President Bush has said, time is not on our side. Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network, or a murderous dictator, or the two working together, constitutes as grave a threat as can be imagined. The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action.

same speech: (really shows delusional thinking)
Another argument holds that opposing Saddam Hussein would cause even greater troubles in that part of the world, and interfere with the larger war against terror. I believe the opposite is true. Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region. When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace. As for the reaction of the Arab "street," the Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are "sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans."

For a true test of your convictions evaluate this administration as though it were Democratic instead of Republican.

Any discussion that avoids the horrible reality of incompetence is the easy way out. This thread is all about words and how 'what was said counts'. That's true. But actions count more than words.

When you proclaim that this is the most important mission for this generation and then either neglect or ignore results that don't meet your expectations , you risk the future of the country.

Shame on all those who continue to see what is not there.

Hey, Fran? Seems to me I re... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Hey, Fran? Seems to me I remember a certain images of joyous Iraqis tearing down Saddams statue with the help of American GI's. That would seem to indicate that the man was on to something. I don't recall him saying that ALL Iraqis and All Al-Queada members would be thrilled we were there...do you?

By the way, whose thinking are you calling delusional, the Vice President or the expert he was quoting?

As to "For a true test of your convictions evaluate this administration as though it were Democratic instead of Republican," maybe you should heed your own advice. I'll make it easier for you: just justify Clinton bombing Iraq in 98 or Kosovo a few months later in defiance of the UN and explain how that was fine while invading Iraq under UN resolutions and after violations of an international cease-fire agreement was wrong.

And if actions count more than words, explain the actions of the democrats who authorized the war.

"Hey, Fran? Seems to me ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Hey, Fran? Seems to me I remember a certain images of joyous Iraqis tearing down Saddams statue with the help of American GI's. That would seem to indicate that the man was on to something.",?i

Gullible conservatives! That was just a staged photo op - they even hard army welders cutting the statue at the feet so it could fall on cue!

"He took a bit more than I thought he would but in the end he came down," said the welder who had wielded the blowtorch, Specialist Gerry Reichardt, a 23-year-old from Honolulu, Hawaii, as some local people clamored to congratulate him.


brainy435 wrote... (Below threshold)
BC:

brainy435 wrote

Nice, BC. At least you admit that you won't debate, because there's noting anyone can say that would sway your preconcieved notions about the war. And since the link you provided contained the same information as the last one, a 9% INCREASE in the 2008 budget followed by a small dropoff that still leaves the budget higher in 2009, you still haven't provided anything new.

??? How much did your health insurance go up last year? Just 9% or was it perhaps a teeny bit more? If you were suppposedly being compensated for buying health insurance, and your monthly health bill went up, say, 20% but your compensation went up only 9%, would you say your actual "funding" was cut or not?

As for your supposed brilliance, "non sequitir" means: "noun
1 An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2 A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it."

Well, see if you can follow this sequence:
1) You guys screamed about VA budget cuts, providing a link to your "proof"
2) We used the numbers and quotes from that link to show how full of shit you are.
3) YOU called our argument "...BS rumors, obsolete and disproven facts..."
4) I called you on it.
5) You had a meltdown and tried to use big words to shout me down.

All of that flows logically from what preceeded it...well, all except your thought process.

??? What the hell are you babbling about? Read carefully the entire section regarding the VA health care funding from my last link:

Veterans: The budget proposal would reduce funds for health care for veterans by 2% in FY 2009 and would freeze funds at that level from FY 2010 through FY 2012, although the cost of health care for veterans continues to increase, the AP/St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports. The budget proposal would increase funds for health care for veterans by 9% in FY 2008. House Appropriations Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Subcommittee Chair Chet Edwards (D-Texas) said, "Either the administration is willingly proposing massive cuts in VA health care or its promise of a balanced budget by 2012 is based on completely unrealistic assumptions." White House Office of Management and Budget spokesperson Sean Kevelighan said that the proposed reduction and subsequent freeze in funds for health care for veterans "don't reflect any policy decisions." He added, "We'll revisit them when we do the (future) budgets" (AP/St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2/13)

The health care funding does go up for 2008, but then freezes for 2010-2012, resulting in a defacto cut in services related to projected health costs. Even that 9% increase is no where near enough to match even the normal increased costs of health care, nevermind dealing with the burden of all the additional casualites due to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bottom line is that when all is said and done, you can expect more of this in the future.

Did you like that video I had linked to earlier? In case you missed it, make yourself some popcorn, get a soda, and then click here.

Enjoy!

OhioVoter wrote:<i... (Below threshold)
BC:

OhioVoter wrote:

BC, I won't bother to respond to anything you say because you tend to leave as soon as you are challenged on anything.

Sorry, I wasn't aware I was being "challenged," unless your idea of challenging someone is to ignore his or her central arguments and the key points in cited evidence, and just head off into some sort of illogical, fact-free tangent.

Although I am kind of slumming here out of frustration with Google Groups (if I post something long there now, I have to remember to make a backup first because there's a good chance it will never actually post on the first attempt despite a message saying it was posted), I promise to stick around util this thread is done at least. Happy now?

You're doing the same dim-w... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

You're doing the same dim-witted shuffle Lee was doing. You need to decide whether your argument is that you think Bush is cutting THE BUDGET or SERVICES. They require distinct arguments.

Then go and educate yourself about how the budget works. There's the mandatory portion and the discretionary portion, you're only talking about the discretionary part. Both increase, as BChoinski pointed out above: "Overall, the VA budget would rise to $80.6 billion, including $42.1 billion for entitlements, such as disability payments and rehabilitation programs. Officials hope to avoid a repeat of last year, when the VA received $1.2 billion in emergency funding after it had underestimated the number of personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who would seek VA medical treatment" In fact, from the same source: "The Department of Veterans Affairs would see one of the BIGGEST INCREASES in discretionary spending for any agency:..." (emphasis mine)

Added to THAT is the fact mentioned above that this is just what is PROJECTED and more money will be made available if the PROJECTION proves incorrect.

You also need to regognize the difference in the services provided. I have a PRIVATE health-care plan while the VA is GOVERNMENT-RUN. The influences on my healthcare plan are competitive and legislative, not burueocratic.

So actually form a coherent argument, stick to it, and get back to me.

While you're at it, you might want to come up with an explanation for your party's insistance on universal health care if you think it will have no effect on the cost of medical services. If you expect government-provided health care to explode every bit as much as private health care, what's the point?

You have nothing to stand on here.

Lee, man you crack me up. Y... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Lee, man you crack me up. You seriously presented an article by FISK as evidence? Have you never heard the word "fisking?" Where do you suppose that came from?

And, yeah, the GI's had to work to pull it down. Hence the "with the help of American GI's" part. So by your account the Iraqi's were in on it. They stopped their incessant and universal hatred of us for invading their soverign country just to give us a better phot-op? Really?

Brainy: "So by your acco... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Brainy: "So by your account the Iraqi's were in on it. They stopped their incessant and universal hatred of us for invading their soverign country just to give us a better phot-op? Really?"

Really:

The problem is that the images of toppling statues and exulting Iraqis, to which American audiences were repeatedly exposed, obscured a larger reality. A Reuters long-shot photo of Firdos Square showed that it was nearly empty, ringed by U.S. tanks and marines who had moved in to seal off the square before admitting the Iraqis. A BBC photo sequence of the statue's toppling also showed a sparse crowd of approximately 200 people--much smaller than the demonstrations only nine days later, when thousands of Iraqis took to the streets of Baghdad calling for U.S.-led forces to leave the city. Los Angeles Times reporter John Daniszewski, who was on the scene to witness the statue's fall, caught an aspect of the day's events that the other reporters missed. Most Iraqis were indeed glad to see Saddam go, he wrote, but he spoke near the scene with Iraqi businessman Jarrir Abdel-Kerim, who warned that Americans should not be deceived by the images they were seeing.

I've read that account in several places over the years, and I believe it's accurate.

"Most Iraqis were indeed gl... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"Most Iraqis were indeed glad to see Saddam go"

Well, I read that in your comment, and I believe that is true.

I saw the photo you're talking about and it shows the square at some indiscriminate time, and is too fuzzy to make out any details. I also saw the video with people dragging the statue through the streets with Iraqi's chasing it and beating it with their shoes, a grave insult to Arabs. So I'll believe clear video over a crappy, out-of-context photo.

A Reuters long-shot phot... (Below threshold)
cirby:

A Reuters long-shot photo of Firdos Square showed that it was nearly empty,

...because the long shot (actually, several long shots) was taken some time later, as evidenced by the change in shadows compared to the close-in photos.

When the statues was being pulled down, there were enough medium and wide video shots to show the are as being fairly crowded - no mean feat, in the middle of a shooting war.

Fairly crowded you say - go... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Fairly crowded you say - got any back up to that claim?

The reason I ask is that this video of the event proves you're a lying little conservo-monkey, cirby.

You lied the other day about veterans health care costs as well. What's your game, cirby?

But prove me wrong big man. Show us your supporting evidence to your claim that "When the statues was being pulled down, there were enough medium and wide video shots to show the are as being fairly crowded - no mean feat, in the middle of a shooting war."

BY the way -- the shooting was over clown-face. Remember? So tell us again that it was the middle of a shooting war.

Now <a href="http://globalr... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Now watch the video again - and this time ignore the statue and watch the crowd.

There is NO reaction when the statue finally falls. No cheering or clapping - nothing.

It's just one lie after another from the Republican trolls at Wizbang!.

Well, Lee, lets turn to tha... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Well, Lee, lets turn to that lock-step, conservitive source all us evil Repubs turn to when we want to lie about our positions: CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.int.war.main1400/index.html

Money shots:
"Earlier, residents were on the streets in Saddam City, a poor neighborhood on Baghdad's east side, looting and celebrating the apparent end of Saddam's rule"

"Jubilant residents of Baghdad attacked the symbols of Saddam Hussein's 24-year-long iron rule Wednesday as his regime crumbled.

Iraqis danced and waved the country's pre-1991 flag in central Baghdad's Firdos Square after U.S. Marines helped to topple a larger-than-life statue of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein."

"Other residents were on the streets celebrating the apparent end of Saddam's rule, laughing and waving the black Shiite flag."

"A Shiite Muslim leader told a crowd of about 400 people in Saddam City: "The tyrant of the world is finished, thanks to the coalition. Thank God for Iraq, the victorious.

'God is great. Thank God who helped us finish the tyranny,' he added.

One man stood on the sidewalk, pounding his shoe against a large poster of Saddam. "

"The sources said cheering crowds welcomed U.S. Marines with flowers."

"In the northern city of Erbil, Iraqis threw confetti, waved flags and streamers and flashed the "V" sign. Motorists honked their horns, people danced in the street and children cheered as crowds formed an impromptu parade."


Also of note:
"BY the way -- the shooting was over clown-face. Remember?"
by: Lee

"However, a U.S. Marine column moving into Baghdad from the east came under heavy fire at Baghdad University after being greeted by cheering Iraqis earlier in the day.

CNN's Martin Savidge, traveling with the Marines, said the campus was a battlefield, with black smoke rising from several buildings and machine-gun fire ripping past troops and journalists alike.
by: someone who's head is not stuck up his ass

So yeah the shooting war was over...except for that raging firefight 2 block away.

The reason I ask is that... (Below threshold)
cirby:

The reason I ask is that this video of the event proves you're a lying little conservo-monkey, cirby.

Actually, the video just shows the tight shot, which reinforces what I said, and shows that you're a sucker (again) for a Reuters fauxtography scam.

You show us a video with a pretty good crowd, standing around a statue being toppled, then try to pretend it doesn't show a good-sized crowd?

Here's a link to a real phot, shot at the actual time the statue was being toppled, instead of hours later, like the photo you love so much:

The real photo

By the way - your "army welders cutting the statue at the feet" link is of ANOTHER STATUE ENTIRELY, moron. Look at the background and notice the lack of columns, and read the article and notce that it was in a completely different city.

Oh, and one more thing:... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Oh, and one more thing:

There is NO reaction when the statue finally falls. No cheering or clapping - nothing.

Get your sound card fixed. I can hear it on my machine. That's pretty good, since the sound from the square was dialed waaay down so the commenters could talk over it. I can see people pumping their hands in the air (one guy, half--hidden behind the post on the right, is clapping his hands over his head for most of the clip), and whistling and cheering. You can see people throwing things at the toppled statue, and a lot of other reactions.

Another way you can tell the sound is turned down at the studio is that the engine noise from the engineering vehicle is barely noticeable (those suckers are LOUD, and it's a muted rumble at best - they're running at about 10% volume).

There's a big crowd reaction at about 38 seconds in - more of a roar than a cheer - if you can't hear that, you definitely need a new sound card.

brainy435 wrote:<i... (Below threshold)
BC:

brainy435 wrote:

You're doing the same dim-witted shuffle Lee was doing. You need to decide whether your argument is that you think Bush is cutting THE BUDGET or SERVICES. They require distinct arguments.

Then go and educate yourself about how the budget works. There's the mandatory portion and the discretionary portion, you're only talking about the discretionary part. Both increase, as BChoinski pointed out above: "Overall, the VA budget would rise to $80.6 billion, including $42.1 billion for entitlements, such as disability payments and rehabilitation programs. Officials hope to avoid a repeat of last year, when the VA received $1.2 billion in emergency funding after it had underestimated the number of personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who would seek VA medical treatment" In fact, from the same source: "The Department of Veterans Affairs would see one of the BIGGEST INCREASES in discretionary spending for any agency:..." (emphasis mine)

Added to THAT is the fact mentioned above that this is just what is PROJECTED and more money will be made available if the PROJECTION proves incorrect.

I do believe it would be slightly more useful to look at the actual net result and consequences. Government "funding" is usually fluid in that if there is an emergency, more money can usually be coughed up, especially if it would look bad politically to not do so. So in some respects, any projections on VA funding are all hypothetical since a major shortfall can turn around on a dime with serious political complaints and/or a good lurid TV expose. The VA system seems to have a history of quietly deteriorating in between major conflicts, and it appears only to get a boost when there is a war and its problems and inadequacies are then noticed. And that $80.6 billion figure you quoted is for the entire VA system and not just the healthcare part of it.

More enlightening is how people actually involved in the VA system regard funding. Check out this article from Military.com from about a year ago and this pertinent excerpt:

For years veterans have claimed that the healthcare budgets at the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) just didn't make sense. How could the political appointees who run the VA claim, year after year, that their budget was adequate while hundreds of thousands of veterans were routinely denied access to the system or made to wait months or years for necessary healthcare?

Now, we have an answer. And, the veterans were right. The VA's healthcare budget didn't make sense because VA officials, for at least the last four years, have been cooking the books.

In simple form it worked like this:

1. VA officials knew they needed a certain amount of funding to provide adequate healthcare for veterans.
2. VA officials knew that the President had already set a dollar amount for VA healthcare that was much lower than the VA needed.
3. So, VA officials cooked the books to lower their budget requests while making it look like they had adequate funding.

After a lengthy audit of the VA's books, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a report showing that VA officials bowed to political pressure from the President and lowered their budget requests for fiscal years 2003 to 2006.

Hmmm, now who was President from 2003 to 2006....

This is a link to the GAO summary.

With all that said, a budget is still a budget and at the least shows where your concerns are if nothing else. And by all accounts, the projected funding shortchanges the VA over the next several years as it did in the recent past.

You also need to regognize the difference in the services provided. I have a PRIVATE health-care plan while the VA is GOVERNMENT-RUN. The influences on my healthcare plan are competitive and legislative, not bureaucratic.

So if your private healthcare costs are "competitive" and are still skyrocketing, then what are we to say about the costs in the VA bureaucratic system? Well, the Congressional Budget Office issued a detailed report in 2005 about all this with these projections going into 2025.

But their bottom line (literally) is: "High anticipated growth in medical costs for the entire economy will play an important role in driving VA's future medical costs regardless of the behavior of lower-priority veterans. But if VA's appropriated budget does not grow at a rate consistent with health care cost growth, or if large numbers of currently unenrolled veterans decide to turn to VA for care, VA could again confront the decision of whether to freeze enrollment or to disenroll veterans who are currently using care within the VA system."

So actually form a coherent argument, stick to it, and get back to me.

Ummm...best evidence, as I have shown, is that Bush shortchanged the VA in the past and is doing so again?

While you're at it, you might want to come up with an explanation for your party's insistance on universal health care if you think it will have no effect on the cost of medical services. If you expect government-provided health care to explode every bit as much as private health care, what's the point?

This is probably not the best thread for this, but this insane escalation of healthcare cost is a direct result of the same market forces that conservatives think are a cure all for everything. Go back to basic economics and the "Price Elasticity of Demand." A farmer selling his corn is in a highly elastic situation -- if he tries to sell corn at even a slightly higher price that the going market rate, and there's nothing all that special about it, he would end up with a very steep falloff in sales if there is no overall shortage of corn. A doctor selling his medical services, though, is in an opposite, highly inelastic situation because he could raise his rates substantially since his customers are often in need at that moment and are not likely going to risk further health issues by shopping around, especially since exact health care costs are usually very difficult to figure out in advance and making quick comparison shopping nearly impossible.

Healthcare costs use to be contained, though, by the simple, long-standing traditions inherent in the medical profession, going back even futher than the Hippocratic Oath. Being greedy was not one of the traditions -- until recently. The drug company's vast wealth and the often dubious nature of how they fund "studies" along with the insurance and paperwork chaos caused by chronic lawsuits are apparently ruining the medical system, with a not so small side effect of removing self-imposed restraints on what to charge patients. Some minor little 15 minute procedure that should cost no more than $50 in a sane system now likely costs instead 10-20x that.

As it stands, only a smart, universal healthcare system is likely going to put a stop to this ever rapidly growing mess. If you vastly simplify the paperwork, implement quick payment turnarounds, systematially monitor and weed out substandard care, rate and chart the true effectiveness all treatments, and set proper rules for liability and penalize frivalous lawsuits, and just overall make it easy for doctors, nurses and everyone else wanting to work in the medical profession to focus on their work and profession, things will very probably take care of themselves. But I'm just a troll, so what do I know?

You have nothing to stand on here.

Aside from logic and facts?

"I do believe it would be s... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"I do believe it would be slightly more useful to look at the actual net result and consequences"

So you've changed your argument from one that is budget-related to one that is care-related. At least you finally, sort of make that clear.

So now you can ignore all the evidence about Bush INCREASING the budget for the VA, because, well, it just doesn't matter because the care of the soldiers will suffer. As if you cared about the soldiers and not solely about stabing the President in the back.

It's funny how you think government should be able to wave a magic wand and come up with the money to spend away all of lifes problems. It doesn't happen. the fact of the matter is this President has sharply increased the budget of the VA over his Presidency...seperate from the emergency money given to cover any shortfalls that the GAO summary says came from poor data and bad forecasts...neither of which are unexpected from a government-run agency. You actually linked to the proof of this in your CBO projections link. Look at figure 2: There is a flat budget pretty much throughout the 90's, a small uptick around 2000 than the budget increases almost 50% from 2001-present. So to repeat your question: "Hmmm, now who was President from 2003 to 2006...."

Add in too this tidbit from the fact-check.org article: "The administration also has proposed to make the VA's prescription drug benefit less generous. Currently many veterans pay $7 for each one-month supply of medication. The administration proposes to increase that to $15, and require a $250 annual fee as well. Congress rejected a similar proposal last year. The proposal wouldn't affect those -- such as veterans with a disability rated at 50% or more -- who currently aren't required to make any co-payments"
So Bush writes a budget that reduces costs and allows for potentially billions of additional revenue from the "rich" as well. Then congress cuts all of that out and whines about not having money. Typical. And typical that you would not get it.

Your argument on elasticity of demand is absurd. It has absolutely no bearing regarding a case of an insured patient, which is the condition you were arguing. Additionally, I have NEVER known government to simplify ANYTHING. We have government institutions that are supposed to monitor for substandard care. If they don't work, how can you seriously propose that more government programs will correct failed government programs?

We do agree in one regard, however.

You are a troll.

brainy435 wrote:"I... (Below threshold)
BC:

brainy435 wrote:

"I do believe it would be slightly more useful to look at the actual net result and consequences"

So you've changed your argument from one that is budget-related to one that is care-related. At least you finally, sort of make that clear.

Ummm, I did no such thing. I simply looked at the funding issue in terms of what would atually be the result of what's being proposed, which is really the thing that ultimately matters.

So now you can ignore all the evidence about Bush INCREASING the budget for the VA, because, well, it just doesn't matter because the care of the soldiers will suffer. As if you cared about the soldiers and not solely about stabbing the President in the back.

??? Ummm, you don't seem to following matters too closely -- I had already cited sources showing that the VA budget is being cut 2010-2012 after an mild increase in 2009 that doesn't even match the projected increase in health costs for that year. What part are you not understanding?

It's funny how you think government should be able to wave a magic wand and come up with the money to spend away all of lifes problems..... Blah, blah, blah, BS mischaracterizing of my points snipped.

Add in too this tidbit from the fact-check.org article: "The administration also has proposed to make the VA's prescription drug benefit less generous...."

A 2004 article utterly irrelevant to budget timeline under discussion. And apparently not that accurate when you consider what that Military.com cite showed.

Currently many veterans pay $7 for each one-month supply of medication. The administration proposes to increase that to $15, and require a $250 annual fee as well. Congress rejected a similar proposal last year. The proposal wouldn't affect those -- such as veterans with a disability rated at 50% or more -- who currently aren't required to make any co-payments" So Bush writes a budget that reduces costs and allows for potentially billions of additional revenue from the "rich" as well. Then congress cuts all of that out and whines about not having money. Typical. And typical that you would not get it.

We're talking about the overall budget for VA medical care, not prescrition drugs. We're looking at -- or were looking at -- the big picture for the next several years.

Your argument on elasticity of demand is absurd. It has absolutely no bearing regarding a case of an insured patient, which is the condition you were arguing.

Were you the one or not who asked, "While you're at it, you might want to come up with an explanation for your party's insistance on universal health care if you think it will have no effect on the cost of medical services. If you expect government-provided health care to explode every bit as much as private health care, what's the point?"

I merely went the extra distance to explain a key and fundamental infrastructural issue behind skyrocketing healthcare costs that only universal care at this point might mitigate at least.

Additionally, I have NEVER known government to simplify ANYTHING. We have government institutions that are supposed to monitor for substandard care. If they don't work, how can you seriously propose that more government programs will correct failed government programs?

Because in this case, the healthcare system has become such a dysfunctional mess that would not be allowed in even an extremely inefficient government agency. I have a musician friend who was run over by a car a few years ago and while she looks fine and has pretty much fully recovered, she still has lingering issues, most especially with her knees and an occasional stiff neck. She finally got health insurance and then dropped it after only a month because she got nailed for a strep throat culture that wasn't covered under an office visit and distainful treatment by two doctors who wouldn't examine her after her telling them about the auto accident -- they both assumed there was a lawyer involved and that they wouldn't be paid. (another friend advised her to never tell a doctor about a prior accident because that behavior is common.) WTF! No wonder the US consistently ranks near the bottom in healthcare services among the industrialized countries.

We do agree in one regard, however.

You are a troll.

At least I'm honest -- unlike you and that "brainy" tag. Might I suggest you consider changing it to something like Nocluhere, Tangent-elman, MrBS, MsRepresent, etc?

??? Ummm, you don'... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:
??? Ummm, you don't seem to following matters too closely -- I had already cited sources showing that the VA budget is being cut 2010-2012 after an mild increase in 2009 that doesn't even match the projected increase in health costs for that year. What part are you not understanding?

Your exact words here are:

"I have already cited sources showing that the VA budget is being cut in 2010-2012 ...."

Ummm, no you didn't. NOT. ONE. TIME.

You have provided absolutely no back up that says the VA Budget is being cut 2010-2012.

The fact that you claim that you did displays an appalling lack of knowledge on your part about how the US government works first and, second, is a misrepresentation of the information that you did provide.

As to your explanation of how health care can be changed in your earlier post ...

As it stands, only a smart, universal healthcare system is likely going to put a stop to this ever rapidly growing mess. If you vastly simplify the paperwork, implement quick payment turnarounds, systematially monitor and weed out substandard care, rate and chart the true effectiveness all treatments, and set proper rules for liability and penalize frivalous lawsuits, and just overall make it easy for doctors, nurses and everyone else wanting to work in the medical profession to focus on their work and profession, things will very probably take care of themselves.

READ. THE. CONSTITUTION.

Slaves were freed a long time ago.

Your plan depends on health care professionals working for wages arbitrarily set by someone else with a vested interest in keeping those wages low. Given the huge investment in training and expense that he average health care worker - let alone a doctor with a speciality - undergoes, it is beyond ludicrous to say that they would gleefully work for whatever pittance the rest of us are willing to give them. Even Canadians, who like their health care system, will admit that the lack of medical personell willing to work within that's system's framework is one of its biggest problems.

As for your expectation that trial lawyers will be so easily tamed ..... LOL!

Call John Edwards, get his response to that, and get back to us.

"??? Ummm, you don't seem t... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"??? Ummm, you don't seem to following matters too closely -- I had already cited sources showing that the VA budget is being cut 2010-2012 after an mild increase in 2009 that doesn't even match the projected increase in health costs for that year. What part are you not understanding?"

Now you're back to debating the BUDGET. So much for "form a coherent argument, stick to it, and get back to me." Oh, but: "So you've changed your argument from one that is budget-related to one that is care-related. At least you finally, sort of make that clear.

Ummm, I did no such thing. "

You're right, you didn't make it sort of clear after all. You intimated you had moved your argument to debating the level of CARE provided, then jumped right back to debating the BUDGET. And you even got that wrong. I wouldn't consider a 9% jump in funds "mild," retard.

"It's funny how you think government should be able to wave a magic wand and come up with the money to spend away all of lifes problems..... Blah, blah, blah, BS mischaracterizing of my points snipped."

I'd like you to explain how this statement isn't apt since you are deriding an administration that continually provides well-above-average increases for the VA budget for not funding the VA.

I'm somewhat mystified by your segue from the fact that buerocracies are inefficient to rambling about an improbable story of doctor misbehavior. I can't figure out if your point is that private healthcare sucks because you would expect someone NOT to have lingering isses after being reconfigured by a 3000+ lb vehicle or if you just wanted to confuse the issue by (almost assuredly) misrepresenting the tale of your friends personal tragedy for your own selfish, perceived gain.

As for your article on the rankings of health care, note this from the criteria they used when ranking countries: "and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)."

So, yes, I'd EXPECT us to be near the bottom of a poll that ranks socialist medical systems. Duh. It's funny how people in those supposed medical utopias come crying to the U.S. when they need important surgeries.

"Might I suggest you consider changing it to something like Nocluhere, Tangent-elman, MrBS, MsRepresent, etc?"

Ah, yes, the liberal way to raise the level of debate. Desperation does not suit you.

OhioVoter ranted:... (Below threshold)
BC:

OhioVoter ranted:

"??? Ummm, you don't seem to following matters too closely -- I had already cited sources showing that the VA budget is being cut 2010-2012 after an mild increase in 2009 that doesn't even match the projected increase in health costs for that year. What part are you not understanding?"

Your exact words here are:

"I have already cited sources showing that the VA budget is being cut in 2010-2012 ...."

Ummm, no you didn't. NOT. ONE. TIME.

You have provided absolutely no back up that says the VA Budget is being cut 2010-2012.

WTF?!? Oh I see, my bad -- I didn't include the term "defacto": if someone is supposedly funding your medical costs but then freezes payments for 3 years in the face of rising medical expenses that average, oh say, 20% per year, that is a defacto budget cut of 20% per year.

Now go upthread a little and you will find this in a prior post of mine, which I'm just going to copy and paste:

?? What the hell are you babbling about? Read carefully the entire section regarding the VA health care funding from my link:

Veterans: The budget proposal would reduce funds for health care for veterans by 2% in FY 2009 and would freeze funds at that level from FY 2010 through FY 2012, although the cost of health care for veterans continues to increase, the AP/St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports. The budget proposal would increase funds for health care for veterans by 9% in FY 2008. House Appropriations Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Subcommittee Chair Chet Edwards (D-Texas) said, "Either the administration is willingly proposing massive cuts in VA health care or its promise of a balanced budget by 2012 is based on completely unrealistic assumptions." White House Office of Management and Budget spokesperson Sean Kevelighan said that the proposed reduction and subsequent freeze in funds for health care for veterans "don't reflect any policy decisions." He added, "We'll revisit them when we do the (future) budgets" (AP/St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2/13)

The fact that you claim that you did displays an appalling lack of knowledge on your part about how the US government works first and, second, is a misrepresentation of the information that you did provide.

Did you perchance ingest some of the test tube stuff Bush is holding up in the current Friday caption contest? As I also said earlier, "The bottom line is that when all is said and done, you can expect more of this in the future."

But even I have little patience with blatent dumbassness and won't even bother with your truly bizarre "linking" of slavery to my idea of letting doctors and nurses focus on being doctors and nurses. Gawd....

WTF?!? Oh I see, my bad -- ... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

WTF?!? Oh I see, my bad -- I didn't include the term "defacto": if someone is supposedly funding your medical costs but then freezes payments for 3 years in the face of rising medical expenses that average, oh say, 20% per year, that is a defacto budget cut of 20% per year.

This is the most assenine economics comment I may have ever seen. It goes back to the fact that you are incapable of distinguishing a BUDGET matter from a SERVICES matter. You may have had some small grounding in fact to say it was a defacto cut in SERVICES, but that's not what you claimed. I've tried to explain the difference to you for a few days now: You're obviously too stupid or dishonest to learn anything here.

brainy435 wrote:<i... (Below threshold)
BC:

brainy435 wrote:

??? Ummm, you don't seem to following matters too closely -- I had already cited sources showing that the VA budget is being cut 2010-2012 after an mild increase in 2009 that doesn't even match the projected increase in health costs for that year. What part are you not understanding?"

Now you're back to debating the BUDGET. So much for "form a coherent argument, stick to it, and get back to me." Oh, but: "So you've changed your argument from one that is budget-related to one that is care-related. At least you finally, sort of make that clear.

Ummm, I did no such thing. "

You're right, you didn't make it sort of clear after all. You intimated you had moved your argument to debating the level of CARE provided, then jumped right back to debating the BUDGET. And you even got that wrong. I wouldn't consider a 9% jump in funds "mild," retard.

Is Saturday "Crystal Meth Day" here in pale blue Wizbangland? I have no idea what is up with your babbling post and that from Ohiovoter. Seriously. And this Blogger format blows in terms of being able to debate on points and respond directly to individual rants and posts, even if it is giving my HTML coding skills some practice (Google is supposedly looking into my complaints about Google Groups. After this nonsense, Usenet will seem full of geniuses.)

Let's just drop all the tangental and/or nonsensical BS for a second, shall we? The initial "challenge" by Jay Tea involved three points:

1) To those who say the war in Iraq is "illegal." Please cite the specific laws and/or Constitutional sections being violated.

2) To those who say that the Bush's main justification for the invasion of Iraq was because Saddam possessed WMDs: please cite sources. (This one is going to be tough, because I've already done the opposite a while ago.)

3) To those decrying the budget cuts at the Veterans' Administration hospitals: please cite budget figures -- both those proposed by the Bush administration, and those eventually passed by Congress. (shamelessly stolen from ohiovoter).

The last point seems to be the sticky one now. As best as can be determined, the current budget proposal increase VA health care funding by 9% for 2008, then cuts it 2% for FY 2009 and freezes it at that level for the following years 2010-2012. That info is from this link.

Are we following things so far? Anybody need to take a bathroom break, get some water, or such? Is everyone at least agreeing on the numbers being used? Even I left off referring to that 2009 cut in some of my past posts. Now look at any projections of overall healthcare costs for the next several years, like this one, and it should be obvious to even the most drug-addled fool that the budget proposal as it now stands will royally screw over the VA in terms of healthcare funding, especially the face of continuing casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether the VA hospitals will be allowed to deteriorate with such underfunding is another matter, though, since I had also pointed out earlier, "any projections on VA funding are all hypothetical since a major shortfall can turn around on a dime with serious political complaints and/or a good lurid TV expose."

OK, are we all finally on the same page now? Whether you want to call that 2010-12 freeze a budget cut or not depends on whether not you consider providing insufficient funding to match increasing costs is a defacto budget cut or not. But if you simply combine 2009 with 2010-12 as one range of dates, then you have an explicit budget cut because 2009's 2% cut is carried through those following years.

And at this point, if you want to wipe the oatmeal from your face and still claim there is no budget cut, then fine. Go turn on and watch TV Land for the rest of the day.

The trolls are parsing word... (Below threshold)
Lee:

The trolls are parsing words to avoid the real question.The fact is that budget proposed by Bush doesn't keep pace with the increasing cost of health care for veterans. Bush's budget numbers will result in a decrease in services to veterans. As you can see fomr their coments above, they are just too damned dishonest to admit it.

The truth:

After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly -- by more than 10 percent in many years -- White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.

The cutback in 2009 is a cut. Period.

The cutback in 2010 is cut. Period.

The cut is maintained in 2011 and 2012 by a freeze. Period.

The budget figures proposed by Bush for the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 are less than the 2008 budget. Period

The trolls are parsing w... (Below threshold)
cirby:

The trolls are parsing words to avoid the real question.

You mean like the one who was so completely adamant that a bit of Reuters fauxtography was documenting some sort of truth (while talking about about the crowds around a certain statue or two), but who was shown to be completely, irrevocably wrong by photos shot during the correct time period, as opposed to the ones taken some hours after the event in question?

Or were you referring to the one who was talking about absolute budget cuts, but who started shifting goalposts to "relative" ones just as soon as he was also shown to be wrong?

Yeah, that's a heckuva troll, there.

BC ......... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

BC ....

....even if it is giving my HTML coding skills some practice..

What coding skills?

Most of what you claimed I "ranted", not only did I never say it, but much of it was acutally what YOU said.

If you want to quote someone, type blockquote and bracket it with ... well, if you have coding skills, you know what to bracket it with. Then do the same - with the addition of a / - to end the quote.

But even I have little patience with blatent dumbassness and won't even bother with your truly bizarre "linking" of slavery to my idea of letting doctors and nurses focus on being doctors and nurses.

I see that you are embarrassed at the fact that I pointed out one of the errors in your previous "solution" to the health care issue for all to see.

You claimed in your "solution" to the health care issue that all would be well if doctors and nurses had no control over their own incomes. Now, unless your are volunteering that every person has their wages controlled by the government, you are singling out two groups of people and arbitrarily denying them the liberties available to everyone else.

That's a form of slavery.

(Google is supposedly looking into my complaints about Google Groups. After this nonsense, Usenet will seem full of geniuses.)

Oh, I see that you are getting ready to hide again. It must be getting too hot for you in this discussion.

BTW, BC.....I do g... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

BTW, BC.....

I do give you credit for having the guts to admit that you lied earlier when you claimed that the VA budget would be cut in 2010-2012.

Now, please explain to all of us how the budget was already confirmed and approved when the President who will propose it and the Congress who must approve it have not been elected yet.

If you can't, then you have lied again.

If there is no 2010-2012 VA budget, then

..that is a defacto budget cut of 20% per year.

... cannot be true.

As you can see fom... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:
As you can see fomr their coments above, they are just too damned dishonest to admit it.

Hi, Lee...

What did you personally do this week to directly benefit an active duty or retired member of the US military?

OhioVoter took more of that... (Below threshold)
BC:

OhioVoter took more of that test tube brown liquid and wrote:

BTW, BC.....

I do give you credit for having the guts to admit that you lied earlier when you claimed that the VA budget would be cut in 2010-2012.

I did that? Really? Let me me check....hmmm...no, apparently I didn't. I guess my last little detailed post went Zoom-zoom-zoom over your smearing, lying ass talking stump you call a head. I tried to be polite, I took time consuming care in trying to post extensively and fully, with lots of cites and in-context quotes, and you all you can do at the end, when you are backed into a corner and showed up as the factless, lying clown that you are, is to go Republican and just make up crackheaded BS willy-nilly, especially in regards to what I supposedly said. Screw you and your little screwball land of malicious make believe.

The VA budget gets a raise in 2008 and then an explicit cut in 2009. Now the source I was using has it then freezing from 2010-2012, which would amount to a defacto budget cut in relation to costs, but other AP-based cites have the cuts as being consecutive 2009-10 with a freeze at 2010-12. What part of this are you having a problem with, aside from showing up your claims as being idiotic?

And you wrote this little jewel in another post:

You claimed in your "solution" to the health care issue that all would be well if doctors and nurses had no control over their own incomes. Now, unless your are volunteering that every person has their wages controlled by the government, you are singling out two groups of people and arbitrarily denying them the liberties available to everyone else.

That's a form of slavery.

Is that what I "claimed," eh? Then please go point that out in what I had actually posted:
As it stands, only a smart, universal healthcare system is likely going to put a stop to this ever rapidly growing mess. If you vastly simplify the paperwork, implement quick payment turnarounds, systematically monitor and weed out substandard care, rate and chart the true effectiveness all treatments, and set proper rules for liability and penalize frivolous lawsuits, and just overall make it easy for doctors, nurses and everyone else wanting to work in the medical profession to focus on their work and profession, things will very probably take care of themselves.

Now my question to you is why you felt compelled to maliciously lie like this? Seriously. Is this something you learned in Neo-con school or what? Take all the time you need to reply coherently.

BC: "But if you simply comb... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

BC: "But if you simply combine 2009 with 2010-12 as one range of dates, then you have an explicit budget cut because 2009's 2% cut is carried through those following years."

Fine, I buy that. That makes sense. However I need to redo you math. See, the budget covers 2007-2012, not 2009-2012. So the effect of your argument is that the budget gives an increase of 7%. So it INCREASES over the whole budget.

So by your own logic we have a budget increase. Thanks for finally figuring that out.

brainy435 tried to be cleve... (Below threshold)
BC:

brainy435 tried to be clever and wrote:

BC: "But if you simply combine 2009 with 2010-12 as one range of dates, then you have an explicit budget cut because 2009's 2% cut is carried through those following years."

Fine, I buy that. That makes sense. However I need to redo you math. See, the budget covers 2007-2012, not 2009-2012. So the effect of your argument is that the budget gives an increase of 7%. So it INCREASES over the whole budget.

So by your own logic we have a budget increase. Thanks for finally figuring that out.

Ya think? Let's say I give you $91 in May towards medical expenses of $91, and then give you $100 the next month, June, towards medical expenses that increased to $101. But then I only give you $98 for each of the next 4 months, July-October, while medical expenses went up on average $10 for each succeeding month, would you say I really shortchanged you on: 1) July; 2) July-October; 3) June-October; 4) none of the above; or 5) I don't understand?

BC's DIRECT QUOTE</p... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

BC's DIRECT QUOTE

I had already cited sources showing that the VA budget is being cut 2010-2012 after an mild increase in 2009 that doesn't even match the projected increase in health costs for that year.

After being challenged to produce proof of a BUDGET CUT in 2010-2012, BC admits the following:

Oh I see, my bad -- I didn't include the term "defacto": if someone is supposedly funding your medical costs but then freezes payments for 3 years in the face of rising medical expenses that average, oh say, 20% per year, that is a defacto budget cut of 20% per year.

That, of course, shows that he isn't talking about a budget cut as he had claimed he had proved to be true in the earlier comment, but a cut in services - which is, of course, something very different.

Then I challenged him to prove the budget is complete and final - which is the only way that you can say that there will be a cut in services 6 years from now with any honesty.

He responded:

I did that? Really? Let me me check....hmmm...no, apparently I didn't. I guess my last little detailed post went Zoom-zoom-zoom over your smearing, lying ass talking stump you call a head. I tried to be polite, I took time consuming care in trying to post extensively and fully, with lots of cites and in-context quotes, and you all you can do at the end, when you are backed into a corner and showed up as the factless, lying clown that you are, is to go Republican and just make up crackheaded BS willy-nilly, especially in regards to what I supposedly said. Screw you and your little screwball land of malicious make believe.

So, now he is claiming that he DID NOT SAY the quote that included the word "defacto".

And he says that I'm the one living in the world of make believe?

Then he said:

Is that what I "claimed," eh? Then please go point that out in what I had actually posted: ......

Now my question to you is why you felt compelled to maliciously lie like this? Seriously. Is this something you learned in Neo-con school or what? Take all the time you need to reply coherently.

Maybe something in the earlier part of the same post - a paragraph that he "forgot" to quote - taken with the paragraph that he did...

Healthcare costs use to be contained, though, by the simple, long-standing traditions inherent in the medical profession, going back even futher than the Hippocratic Oath. Being greedy was not one of the traditions -- until recently. The drug company's vast wealth and the often dubious nature of how they fund "studies" along with the insurance and paperwork chaos caused by chronic lawsuits are apparently ruining the medical system, with a not so small side effect of removing self-imposed restraints on what to charge patients. Some minor little 15 minute procedure that should cost no more than $50 in a sane system now likely costs instead 10-20x that.

and

As it stands, only a smart, universal healthcare system is likely going to put a stop to this ever rapidly growing mess. If you vastly simplify the paperwork, implement quick payment turnarounds, systematically monitor and weed out substandard care, rate and chart the true effectiveness all treatments,set proper rules for liability and penalize frivolous lawsuits, and just overall make it easy for doctors, nurses and everyone else wanting to work in the medical profession to focus on their work and profession, things will very probably take care of themselves.

BC, if you aren't willing to stand by the words that you write, then what do you stand for?

Blaming others for taking you at your word is not only troll-like behavior, but extremely juvenile troll-like behavior. Save your tantrums for someone else.

"Let's say I give you $91 i... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"Let's say I give you $91 in May towards medical expenses of $91, and then give you $100 the next month, June, towards medical expenses that increased to $101. But then I only give you $98 for each of the next 4 months, July-October, while medical expenses went up on average $10 for each succeeding month, would you say I really shortchanged you on: 1) July; 2) July-October; 3) June-October; 4) none of the above; or 5) I don't understand?"

I'd choose 6) I have a $98 B-U-D-G-E-T in October, which is (Quick math, 98-95=3) $3 more than my B-U-D-G-E-T for May. My B-U-D-G-E-T INCREASED from May to October. That INCREASED B-U-D-G-E-T now buys me less S-E-R-V-I-C-E. Life sucks all over. You can't just throw money at problems and hope they go away. Which is why the fact-check.org link is relevent: It shows Bush has been trying to decrease C-O-S-T-S, which when combined with a higher B-U-D-G-E-T gets you more S-E-R-V-I-C-E, since at least 2004. Then Congress kneecaps his savings plans, so it looks like he short-changed the VA. Than retards like you get on your high-horse about an issue you otherwise wouldn't care 2 shits about. WHICH WAS THE POINT OF STRIPPING IT OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Let me ask you: You get an automatic raise in allowance from your parents every time the cost of your nap-time snack goes up? No? Why do your EVIL parents HATE you?

Wait a minute. After trying to drive simple math into your head for the last few days, that question is FAR to easy to answer.....

OhioVoter came back with hi... (Below threshold)
BC:

OhioVoter came back with his tail between his legs and wrote:

BC's DIRECT QUOTE

"I had already cited sources showing that the VA budget is being cut 2010-2012 after an mild increase in 2009 that doesn't even match the projected increase in health costs for that year."


After being challenged to produce proof of a BUDGET CUT in 2010-2012, BC admits the following:

"Oh I see, my bad -- I didn't include the term "defacto": if someone is supposedly funding your medical costs but then freezes payments for 3 years in the face of rising medical expenses that average, oh say, 20% per year, that is a defacto budget cut of 20% per year."

That, of course, shows that he isn't talking about a budget cut as he had claimed he had proved to be true in the earlier comment, but a cut in services - which is, of course, something very different.

Listen you dumbass cretin -- you accused me of lying and then claimed I admitted to lying -- if this was Usenet, you'd be my bitch now for those bits of blatent, lying ass BS. Also in Usenet when someone focuses on typos to try to make points, that's a defacto admission of defeat. The format here makes threaded debates awkward so I'm constantly copying and pasting and then sticking in HTML code to try to separate out quotes, cited text, and make links graceful, hence leading to broken text and typos. As I said in a prior post, I left off "defacto," which I had indeed used earlier (go look back at my responses to brainy435), and had I also mixed up 2008 with 2009 -- 2008 had the increase and 2009 the decrease, with 2010-12 the freeze. But the full cite excerpt I kept including had the correct info right there, and which you kept ignoring. All of this I addressed in a follow-up post which are you're now again completely ignoring.

Pack it up. You lost the debate (for what it was) by deliberately lying about what I said and then by focussing on minor typos even after they were addressed. You also parsed out bits out from the overall thread completely out of context to suit your purposes to attack me rather than actually debate anything. You're just a Rovian clown and poster boy for why so many women won't date Republicans. There isn't a single good reason why I should bother with you any further.

BC, You really are... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

BC,

You really are 12 years old, aren't you?

The format here makes threaded debates awkward so I'm constantly copying and pasting and then sticking in HTML code to try to separate out quotes, cited text, and make links graceful, hence leading to broken text and typos.

And, yet, oddly, you seem to be the only having the problem.

If you weren't so sure of your "absolute rightness" on every subject, you could have simply used the "Search" function on this site to find out the simple way of handling what you seem to be finding so difficult to do. I can understand why you may not want to do that, however - you wouldn't be able to use the format as excuse for being unable to support your premise.

Brainy and I understand what you are saying. That's why you are mad at us - we know that you are spouting malarky and aren't letting you get away with it.

I may, however, have to go and check out Usernet. Are 12 year olds really hanging out on Usernet and claiming that others are their "bitches"? I haven't laughed that hard in a long time.


brainy435 wrote:<i... (Below threshold)
BC:

brainy435 wrote:

"Let's say I give you $91 in May towards medical expenses of $91, and then give you $100 the next month, June, towards medical expenses that increased to $101. But then I only give you $98 for each of the next 4 months, July-October, while medical expenses went up on average $10 for each succeeding month, would you say I really shortchanged you on: 1) July; 2) July-October; 3) June-October; 4) none of the above; or 5) I don't understand?"

I'd choose 6) I have a $98 B-U-D-G-E-T in October, which is (Quick math, 98-95=3) $3 more than my B-U-D-G-E-T for May. My B-U-D-G-E-T INCREASED from May to October. That INCREASED B-U-D-G-E-T now buys me less S-E-R-V-I-C-E. Life sucks all over. You can't just throw money at problems and hope they go away. Which is why the fact-check.org link is relevent: It shows Bush has been trying to decrease C-O-S-T-S, which when combined with a higher B-U-D-G-E-T gets you more S-E-R-V-I-C-E, since at least 2004. Then Congress kneecaps his savings plans, so it looks like he short-changed the VA. Than retards like you get on your high-horse about an issue you otherwise wouldn't care 2 shits about. WHICH WAS THE POINT OF STRIPPING IT OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Well, I grant that you are bit less annoying than that crackheaded, lying-ass OhioVoter (are people like him why Ohio pulled a Florida during the last Presidential election?). The bottom line, though, however you want to spin it, and which you're apparently are grudgingly admitting to, is that the VA will be shortchanged by the budget in regards to healthcare funding for the next several years. Resulting in less "Ess Eee Are Vee Eye See Eee" for a new round of injured veterans, courtesy of Bush's history of acting like OhioVoter.

Let me ask you: You get an automatic raise in allowance from your parents every time the cost of your nap-time snack goes up? No? Why do your EVIL parents HATE you?

Hmmm....how about if I rephrase that question to something slightly more relevant: "Do you or should you get an automatic raise in funding from the government to match the rising rehab costs associated with massive injuries, including maybe losing a limb or an eye, resulting from you being sent to Iraq and believing that you were killing and were risking being killed in a war your President told you was for the safety and security of the United States, as well as for the liberation of the Iraqi people?

Well, do you? And does this all mean that your EVIL President HATES you?

BC, Let's review s... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

BC,

Let's review some of your factual errors.

First, Bush will not be president in 2012. When you run back to Google, check the word "Constitution" - it will explain why.

Second, Congress, not the President approves the budget. Again, go to Google and input "Separation of Powers". Then ask someone to explain to you.

Third, the 2012 budget will be approved by the 2012 Congress - which hasn't been elected yet. Again, if you Google "Congress", you will find that there will be a Congressional election before that Congressional election.

Fourth, a budget projection freeze is not a budget "cut" - no matter how many times that you claim it is.

Fifth, a budget freeze can result in a cut in SERVICES - but that is not what has been discussed in this thread - again, no matter how many times you claim that it is or how long you hold your breath.

So, what have you proven so far?

If the Congress responsible for the 2012 budget chooses to freeze VA expenditures, your can accuse the next President of the US (who, by law, WON'T BE George Bush) of cutting services to the wounded soldiers.

Wow ... what a devastating indictment of President Bush. He will have absolutely nothing to do with it.

And, BTW ....

Sixth, go back to Google and input the "Electoral College". That will explain the 2000 election.

Seventh, go back to Google and input Franklin County and Cuyahoga County. You just implied Democrats are guilty of some type of election fraud.

Eighth, why didn't you mention the 2006 election?

Or does do you only cry "election fraud" when you lose?

Now, don't stay up too late doing the homework I assigned to you.

"Hmmm....how about if I rep... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"Hmmm....how about if I rephrase that question to something slightly more relevant: "Do you or should you get an automatic raise in funding from the government to match the rising rehab costs associated with massive injuries, including maybe losing a limb or an eye, resulting from you being sent to Iraq and believing that you were killing and were risking being killed in a war your President told you was for the safety and security of the United States, as well as for the liberation of the Iraqi people?Well, do you? And does this all mean that your EVIL President HATES you?"


Damn you make me want to slap whoever was responsible for your lack of reading comprehension skills. You even COPIED the part that makes your argument bullshit: "You can't just throw money at problems and hope they go away. Which is why the fact-check.org link is relevent: It shows Bush has been trying to decrease C-O-S-T-S, which when combined with a higher B-U-D-G-E-T gets you more S-E-R-V-I-C-E, since at least 2004. Then Congress kneecaps his savings plans, so it looks like he short-changed the VA. Than retards like you get on your high-horse about an issue you otherwise wouldn't care 2 shits about. WHICH WAS THE POINT OF STRIPPING IT OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE."

The budget Bush PROPOSED planned on reduced costs to go with their increased budget. CONGRESS, who is responsible for APPROVING said budget won't let the cost saving measures pass. So the president wants to increase care, but CONGRESS won't let him...then CONGRESS and their trolls bitch about Bush hating the troops. Ignoring the fact that the man spends like a drunken sailor....which, you know, I WAS...when it comes to the troops.

OhioVoter and Brainy345 bot... (Below threshold)
BC:

OhioVoter and Brainy345 both wrote:

More stuff that essentially means, "We don't care that Bush's planned budget shortchanges future healthcare for the troops we're cheering on now but will avert our eyes from when we see them 5 years later, unshaven, dirty, with eyepatches & fake or missing legs, and holding up paper cups outside of 7-11's and banks."

You want homework? Go click here and see how this relates to the vast bulk of both your postings on this thread.

Yes, we're ignoring your "p... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Yes, we're ignoring your "proof" that CONGRESS shotchanging the VA is the PRESIDENTS fault. You go to public school, don't you?

Note that this mental midget, his whole argument cut from underneath him, is now reduced to blatant misrepresentations and cartoons. Pretty f'n pathetic.

Unbelievable ....B... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Unbelievable ....

BC STILL can't figure out that Bush will not be President in 2012 - let alone that Congress (not the President) approves the budget.

Do they not teach the Constitution in elementary school anymore?

Maybe he hasn't reached tha... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Maybe he hasn't reached that grade yet.

Or maybe the school system in his states is even worse then the one OhioVoter and I are all too familiar with here in the Buckeye state. Which is yet another reason to distrust government-run programs.

Hmmm....I see that cognitiv... (Below threshold)
BC:

Hmmm....I see that cognitive dissonance is rampant in this pale blue land, surprise, friggin surprise. While it's quite true that the next President can and will likely negate (if he/she isn't another Republican fool) whatever crackheaded longterm budget nonsense that Bush comes up now, this doesn't change the not so small fact that Bush is President now and the proposed VA budget cuts in 2009+ are his ideas.

Presidents are suppose to look ahead beyond the next election, and in any case, your ideas reflect who you are. In Bush's case, his ideas involved giving tax breaks to the wealthy and planning on shortchanging veterans, many of whom will be products of his sold-on-lies, ill-planned, half-ass run trainwreck of a war billed with utter BS as "Operation Iraqi Freedom"

Give it up, guys -- while not exactly in the same way as too many unfortunates returning from Iraq, you two stilll don't have a leg to stand on.

You get quite shrill when y... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

You get quite shrill when you can't back up your half-assed worldview.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy