culture warriors on this board

[red states rule]

Murtha: Change Directions Like Clinton Did In Somalia

06/16 06:27 PM

Rep. John Murtha appeared on The Situation Room this afternoon to talk about the Iraq resolution that passed in the House today. He spoke against the resolution and advocated withdrawing the troops like Clinton did in Somalia–

MURTHA: The thing that disturbed me and worries me about this whole thing is we can’t get them to change direction. And I said over and over in debate, if you listen to any of it, in Beirut President Reagan changed direction, in Somalia President Clinton changed direction, and yet here, with the troops out there every day, suffering from these explosive devices, and being looked at as occupiers — 80 percent of the people want us out of there — and yet they continue to say, "We’re fighting this thing." We’re not fighting this. The troops are fighting this thing. That’s who’s doing the fighting…

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/911-commission-somalia-retreat-inspired-bin-laden

 

[Care4all]

It is a fair question. How many attacks on US soil have occurred since 9/11? How many attacks worldwide have occured on American citizens or facilities NOT in a war zone since 9/11?

Sgt, outside of the trade center attack in 93, where clinton was in office less than a month and a half, how many terrorist attacks did we have on U.S. soil during the 8 years of clinton?

care

 

[red states rule]

Sgt, outside of the trade center attack in 93, where clinton was in office less than a month and a half, how many terrorist attacks did we have on U.S. soil during the 8 years of clinton?

care

There were a total of five terrorist attaxcks that killed Amercians

Yes, four of them were outside the US - but Clinton did NOTHING but talk

Thanks to Bill, Amercia got 9-11

 

[Care4all]

There were a total of five terrorist attaxcks that killed Amercians

Yes, four of them were outside the US - but Clinton did NOTHING but talk

Thanks to Bill, Amercia got 9-11

so the answer, RSR, is NONE on American soil during the 8 years of clinton.

and there has been 3800 americans killed by terrorist overseas under president bush...no?

Care

 

[red states rule]

so the answer, RSR, is NONE on American soil during the 8 years of clinton.

and there has been 3800 americans killed by terrorist overseas under president bush...no?

Care

So you ignore how Clinton gave the US 9-11? (The same way you ignored the fact over the tax increases)

I am rather surprised at that Care

The 3800 were killed fighting a war - thgere is a difference

Your party has always wanted to appease terrorists and asre shocked when we are attacked again and again

I do wish the appeasers in your party would learn form their past mistakes

 

[Care4all]

So you ignore how Clinton gave the US 9-11? i believe that a combination of things that happened during pres.clinton, and closer to the event, pres.bush.... gave us 9/11.

(The same way you ignored the fact over the tax increases)
what tax increase?

The 3800 were killed fighting a war - thgere is a difference
why is there a 'difference'....? there were soldiers killed under clinton that YOU are counting? also, it is terrorists that are killing americans in iraq, isn't it? or is it iraqis in a civil war killing americans? either way, what makes a soldier's death ANY DIFFERENT and less important than a civilian american's death?

and good morning!

care

 

[red states rule]

Clinton's inaction and Somalia inspired OBL to 9-11 - this is from the 9-11 Commission


http://demos.vivisimo.com/search?input-form=simple&v:sources=911&v:project=911&query=somalia&x=0&y=0


Did you ignore the links to the tax increase you denied on another thread? Oh well, I will post it again

The Dems vioted for this on 3/29/07

The House passed a 400 Billion dollar tax increase today which will hit the middle class and small businesses like my self HARD. According to press release sent out by Minority Whip Roy Blunt (my congressman) the break down goes something like this:

26 million small business owners, by an average of $3,960.
48 million married couples, by an average of $2,899.
42 million families with children, by an average of $2,181.
12 million single women with children, by an average of $1,082.
17 million senior citizens, by an average of $2,270.


Care, I will never understand why the party that claims to be for the oppressed, down trodden, and those who are denied civil rights - will not join it helping Iraq stand on its own. They are more concerned with their political power then doing what is needed

 

[red states rule]

Care, perhaps the AP is a valid source for you

Yes, Dems want to raise taxes on EVERY American - young and old, working or retired, Dems are out to screw all of us


House Approves Democratic Budget Plan
Thursday March 29, 3:14 pm ET
By Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer
House Approves Democratic Budget Plan; Measure Boasts Surplus if Bush's Tax Cuts Expire


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House Thursday narrowly passed a $2.9 trillion Democratic budget blueprint predicting a big surplus in five years but relying on the expiration of tax cuts to do so.
The 216-210 vote sets up negotiations with the Senate, which last week passed a budget blueprint with similarly large spending increases for education, defense, homeland security and veterans programs.

The measure comes in response to Democratic complaints that Bush has shortchanged domestic programs funded each year by appropriations bills -- including education, health research and grants to local governments -- while awarding deficit-boosting tax cuts tilted toward the affluent.

Democrats said the $2.9 trillion plan for next year would point the way to a surplus after years of red ink under Bush and a GOP-controlled Congress. Republicans said that $153 billion surplus in 2012 would appear only if tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 expire in four years -- amounting to the "largest tax increase in American history."

The future of the Bush tax cuts will likely be decided after the 2008 presidential election. While in the majority, congressional Republicans never held votes to make all of them permanent, despite Bush's annual calls to do so.

Bush huddled with House Republicans at the White House, saying afterward: "We spent time talking today about our strong belief that we've got to keep taxes low. "

The Democratic budget received brickbats from Republicans because it would produce a $153 billion surplus in 2012 only by assuming tax cuts enacted during Bush's first term expire. Those tax cuts include lowered rates on income, investments and large estates, as well as breaks for married couples and people with children.

At the same time, the plan awards domestic agencies, on average, budget increases of 6 percent over current levels, far the less than the less than 1 percent increases recommended by Bush.

Congress' annual debate on the budget is guided by an arcane process in which a nonbinding budget resolution sets the stage for subsequent bills affecting taxes and benefit programs such as Medicare, as well as the annual appropriations bills.

In most years, Congress leaves alone difficult budget issues such as the unsustainable growth in benefit programs such as Medicare and simply focuses on the 12 annual bills funding the budgets of Cabinet agencies such as Defense, Education and Agriculture.

This year is likely to be such a stand-pat year. Decisions on the fate of the Bush tax cuts are expected to wait until after next year's presidential election.

Extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would cost about $250 billion in 2012 alone, which would balloon to $389 billion after accounting for extending other tax cuts and adjusting the alternative minimum tax so that it does not ensnare more than 20 million additional middle class taxpayers.

Democratic leaders view passing a congressional budget plan as a key test of their ability to govern. The GOP-controlled Congress failed to pass a budget last year, which fouled up passage of the annual spending bills lawmakers pass each year.

The Democratic budget blueprint calls for a nearly $25 billion increase next year for domestic programs popular with lawmakers in both parties, approving Bush's record $50 billion budget increase for the Pentagon's non-war budget and $145 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year.

Those spending boosts would cause the deficit to rise from $209 billion this year to $241 billion in 2009 before increased revenues from the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts rapidly generate a surplus.

The rival Senate plan contains would fail to generate surpluses since it dedicates $180 billion to extending several of the most popular tax cuts due to expire at the end of 2010.

One of the most important features of the Democratic budget plan is to require lawmakers seeking to cut taxes or boost benefit programs -- such as Medicare, children's health care or farm subsidies -- to "pay for" the changes with tax increases or offsetting spending cuts.

That rule would greatly complicate efforts later this year to boost funding for a popular health insurance program for poor children.

Democrats opted to put off politically painful decisions on shoring up the finances of Medicare and Social Security.

Republicans countered with an alternative plan cutting $279 billion from federal benefit programs such as Medicare and Medicaid over the next five years -- far greater cuts than proposed by Bush in February.

The plan, authored by Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, top Republican on the budget panel, would fully extend the 2001 and 2003 rounds of tax cuts, at a cost of about $450 billion. But Ryan's plan lost by a sweeping 160-268 vote.

Ryan warned his colleagues that the looming retirement of the Baby Boom generation threatens to swamp the budget because of the spiraling costs of Medicare and Social Security.

"If we don't get a handle on our fiscal situation, if we don't recognize the fact that if all we do is raise taxes to balance the budget in 2012, you're going to go right back into deficits soon thereafter if we don't control spending, if we don't reform government," Ryan said.
__________________

 

[Dirt McGirt]

(interruption...)

How the hell did this thread get to 48 posts?

You guys will argue over anything.



(continue...)

 

[mattskramer]

Well when Bush is gone we're all fucked.

That is quite a bit of fortune telling. May I borrow your crystal ball? Who is going to win the next Superbowl?

Being the lord saviour and all, who will pretect us from the terrorists?

I do not know whom you are referring to as “lord savior and all”. The defense department, military, and our nations leaders will try to protect us from terrorists just as they are trying to do now.

 

[red states rule]

(interruption...)

How the hell did this thread get to 48 posts?

You guys will argue over anything.



(continue...)

Isn't that what a discussion baord is all about?

 

[mattskramer]

If Gore was President - he would still be looking for what controlling legal authority would allow him to respond

and the terrorists would still be laughing at him

That is quite a bit of fortune telling. May I borrow your crystal ball? Who is going to win the next Superbowl?

 

[Care4all]

Care, perhaps the AP is a valid source for you

Yes, Dems want to raise taxes on EVERY American - young and old, working or retired, Dems are out to screw all of us


House Approves Democratic Budget Plan
Thursday March 29, 3:14 pm ET
By Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer
House Approves Democratic Budget Plan; Measure Boasts Surplus if Bush's Tax Cuts Expire


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House Thursday narrowly passed a $2.9 trillion Democratic budget blueprint predicting a big surplus in five years but relying on the expiration of tax cuts to do so.
The 216-210 vote sets up negotiations with the Senate, which last week passed a budget blueprint with similarly large spending increases for education, defense, homeland security and veterans programs.

The measure comes in response to Democratic complaints that Bush has shortchanged domestic programs funded each year by appropriations bills -- including education, health research and grants to local governments -- while awarding deficit-boosting tax cuts tilted toward the affluent.

Democrats said the $2.9 trillion plan for next year would point the way to a surplus after years of red ink under Bush and a GOP-controlled Congress. Republicans said that $153 billion surplus in 2012 would appear only if tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 expire in four years -- amounting to the "largest tax increase in American history."

The future of the Bush tax cuts will likely be decided after the 2008 presidential election. While in the majority, congressional Republicans never held votes to make all of them permanent, despite Bush's annual calls to do so.

Bush huddled with House Republicans at the White House, saying afterward: "We spent time talking today about our strong belief that we've got to keep taxes low. "

The Democratic budget received brickbats from Republicans because it would produce a $153 billion surplus in 2012 only by assuming tax cuts enacted during Bush's first term expire. Those tax cuts include lowered rates on income, investments and large estates, as well as breaks for married couples and people with children.

At the same time, the plan awards domestic agencies, on average, budget increases of 6 percent over current levels, far the less than the less than 1 percent increases recommended by Bush.

Congress' annual debate on the budget is guided by an arcane process in which a nonbinding budget resolution sets the stage for subsequent bills affecting taxes and benefit programs such as Medicare, as well as the annual appropriations bills.

In most years, Congress leaves alone difficult budget issues such as the unsustainable growth in benefit programs such as Medicare and simply focuses on the 12 annual bills funding the budgets of Cabinet agencies such as Defense, Education and Agriculture.

This year is likely to be such a stand-pat year. Decisions on the fate of the Bush tax cuts are expected to wait until after next year's presidential election.

Extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would cost about $250 billion in 2012 alone, which would balloon to $389 billion after accounting for extending other tax cuts and adjusting the alternative minimum tax so that it does not ensnare more than 20 million additional middle class taxpayers.

Democratic leaders view passing a congressional budget plan as a key test of their ability to govern. The GOP-controlled Congress failed to pass a budget last year, which fouled up passage of the annual spending bills lawmakers pass each year.

The Democratic budget blueprint calls for a nearly $25 billion increase next year for domestic programs popular with lawmakers in both parties, approving Bush's record $50 billion budget increase for the Pentagon's non-war budget and $145 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year.

Those spending boosts would cause the deficit to rise from $209 billion this year to $241 billion in 2009 before increased revenues from the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts rapidly generate a surplus.

The rival Senate plan contains would fail to generate surpluses since it dedicates $180 billion to extending several of the most popular tax cuts due to expire at the end of 2010.


One of the most important features of the Democratic budget plan is to require lawmakers seeking to cut taxes or boost benefit programs -- such as Medicare, children's health care or farm subsidies -- to "pay for" the changes with tax increases or offsetting spending cuts.

That rule would greatly complicate efforts later this year to boost funding for a popular health insurance program for poor children.

Democrats opted to put off politically painful decisions on shoring up the finances of Medicare and Social Security.

Republicans countered with an alternative plan cutting $279 billion from federal benefit programs such as Medicare and Medicaid over the next five years -- far greater cuts than proposed by Bush in February.

The plan, authored by Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, top Republican on the budget panel, would fully extend the 2001 and 2003 rounds of tax cuts, at a cost of about $450 billion. But Ryan's plan lost by a sweeping 160-268 vote.

Ryan warned his colleagues that the looming retirement of the Baby Boom generation threatens to swamp the budget because of the spiraling costs of Medicare and Social Security.

"If we don't get a handle on our fiscal situation, if we don't recognize the fact that if all we do is raise taxes to balance the budget in 2012, you're going to go right back into deficits soon thereafter if we don't control spending, if we don't reform government," Ryan said.
__________________

and as i answered you before, the extension of the tax cuts will be debated after the 2008 election but before any expire...

and the republicans when in full majority power never once addressed extending the tax cuts in their budget either, soooooo, what's the big deal?

care

 

[red states rule]

That is quite a bit of fortune telling. May I borrow your crystal ball? Who is going to win the next Superbowl?

Based on what we all know about Gore - that is about as nasty as he would have gotten with terrorists

Libs like him are nothing but appeasers

 

[mattskramer]

There were a total of five terrorist attaxcks that killed Amercians

Yes, four of them were outside the US - but Clinton did NOTHING but talk

Thanks to Bill, Amercia got 9-11

For how many weeks was Bush president before 9-11? He was aware of the past terror attacks. Perhaps the people responsible for 9-11 were angry that Bush got elected and had done less than Clinton in going after them. Could the activities of Reagan and Bush Sr. have influenced terrorists? Again, one can’t derive causation from the fact that 9-11 occurred after Clinton left office.

 

[red states rule]

For how many weeks was Bush president before 9-11? He was aware of the past terror attacks. Perhaps the people responsible for 9-11 were angry that Bush got elected and had done less than Clinton in going after them. Could the activities of Reagan and Bush Sr. have influenced terrorists? Again, one can’t derive causation from the fact that 9-11 occurred after Clinton left office.

The 9-11 terrorists were in America one year BEFORE 9-11 and Clinton would not pick them up

(they were here illegaly)

Clinton did not want to look like his administartion was racial profiling

The 9-11 Commission sited Clinton's inaction is what inspired OBL

 

[mattskramer]

So you ignore how Clinton gave the US 9-11? (The same way you ignored the fact over the tax increases)

I am rather surprised at that Care

The 3800 were killed fighting a war - thgere is a difference

Your party has always wanted to appease terrorists and asre shocked when we are attacked again and again

I do wish the appeasers in your party would learn form their past mistakes

From where do you draw the conclusion that Clinton gave us 9-11? I though that the terrorists under Bush’s term gave us 9-11? Is there an official government report that says otherwise?

 

[red states rule]

From where do you draw the conclusion that Clinton gave us 9-11? I though that the terrorists under Bush’s term gave us 9-11? Is there an official government report that says otherwise?

The 9-11 Commission report

 

[mattskramer]

The 9-11 Commission report

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_report

After releasing the report, Commission Chair Thomas Kean declared that both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had been "not well served" by the FBI and CIA.

Also The report did not include the testimony of Former CIA director George Tenet to the Commission in January of 2004 in which he said that in a July, 2001 meeting with Condoleezza Rice, he had warned of an imminent threat from al-Qaeda. Commission members Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton stated that they had not been told about the meeting. But the Boston Globe reported that "it turns out that the panel was, in fact, told about the meeting, according to the interview transcript and Democratic Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste, who sat in on the interview with Tenet."

By the way, …the panel had no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had assisted al-Qaeda in preparing or executing the 9/11 attacks. The Report notes in Chapter 2 that "Bin Laden had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army."

Yet, all that you recall from the 9-11 report was that supposedly somewhere, it cited Clinton's inaction. How typical of you to see just one side of an issue. Anyway, just as Clinton supposedly could have done something, Bush could have done something when he took over.

 

[red states rule]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_report

After releasing the report, Commission Chair Thomas Kean declared that both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had been "not well served" by the FBI and CIA.

Also The report did not include the testimony of Former CIA director George Tenet to the Commission in January of 2004 in which he said that in a July, 2001 meeting with Condoleezza Rice, he had warned of an imminent threat from al-Qaeda. Commission members Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton stated that they had not been told about the meeting. But the Boston Globe reported that "it turns out that the panel was, in fact, told about the meeting, according to the interview transcript and Democratic Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste, who sat in on the interview with Tenet."

By the way, …the panel had no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had assisted al-Qaeda in preparing or executing the 9/11 attacks. The Report notes in Chapter 2 that "Bin Laden had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army."

Yet, all that you recall from the 9-11 report was that supposedly somewhere, it cited Clinton's inaction. How typical of you to see just one side of an issue. Anyway, just as Clinton supposedly could have done something, Bush could have done something when he took over.

I am sure you "overlooked" this link

Here it is again for you

http://demos.vivisimo.com/search?input-form=simple&v:sources=911&v:project=911&query=somalia&x=0&y=0