Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Plus the fact that the fix that would appropriately fix the problem would need to have started decades ago, not a year ago, and it would have taken much more money than talked about here.

0 Replies

Nimh, Bush reported what the governor told him. He offered to help with evacuations etc. in advance of the hurricane and was assured by the governor that all was well. Why won't you see anybody's responsibility but the President's in this case?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Plus the fact that the fix that would appropriately fix the problem would need to have started decades ago, not a year ago, and it would have taken much more money than talked about here.

Correct Okie. I pointed out earlier that the state of Louisiana could have used many many millions of dollars in public funds to shore up their levees but chose instead to allocate those funds for different purposes. When there is no imminent threat, spending money on 'sturdy' levees is not nearly as politically attractive as spending money that people really like to have spent. So a great deal of the money has been diverted all these years instead of shoring up the levees. And until this year, it wasn't seen as a serious problem.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But the thing you can't seem to get through your head is that what the President proposes, except in a national emergency, is rarely ever what the Congress allocates. You seem to badly want to let the local officials, elected representatives, and the Congress off the hook and blame Bush when all he did was suggest allocations.

You seem to consistently overlook it and when I write things like this:

nimh wrote:

True, so it's also the responsibility of Congress that, eg, there was a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's chief hurricane protection project.

However, that does not change the fact that President Bush himself worked for exactly that result, by himself proposing only "a sixth of what local officials sa[id] they need."

What exactly is it you don't understand here? Where here am I letting "Congress off the hook"?

I on my part have already acknowledged that all these parties are at fault: the president for proposing a severe cut in funding, the La delegation for not pushing hard enough to stop this, Congress for letting it pass. Simple.

Its you who appear to be hellbent on shoving all responsibility to just the other parties, so only Bush stays squeaky clean somehow.

Yes, the President can propose all kinds of things and Congress can nevertheless still do something else. So in this case, it is Congress's responsibility that it did apparently NOT deviate from or resist Bush's proposal in question. How does that annull the responsibility of Bush for having proposed it in the first place?

0 Replies

And then today there is this:

Posted on Sat, Mar. 04, 2006
AP clarifies story about Katrina, BushSOURCE

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Why won't you see anybody's responsibility but the President's in this case?

Nonsensical question; I already have pointed out the co-responsibility of Congress. See above. Why do you, however, insist that somehow everyone is responsible except the President?

0 Replies

Bush is squeaky clean on this issue because he has no power to allocate. Like every other agency and entity he only has power to request. He 'worked for the outcome?' Baloney. There is only so much money to go around and for you to think he should be faulted for not giving one critical area more concern than another just shows how little you know about this country or the powers of the President.

Do you know how the extra $50 million would have been used? To repair holes in the levees? Nope, not near enough money. Would it have been for landscaping? Possibly. Signage? Possibly. Improving a road? Possibly. Buildings? Possibly. Additional staff? Possibly. You are so sure Bush was negligent when to actually improve safety re the Louisiana levees would require BILLIONS, not millions. It is very likely that the $50 million was not earmarked for a project to significantly improve public safety. There is certainly no indication that it was.

Can you say that this $40 million was more needed in SE Louisiana than say to shore up a L.A. freeway in advance of the next big earthquake or to stop a sinkhole under a Dallas skyscraper or save the silvery minnow in the Rio Grande or to build firebreaks for towns in the paths of wildfires in Texas or to install more tornado shelters in Wichita or stop the landslides in Hawaiii These are just a very few places that monies could be allocated.

Don't say 'irresponsible' without knowing what the money was for and whether the President and Congress was advised it would seriously jeopardize public safety for the money not to be spent.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Bush is squeaky clean on this issue because he has no power to allocate. Like every other agency and entity he only has power to request. He 'worked for the outcome?' Baloney. There is only so much money to go around and for you to think he should be faulted for not giving one critical area more concern than another just shows how little you know about this country or the powers of the President.

What I learned from Foxy about the President's powers in the United States:

The President cannot allocate money. Nevertheless, he can propose cuts. If he proposes cuts in money allocation, it is not his responsibility, however. It is the responsibility of Congress. And the responsibility of the state not protesting the cuts. And the responsibility of the state, because even when they would have gotten the money, they would have misused it.

...

(Nevertheless, the President can make the decision to invade a foreign country without having to ask Congress. Cool.)

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

(Nevertheless, the President can make the decision to invade a foreign country without having to ask Congress. Cool.)

Wrong. He got their approval of Congress on the Iraq War. Of course, after the fact, they've stuck their fingers into the political winds to see which way the winds are blowing, and many have tried to accuse the president of lying about WMD and whatever else to absolve themselves of their own decisions. You see, many phony politicians do not like to take responsibility for their own actions, and many will backstab the president and claim they would have never given their approval if the president had not lied. Of course, those of us that followed this closely that are intellectually honest know the politicians had the same information as the president. And the Saddam Hussein tapes are proving Hussein was guilty as sin. Anybody with any common sense could simply watch Hussein's actions leading up to the war and know he was absolutely a liar and the burden of proof was on him to prove he never had WMD. He never did. So what do we get now? Phony politicians blaming Bush instead of Hussein. And now, you claim Bush did this all on his own, only him. Sorry, it does not fly. Try to rewrite history. It doesn't work.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Bush is squeaky clean on this issue because he has no power to allocate. Like every other agency and entity he only has power to request. He 'worked for the outcome?' Baloney. There is only so much money to go around and for you to think he should be faulted for not giving one critical area more concern than another just shows how little you know about this country or the powers of the President.

What I learned from Foxy about the President's powers in the United States:

The President cannot allocate money. Nevertheless, he can propose cuts. If he proposes cuts in money allocation, it is not his responsibility, however. It is the responsibility of Congress. And the responsibility of the state not protesting the cuts. And the responsibility of the state, because even when they would have gotten the money, they would have misused it.

...

(Nevertheless, the President can make the decision to invade a foreign country without having to ask Congress. Cool.)

The President cannot cut the budget. This is correct.
The President cannot increase the budget. This is correct.
The President recommends a budget but it is rarely, if ever, even considered by Congress who will almost always do their own thing.
The
The President can allocate monies assigned to him by Congress to spend but this is not fiscal allocation.
The President can veto the budget but essentially shuts down the government should he do so. I don't believe a U.S. President has ever vetoed a budget sent to him by Congress. The President cannot veto a single item in the budget without vetoing the entire budget.

The Presient is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and can call the military to arms and send them to battle on his own. He must receive the consent of Congress to keep them in battle within I believe 60 days (I'm not positive about the 60 days but it sounds right.)

The President cannot declare war on another country without the consent of Congress.

The President had consent from both houses of Congress before ordering our military to either Afghanistan or Iraq.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Wrong. He got their approval of Congress on the Iraq War.

... whatever that means. Congress did not declare war on Iraq. Neither did Congress declare war on Afghanistan.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
Wrong. He got their approval of Congress on the Iraq War.

... whatever that means. Congress did not declare war on Iraq. Neither did Congress declare war on Afghanistan.

0 Replies

Has any estern Country "Declared War" on any other country since WWII?????

I believe Old Europe is playing a semantical game here. Declarations of War are an historical fossil - they don't occur anymore, though wars persist. There were no declared wars in the late 1940s thru 1960s during the post colonial wars fought by Britain and France throughout the world. There have been no "declared wars" during any of the numerous French military interventions in the revolutions that have followed in her former African empire. There was no "Declaration of War" against Egypt by Britain and France in 1956; or by the Allied Coalition against Iraq in 1990, and there were no declarations against Afghanistan and Iraq.

However the U.S. Congress did indeed fully authorize the actions we took in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Has any estern Country "Declared War" on any other country since WWII?????

Israel has. South Korea has (or the UN, if you want to be precise). Not quite sure what you mean by "estern Country", though.

0 Replies

Indeed, nowadays wars are mostly undeclared: such military actions just look cleaner - "military action" or "armed response" doesn't scare citizens as much as a declaration of war would do.

But as old europe already noted: South and North Korea are still in a declared war, and Israel had officially declared war on Lebanon and Syria.

0 Replies

George is right. OE seemed to be indicating that Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq without congressional approval, which is patently false.

It's also been conveniently forgotten by many that Clinton, too, attacked Iraq in mid-December of 1998 for the exact same reason. Idea

He just didn't have the stones to finish the job. Despite boldly proclaiming he wouldn't let Saddam have his way; he did exactly that, and left the mess for his successor to deal with.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

George is right. OE seemed to be indicating that Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq without congressional approval, which is patently false.

I might still have some difficulties reading English after four days in France, but do really read this that way you mentioned above:

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
Wrong. He got their approval of Congress on the Iraq War.

... whatever that means. Congress did not declare war on Iraq. Neither did Congress declare war on Afghanistan.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

What I learned from Foxy about the President's powers in the United States:

The President cannot allocate money. Nevertheless, he can propose cuts. If he proposes cuts in money allocation, it is not his responsibility, however. It is the responsibility of Congress. And the responsibility of the state not protesting the cuts. And the responsibility of the state, because even when they would have gotten the money, they would have misused it.

Pretty much. The President can suggest cuts in the budget, but can not be held responsible in any way for those cuts when his suggestions are then actually OK'd. In Fox's world.

0 Replies

:confused: Yes, of course Walter. Don't you? Per your quote he challenged Okie's assertion that "He got their approval of Congress on the Iraq War". (Look past the obviously accidental of substitution of 'their' for 'the')

He did have approval from congress, so "declare war" is a transparent attempt at word play. Without it; his challenge is groundless. With it; he's deliberately side-stepping Okie's point. Where's your confusion?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

George is right. OE seemed to be indicating that Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq without congressional approval, which is patently false.
.

George is wrong. AND so are you, Congress NEVER APPROVED the invasion. They GRANTED AUTHORITY for Bush to go to war AS A LAST RESORT.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know