View Full Version : Senators present idea of "Super Congress"
WASHINGTON -- Debt ceiling negotiators think they've hit on a solution to address the debt ceiling impasse and the public's unwillingness to let go of benefits such as Medicare and Social Security that have been earned over a lifetime of work: Create a new Congress.
This "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.
Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has made a Super Congress a central part of his last-minute proposal, multiple news reports and people familiar with his plan say. A picture of Boehner's proposal began to come into focus Saturday evening: The debt ceiling would be raised for a short-term period and coupled with an equal dollar figure of cuts, somewhere in the vicinity of a trillion dollars over ten years. A second increase in the debt ceiling would be tied to the creation of a Super Congress that would be required to find a minimum amount of spending cuts. Because the elevated panel would need at least one Democratic vote, its plan would presumably include at least some revenue, though if it's anything like the deals on the table today, it would likely be heavily slanted toward spending cuts. Or, as Obama said of the deal he was offering Republicans before Boehner walked out, "If it was unbalanced, it was unbalanced in the direction of not enough revenue."
Republicans, however, are looking to force a second debt ceiling fight as part of the package, despite the Democratic rejection of the plan. Under the Republican plan, lawmakers would need to weigh in on the debt ceiling during the heat of the presidential election, a proposal Democrats reject as risky to the nation's credit rating. "We expressed openness to two stages of cuts, but not to a short-term debt limit extension," a Democratic aide close to the negotiations said. "Republicans only want the debt ceiling extended as far as the cuts in each tranch. That means we’ll be right back where we are today a few months down the road. We are not a Banana Republic. You don’t run America like that."
The aide said that Democrats are open to a series of cuts as well as a Super Congress, but only if the debt ceiling is raised sufficiently so that it pushes past the election. "Our proposal tonight was, do two tranches of cuts, but raise the debt ceiling through 2012 right now, though the McConnell process would be one way," said the aide, leaving open the possibility that Boehner could craft a new process and distinguish it from McConnell's, which the Tea Party despises as a dereliction of duty. "Do that now with a package of cuts, and have the joint committee" -- the Super Congress -- "report out a package that would be the second tranch. Republicans rejected that, and continued to push a short-term despite the fact that Reid, Pelosi and Obama all could not have been clearer that they will not support a short-term increase. A short term risks some of the same consequences as outright failure to raise the ceiling -- downgraded credit rating, stocks plunge, interest rates spike, etc. It is unclear why Republicans have made this their sticking point."
Boehner spokesman Michael Steel argued that the inability to come to a larger deal so far left a short-term extension as an "inevitable" option. "For months, we have laid out our principles to pass a bill that fulfills the president's request to increase the debt limit beyond the next election. We have passed a debt limit increase with the reforms the American people demand, the 'Cut, Cap, and Balance' bill. The Democrats who run Washington have refused to offer a plan," he said in a statement. "Now, as a result, a two-step process is inevitable. Like the president and the entire bipartisan, bicameral congressional leadership, we continue to believe that defaulting on the full faith and credit of the United States is not an option."
Obama has shown himself to be a fan of the commission approach to cutting social programs and entitlements. Shortly after taking office, Obama held a major conference on deficit reduction and subsequently created, by executive order, The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. The White House made two telling appointments to chair the commission: The first was former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), a well-known critic of Social Security who earned notoriety by suggesting, among other things, that the American government had become "a milk cow with 310 million tits!" Yet Obama's Democratic appointment was even more indicative of whose interests took priority: former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles. Bowles is a member of Morgan Stanley's board of directors; an adviser to Carousel Capital, a private equity firm; and a director of Cousins Properties Incorporated, a firm with significant investments in commercial and mixed-use real estate.
Simpson and Bowles, perhaps unsurprisingly, produced a report recommending corporate and high-end tax cuts, along with cuts to Social Security, Medicare, veterans' benefits and a host of other social programs.
The commission needed 14 of 18 members to approve the plan in order for it to advance to Congress for a vote. The commission fell short, but did win a majority.
Proponents of slashing spending won't make the same mistake with a new Super Congress. Only a simple majority will be necessary.
HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html)
HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html)
Super congress= Super devil and his jar of adultry marmalade
http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu218/kA3zkiNQ/lOVErz%20aNN%20fRiENDZ/superdevil.jpg
Fuck John Boehner for suggesting something like that.
Great so they are suggesting something that is against the constitution because they are so ideologically psychotic that no one will compromise. Fuck them all with a fork.
Fuck John Boehner for suggesting something like that.
John Boehner says he wants to solve government's deficit. Never mentions his party caused it with Bush's unpaid for wars, tax cuts for the rich, banks bailouts, and Medicare drug plan.
But hey we need to cut Grandmas Soc Sec first.... let them eat cake
mcantar18c
07-26-2011, 02:22
John Boehner says he wants to solve government's deficit. Never mentions his party caused it with Bush's unpaid for wars, tax cuts for the rich, banks bailouts, and Medicare drug plan.
But hey we need to cut Grandmas Soc Sec first.... let them eat cake
Everything's Bush's fault, huh.
The wars our congress voted to allow us to go to in retaliation to unprovoked attacks on American soil against our own citizens are not to be blamed for us being broke. Its not like he sent us to a country we have no interest in without congressional approval. The economic situation we're currently in has been developing since FDR's admin, and is snowballing under the current one.
I didn't agree with everything Bush's admin did, but they're not to blame for the shithole we're in now... a little bit, sure, but not much.
Tax cuts for the rich? That's a good thing.
Money don't grow on trees, they got it from somewhere (business). Say you own a business... you have a certain amount of expenses you need to cover, taxes, materials, bills, and such. You sell your product for the amount it costs to cover those expenses, plus a little to put some cash in you and your employees pockets so you can pay your own taxes, bills, and such. We, the consumers, pay you that amount for your product. Now say the gov't raises your taxes, costing you more to run your company. Where does that extra money come from? You and your employees pockets? Nope. You're going to raise the cost of your product. Simple cause and effect, why this is so hard for people like you to understand is beyond me. Tax cuts (or rather, no tax increases) for the wealthy and big business only benefits US, the consumers.
We spend so much on needless crap... bailouts for failing companies, literally giving money to countries that hate us, running gov't entities that serve no real purpose (TSA comes to mind)... if we'd just cut the crap, stop spending money on things we don't need with money we don't have, we'd be headed in the right direction. No need to raise taxes for ANYBODY on ANYTHING.
Fawkin libtards.
Everything's Bush's fault, huh.
The wars our congress voted to allow us to go to in retaliation to unprovoked attacks on American soil against our own citizens are not to be blamed for us being broke. Its not like he sent us to a country we have no interest in without congressional approval. The economic situation we're currently in has been developing since FDR's admin, and is snowballing under the current one.
I didn't agree with everything Bush's admin did, but they're not to blame for the shithole we're in now... a little bit, sure, but not much.
Tax cuts for the rich? That's a good thing.
Money don't grow on trees, they got it from somewhere (business). Say you own a business... you have a certain amount of expenses you need to cover, taxes, materials, bills, and such. You sell your product for the amount it costs to cover those expenses, plus a little to put some cash in you and your employees pockets so you can pay your own taxes, bills, and such. We, the consumers, pay you that amount for your product. Now say the gov't raises your taxes, costing you more to run your company. Where does that extra money come from? You and your employees pockets? Nope. You're going to raise the cost of your product. Simple cause and effect, why this is so hard for people like you to understand is beyond me. Tax cuts (or rather, no tax increases) for the wealthy and big business only benefits US, the consumers.
We spend so much on needless crap... bailouts for failing companies, literally giving money to countries that hate us, running gov't entities that serve no real purpose (TSA comes to mind)... if we'd just cut the crap, stop spending money on things we don't need with money we don't have, we'd be headed in the right direction. No need to raise taxes for ANYBODY on ANYTHING.
Fawkin libtards.
Fawkin Libtards huh........... name me this tweetle toes....... when at any point in history has ANY nation ever cut taxes while going to war? Its insane and you "fiscal conservatives" cheered when it racked up more debt. Go to war, pay your damn bills, its the REAL fiscal conservative thing to do.
The mess we are in is because of FDR? Sorry, you must have missed the largest growth of the middle class from FDR till Reagan screwed it up. Once Reagan cut taxes like he did, he exploded our debt and our middle class for the first time since FDR, stagnated and began to lose ground.
Raising taxes causes either, profits to lower, wages to go down, or prices to go up? What ever your business does is up to them. Choose wisely. But know that workers set their wage level. Lower their wages and they quite and you won't hire another person till you find someone willing to work for the wage level you set.
I agree the bailouts were a horrible idea. Heck if we had just handed that money to the poor it would have done more good than giving it to the wallstreet vampires. As to abolishing the TSA...... GOOD. It was a horrible idea from Bush and its a monster that won't die.
mcantar18c
07-26-2011, 02:55
Fawkin Libtards huh........... name me this tweetle toes....... when an any point in history has ANY nation ever cut taxes while going to war? Its insane and you "fiscal conservatives" cheered when it racked up more debt. Go to war, pay your damn bills, its the REAL fiscal conservative thing to do.
I'm not saying we need to cut taxes. I'm saying we don't need to raise them any further, and I explained why.
The mess we are in is because of FDR? Sorry, you must have missed the largest growth of the middle class from FDR till Reagan screwed it up. Once Reagan cut taxes like he did, he exploded our debt and our middle class for the first time since FDR, stagnated and began to lose ground.
Started with FDR, not because of FDR. His administrations work programs (can't recall what they were called at the moment), along with a number of other government and pseudo-government things, set the ground for what we have today.
Raising taxes causes either, profits to lower, wages to go down, or prices to go up? What ever your business does is up to them. Choose wisely. But know that workers set their wage level. Lower their wages and they quite and you won't hire another person till you find someone willing to work for the wage level you set.
Reread what I said. The gov't raises the taxes on your business, you aren't going to cover your higher operating cost with pay cuts, you'll cover them with increased prices for your products/services. And that money comes out of our, the consumer's, pockets.
I agree the bailouts were a horrible idea. Heck if we had just handed that money to the poor it would have done more good than giving it to the wallstreet vampires. As to abolishing the TSA...... GOOD. It was a horrible idea from Bush and its a monster that won't die.
Like I said, I don't agree with everything the Bush Administration did. TSA, Patriot Act, etc. And going back to your last post I responded to, the things Bush's admin did regarding Medicare cost us nothing compared to Obamacare. Things have been going down hill for a long time, and now we're off the hill and in free fall from what the current administration has ben doing.
Scanker19
07-26-2011, 07:23
I'm curious, do they have Constitution toilet paper in the Capitol?
Never mentions his party caused it with Bush's unpaid for wars, tax cuts for the rich, banks bailouts, and Medicare drug plan.
Always good to have a token liberal around the boards to hijack every thread and turn it into a political soapbox.
Back to the original topic: a super congress is unconstitutional and I believe it would never pass any challenge in the supreme court. This would, for all intents and purposes, make us an oligarchy.
UberTong
07-26-2011, 08:30
Always good to have a token liberal around the boards to hijack every thread and turn it into a political soapbox.
Back to the original topic: a super congress is unconstitutional and I believe it would never pass any challenge in the supreme court. This would, for all intents and purposes, make us an oligarchy.
+1, give it a rest
ronaldrwl
07-26-2011, 08:57
John Boehner says he wants to solve government's deficit. Never mentions his party caused it with Bush's unpaid for wars, tax cuts for the rich, banks bailouts, and Medicare drug plan.
But hey we need to cut Grandmas Soc Sec first.... let them eat cake
Typical. You watch to much TV. None of that is true.
Hmmmm... Taxation without Representation? does any of this sound familiar?
Didn't think so either....move along....nothing to see here...
Always good to have a token liberal around the boards to hijack every thread and turn it into a political soapbox.
Back to the original topic: a super congress is unconstitutional and I believe it would never pass any challenge in the supreme court. This would, for all intents and purposes, make us an oligarchy.
Just to point out the obvious............. but this whole topic is about politics and particularly the failure of our worthless politicians to do their job. Further its about congress not doing their constitutionally mandated duty but rather creating a new gov entity to do their job for them. Thus they are in breach of the constitution because they won't do their own job.
carry on though[Beer]
Byte Stryke
07-26-2011, 11:21
Just to point out the obvious............. but this whole topic is about politics and particularly the failure of our worthless politicians to do their job. Further its about congress not doing their constitutionally mandated duty but rather creating a new gov entity to do their job for them. Thus they are in breach of the constitution because they won't do their own job.
carry on though[Beer]
Don't do that...
I have a preconceived notion about you and when you make me agree with you it goes right out the window!
[ROFL1]
Don't do that...
I have a preconceived notion about you and when you make me agree with you it goes right out the window!
[ROFL1]
[Beer]
Hmmmm... Taxation without Representation? does any of this sound familiar?
Didn't think so either....move along....nothing to see here...
One thing comes to mind when more evidence presents itself that we are circling the bowl- super congresses, taxation without representation, shredding the constitution, CIC unable to do his job, people always laying blame on the previous administration when it's the current that is spiraling out of control... where are we headed? This is a good prediction:
w9MiS9tn_r4
John Boehner says he wants to solve government's deficit. Never mentions his party caused it with Bush's unpaid for wars, tax cuts for the rich, banks bailouts, and Medicare drug plan.
But hey we need to cut Grandmas Soc Sec first.... let them eat cake
People on welfare probably consider you to be rich. I think your taxes should go up 10%. Let me know what you think. Just depends on your tax bracket who you consider to be rich.
Apparently bush was extremely powerful. Ignorance is bliss I guess
Originally Posted by nynco
Fawkin Libtards huh........... name me this tweetle toes....... when an any point in history has ANY nation ever cut taxes while going to war? Its insane and you "fiscal conservatives" cheered when it racked up more debt. Go to war, pay your damn bills, its the REAL fiscal conservative thing to do.
I'm not saying we need to cut taxes. I'm saying we don't need to raise them any further, and I explained why.
You explained nothing. I pointed out the historical facts. Bush cut taxes, a majority of that money went to the wealthy and we went to war. Soon after our nations national debt exploded. Bush was handed a surplus, he pissed it away and spent like a drunken sailor in a whore house. No nation in history has ever cut taxes and gone to war. Why because it's insane. We have had 10 years of the Bush taxcuts. They did not work. Why the heck should we keep them? You worry about the debt. Well raise money (Tax revenue) and cut out the useless crap like the TSA. You can't cut your way out of this. This issue has been going since Reagan. So best start raising more revenue. A one sided approach is the path to failure.
The mess we are in is because of FDR? Sorry, you must have missed the largest growth of the middle class from FDR till Reagan screwed it up. Once Reagan cut taxes like he did, he exploded our debt and our middle class for the first time since FDR, stagnated and began to lose ground.
Started with FDR, not because of FDR. His administrations work programs (can't recall what they were called at the moment), along with a number of other government and pseudo-government things, set the ground for what we have today.
And just what are those things? I don't think you know. I think you are parroting what someone told you, you should not like. The down right lies about FDR are just ridiculous out there. But people put them out there because FDR was right and their ideas are not in line with what worked. So.... tell me...... was building Red Rocks a bad idea? Take a guess how much money that has earned the local economy since it was built? A billion maybe more.
Raising taxes causes either, profits to lower, wages to go down, or prices to go up? What ever your business does is up to them. Choose wisely. But know that workers set their wage level. Lower their wages and they quite and you won't hire another person till you find someone willing to work for the wage level you set.
Reread what I said. The gov't raises the taxes on your business, you aren't going to cover your higher operating cost with pay cuts, you'll cover them with increased prices for your products/services. And that money comes out of our, the consumer's, pockets.
You left out cut down on profits, I added that part you missed. In today's world where a CEO makes over 10,000 time more than the average worker. Call me callous for not giving a shit if they lose out a little. In fact when taxes are high businesses rather than cash out profits or dumping backets of cash it into the CEOs pocket try to hide that money from the gov by doing what? INVESTING BACK INTO THE BUSINESS..... Higher taxes do just the opposite of what you fear. Any accountant will tell you, you want to lower your taxes invest in your business and use that as a write off
I agree the bailouts were a horrible idea. Heck if we had just handed that money to the poor it would have done more good than giving it to the wallstreet vampires. As to abolishing the TSA...... GOOD. It was a horrible idea from Bush and its a monster that won't die.
Like I said, I don't agree with everything the Bush Administration did. TSA, Patriot Act, etc. And going back to your last post I responded to, the things Bush's admin did regarding Medicare cost us nothing compared to Obamacare. Things have been going down hill for a long time, and now we're off the hill and in free fall from what the current administration has ben doing.
Actually Obama care is revenue neutral and in the long run saves us money. Stop reading the right wing blogs posted by idiots with an agenda and morons posting from their moms basement. The GAO said it will save us money and they are supposed to be the only people who don't have an axe to grind. I personally want Obama care repealed. Its unconstitutional in my opinion. The Patriot act is also unconstitutional too. Now chew on this.....If I had the chance to vote for Ron Paul or Obama I would chose Ron Paul. But you think I am a liberal alone. Seems I don't fit in your and neither do many liberals. At the end of the day, I look to the constitution. I will defend your (and mine) 2nd amendment rights so take that as a point of common ground too. [Beer]
People on welfare probably consider you to be rich. I think your taxes should go up 10%. Let me know what you think. Just depends on your tax bracket who you consider to be rich.
Apparently bush was extremely powerful. Ignorance is bliss I guess
I would like nynco to tell me what the Bush Administration should have done after 9/11... I know Al Gore would have probably flopped around like a fish and did nothing, then come Nov another attack, then another, and another.
Is it no surprise that after we decimated the Taliban and rooted out Al Qaeda that we haven't been attacked since? Sure there's been attacks planned, and plots broken up, but perhaps them knowing now that we won't put up with that s*** has deterred some. Granted, we do present a good target with our forces over there so they don't need to attack the homeland, but still- I've been there done that, and I full on 100% agree with going into Afghanistan, and like it or not, sooner or later we would have had to do something with Iraq. Words like warmonger, unpaid for wars, etc. getting thrown around just make me see the ignorance in pacifism. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
People on welfare probably consider you to be rich. I think your taxes should go up 10%. Let me know what you think. Just depends on your tax bracket who you consider to be rich.
Apparently bush was extremely powerful. Ignorance is bliss I guess
Sure raise my taxes 10% within a few years my job will pay me about the same I was making in take home pay as before. But 10% is a small price to pay for ensuring the long term health of this nation.
Sure raise my taxes 10% within a few years my job will pay me about the same I was making in take home pay as before. But 10% is a small price to pay for ensuring the long term health of this nation.
i could not pay my bills with a 10% tax increase... I live within my means my POS car is paid for no credit cards i share an apt and pay about 600 dollars a month rent. I do not eat out much and do no buy name brand items.
how many other people are like me? i imagine quite a few.
And I make fairly decent money for a 24 yr old male with a AS and partial Bacholers.
Byte Stryke
07-26-2011, 12:32
i could not pay my bills with a 10% tax increase... I live within my means my POS car is paid for no credit cards i share an apt and pay about 600 dollars a month rent. I do not eat out much and do no buy name brand items.
how many other people are like me? i imagine quite a few.
And I make fairly decent money for a 24 yr old male with a AS and partial Bachelors.
Same... except I am 44 and share mine with a 3 year old.
he's not much on splitting the bills.
Same... except I am 44 and share mine with a 3 year old.
he's not much on splitting the bills.
Put that boy to work Byte! Nyco and Obama would love to add him to the labor force and paying those extra taxes :).
I would like nynco to tell me what the Bush Administration should have done after 9/11... I know Al Gore would have probably flopped around like a fish and did nothing, then come Nov another attack, then another, and another.
Is it no surprise that after we decimated the Taliban and rooted out Al Qaeda that we haven't been attacked since? Sure there's been attacks planned, and plots broken up, but perhaps them knowing now that we won't put up with that s*** has deterred some. Granted, we do present a good target with our forces over there so they don't need to attack the homeland, but still- I've been there done that, and I full on 100% agree with going into Afghanistan, and like it or not, sooner or later we would have had to do something with Iraq. Words like warmonger, unpaid for wars, etc. getting thrown around just make me see the ignorance in pacifism. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
You want my opinion...... Be careful you may agree with me.
I think Bush did the right thing in going into Afghanistan to get Osama. But I also know that the Afghan's offered to give Osama up and Bush turned them down. So he was both right and wrong.
Where Bush fucked up. I was cheering for him up until this point.
TORA BORA
In Tora Bora we were told that we thought we had Osama cornered in a cave complex. So why did we half ass that job to get him? I am not speaking ill of any SF operator. They are the best at what they do, but they were not given all the support they needed to win in that battle. In fact someone was working against them. Either that or someone was a colossal moron who called the shots from a far. We had Osama cornered in a given location. We have the best military in the world with tons of troops on call at every given moment. Why did no one make a call to someone like the 82nd or the 101st to fly into that region and set up a perimeter? Why? You have someone cornered military 101 says you surround them. Instead we sent in SF leading people who no more than a month before were Osamas allies. We set them up in a front line formation with the border of Pakistan on the other side. What do you think anyone would do in that situation? Just what Osama did...... fall back over the border and live to fight another day. Why the hell did we not surround that location? I know the land is not an easy area to fight in. But I have confidence that our guys could camp up there and pull guard duty. Hold the location and squeeze. We have the capability to wait them out. Those military fuckups are what made me start to question Bushes intentions. In my opinion he wanted to keep Osama alive so the American public would be scared enough to permit Bush to go into Iraq...... and in Iraq Bush did even more fuckups that confirmed my opinions of him.
Now Iraq... I don't know if it was a good idea or not. We did it, we broke it we bought it, deed done. We won.........of course we won. We are the best military in the world. Now here is what blew my mind. We won and we did the stupidest thing in the world after we won. Something that is against military occupation 101. In fact this lesson is so old that the Romans are the best example of this point. In war when you defeat your enemy you do one of a few things afterward to make sure you can hold your winnings and keep further fighting from happening. You either fold all the opposing military forces into your own, or you kill every last one so no one is left standing to fight you. Again military 101 since the dawn of time.
What did Bush do....... the Iraqi military was defeated. They were in negotiations as to what to do with them with some of the higher ranking generals from Saddam's military that were still left alive. What does the Bush administration do? They dismiss them. They sent them home. Not only that but they did it from a distance with no one making sure they did not take home their weapons. Now if the US was defeated by Mexico (ha ha ha) and the Mexicans called up your unit and told you go home........ you now have no job or income, have a great day. You would do just what they did, you would walk into your armory take every last bullet, gun and bomb with you as you walked out the door and start a Guerilla war to get Mexico to leave.
The proper thing to do...... take over the Iraqi military, pay their salary and turn them into local police. Put US officers and other military personnel in charge of them to keep them out of trouble. That is Roman occupation 101. Turn them into Auxiliary forces.
Instead we turned them into fully armed young guys with no central commander and no job...... bad idea.
Put that boy to work Byte! Nyco and Obama would love to add him to the labor force and paying those extra taxes :).
Get it correct, I don't like Obama. I want the Dems to primary that worthless sellout.
Well, I'm not going to add to the pointless pissing contest going on here but if that passed and this super congress somehow took affect, I think a civil war type deal might pop up. Just sayin.
Well, I'm not going to add to the pointless pissing contest going on here but if that passed and this super congress somehow took affect, I think a civil war type deal might pop up. Just sayin.
hard reset catalyst too.
Well, I'm not going to add to the pointless pissing contest going on here but if that passed and this super congress somehow took affect, I think a civil war type deal might pop up. Just sayin.
I think that would be possible. I always figured if anyone could get us to another civil war it would be Barry. As for the pissing contest, I agree, as for the pisser - well, I'm glad there is an ignore list :).
You want my opinion...... Be careful you may agree with me.
I think Bush did the right thing in going into Afghanistan to get Osama. But I also know that the Afghan's offered to give Osama up and Bush turned them down. So he was both right and wrong.
Where Bush fucked up. I was cheering for him up until this point.
TORA BORA
In Tora Bora we were told that we thought we had Osama cornered in a cave complex. So why did we half ass that job to get him? I am not speaking ill of any SF operator. They are the best at what they do, but they were not given all the support they needed to win in that battle. In fact someone was working against them. Either that or someone was a colossal moron who called the shots from a far. We had Osama cornered in a given location. We have the best military in the world with tons of troops on call at every given moment. Why did no one make a call to someone like the 82nd or the 101st to fly into that region and set up a perimeter? Why? You have someone cornered military 101 says you surround them. Instead we sent in SF leading people who no more than a month before were Osamas allies. We set them up in a front line formation with the border of Pakistan on the other side. What do you think anyone would do in that situation? Just what Osama did...... fall back over the border and live to fight another day. Why the hell did we not surround that location? I know the land is not an easy area to fight in. But I have confidence that our guys could camp up there and pull guard duty. Hold the location and squeeze. We have the capability to wait them out. Those military fuckups are what made me start to question Bushes intentions. In my opinion he wanted to keep Osama alive so the American public would be scared enough to permit Bush to go into Iraq...... and in Iraq Bush did even more fuckups that confirmed my opinions of him.
I agree on the handling of Iraq post-victory. However, Bush is not the all powerful puppet master pulling all the strings and holding all the cards. I've never heard one shred of anything about the Afghans offering to turn OBL over, and I worked in US Army Intelligence for 4 years with extensive research on the good and bad of the Afghan campaign. We asked them to turn him over several times, and due to the failures of the Clinton admin and not putting any boots on ground (our SF guys like SEALs, Delta, and JSOC can blend very well) to take this guy out was one of the biggest blunders in American history. Clinton failed, not Bush. Bush was never "offered" bin Laden, in fact after all his requests after 9/11 the Taliban harboring him basically said for us to go f*** ourselves. They invited the strongest military power to come and tear them a new one.
Tora Bora- biggest mistake we could have made. But was it Bush's fault? I'll tell you this, not once did I ever receive an order from the President during war. Never. Presidents don't run combat, that's what Generals are for. Presidents do have the final say, and can approve some operations, but the meat and potatoes of combat is run by the Officer Corps for each branch of service. I do know for a fact- as I had friends there- Tora Bora was the worst mis-communication in the history of modern ground conflict. There was little to no cooperation between the SF and CIA handlers with the Northern Alliance, the USAF, Army Rangers, 10th MTN Div and the Special Operations forces. All those involved were operating almost completely autonomously without knowing what the other was doing. A retired CIA officer went on the record and said that it could have worked if the USAF were allowed to bomb Al Qaeda's exit, position Rangers at the back door, squeeze into the valley with NA and 10th MTN, and suppress with AC-130 and AH-64 gunship fire support. But what happened? Well we see now that he was able to slip away into Pakistan because our commanders over there were too busy squabbling. Not Bush, he knew of the operation, but since Eisenhower, we haven't had a real military leader in the Oval Office, and bureaucrats don't know dick about conducting warfare.
I agree on the handling of Iraq post-victory. However, Bush is not the all powerful puppet master pulling all the strings and holding all the cards. I've never heard one shred of anything about the Afghans offering to turn OBL over, and I worked in US Army Intelligence for 4 years with extensive research on the good and bad of the Afghan campaign. We asked them to turn him over several times, and due to the failures of the Clinton admin and not putting any boots on ground (our SF guys like SEALs, Delta, and JSOC can blend very well) to take this guy out was one of the biggest blunders in American history. Clinton failed, not Bush. Bush was never "offered" bin Laden, in fact after all his requests after 9/11 the Taliban harboring him basically said for us to go f*** ourselves. They invited the strongest military power to come and tear them a new one.
Tora Bora- biggest mistake we could have made. But was it Bush's fault? I'll tell you this, not once did I ever receive an order from the President during war. Never. Presidents don't run combat, that's what Generals are for. Presidents do have the final say, and can approve some operations, but the meat and potatoes of combat is run by the Officer Corps for each branch of service. I do know for a fact- as I had friends there- Tora Bora was the worst mis-communication in the history of modern ground conflict. There was little to no cooperation between the SF and CIA handlers with the Northern Alliance, the USAF, Army Rangers, 10th MTN Div and the Special Operations forces. All those involved were operating almost completely autonomously without knowing what the other was doing. A retired CIA officer went on the record and said that it could have worked if the USAF were allowed to bomb Al Qaeda's exit, position Rangers at the back door, squeeze into the valley with NA and 10th MTN, and suppress with AC-130 and AH-64 gunship fire support. But what happened? Well we see now that he was able to slip away into Pakistan because our commanders over there were too busy squabbling. Not Bush, he knew of the operation, but since Eisenhower, we haven't had a real military leader in the Oval Office, and bureaucrats don't know dick about conducting warfare.
For the most part I agree with you. But why are there so many fuckups? I would think someone who was managing that whole thing could see the obvious. As to me blaming Bush........ as the saying goes. "The buck stops here."
As to Bush being offered Bin Laden..... read away.
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-10-07/us/ret.us.taliban_1_abdul-salam-zaeef-surrender-bin-taliban-offer?_s=PM:US Now do I think it was a smart move to turn them down? I really don't know. I do know that me personally I think a bullet in his head was a better option. So Bush going into Afghanistan was good with me.
I've never heard one shred of anything about the Afghans offering to turn OBL over, and I worked in US Army Intelligence for 4 years with extensive research on the good and bad of the Afghan campaign. We asked them to turn him over several times, and due to the failures of the Clinton admin and not putting any boots on ground (our SF guys like SEALs, Delta, and JSOC can blend very well) to take this guy out was one of the biggest blunders in American history. Clinton failed, not Bush. Bush was never "offered" bin Laden, in fact after all his requests after 9/11 the Taliban harboring him basically said for us to go f*** ourselves. They invited the strongest military power to come and tear them a new one.
No idea if it was ever a legitimate offer or not, but I definitely remember in the weeks after 9/11 reading reports that the Taliban offered up OBL in exchange for the US calling off the invasion.
For the most part I agree with you. But why are there so many fuckups? I would think someone who was managing that whole thing could see the obvious. As to me blaming Bush........ as the saying goes. "The Buck stops here."
If that's the case then our current economic woes, the BATFE's Fast and Furious blunder, the TSA's frequent infringement of civil liberties, and a whole list of other things we can just lay all the blame on Obama! I have no problem with that, but the rest of the country might. If you hold the president accountable for every little thing, we'd be rotating CICs every 6 months. Wars are not an easy thing to run. Why do you think there are several members in a coaching staff on a football team? Because there are about a dozen things going on during a play in football, and that has not even a countable fraction of the number things going on in combat. So it's easy to say there are screw ups and blunders, but it's much harder to actually plan and conduct war.
Now, as far as the "turning over of Bin Laden" now I know what you're talking about. That did not go along with how we do things. And look at who reported it, CNN. The real story was- the burden of proof to provide viable evidence for an Islamic court to decide on a prominent and well liked person in Afghanistan who contributed millions to the Taliban regime was on the U.S. There was not a snowball's chance in hell that he would be convicted, punished or sentenced if tried in a Taliban court under sharia law. Attacking infidels in a country like Afghanistan (under TB rule) is something you get medals for, not a death sentence. They were never going to turn him over, they were going to try him. We would send someone over with evidence that OBL was behind the planing of 9/11- which in Oct '01 there wasn't a lot but we knew it was him- they would try him, and odds are he would be acquitted. Sorry, but that holds no water. Either way the war was inevitable, and very necessary.
Byte Stryke
07-26-2011, 14:04
No idea if it was ever a legitimate offer or not, but I definitely remember in the weeks after 9/11 reading reports that the Taliban offered up OBL in exchange for the US calling off the invasion.
am I wrong or wasn't that only part of the US demands.
I seem to remember expulsion of all Al-Qaeda and dismantling of the training camps.
If that's the case then our current economic woes, the BATFE's Fast and Furious blunder, the TSA's frequent infringement of civil liberties, and a whole list of other things we can just lay all the blame on Obama! I have no problem with that, but the rest of the country might. If you hold the president accountable for every little thing, we'd be rotating CICs every 6 months. Wars are not an easy thing to run. Why do you think there are several members in a coaching staff on a football team? Because there are about a dozen things going on during a play in football, and that has not even a countable fraction of the number things going on in combat. So it's easy to say there are screw ups and blunders, but it's much harder to actually plan and conduct war.
Now, as far as the "turning over of Bin Laden" now I know what you're talking about. That did not go along with how we do things. And look at who reported it, CNN. The real story was- the burden of proof to provide viable evidence for an Islamic court to decide on a prominent and well liked person in Afghanistan who contributed millions to the Taliban regime was on the U.S. There was not a snowball's chance in hell that he would be convicted, punished or sentenced if tried in a Taliban court under sharia law. Attacking infidels in a country like Afghanistan (under TB rule) is something you get medals for, not a death sentence. They were never going to turn him over, they were going to try him. We would send someone over with evidence that OBL was behind the planing of 9/11- which in Oct '01 there wasn't a lot but we knew it was him- they would try him, and odds are he would be acquitted. Sorry, but that holds no water. Either way the war was inevitable, and very necessary.
I do blame Obama. I want the Dems to primary him. If the GOP selects Ron Paul or someone like him, I will gladly vote for him too.
am I wrong or wasn't that only part of the US demands.
I seem to remember expulsion of all Al-Qaeda and dismantling of the training camps.
You might be right Byte. Me personally, I would have taken up the offer of getting Osama and still attacked the camps and flattened them to nothing. But thats just me [Twist]
am I wrong or wasn't that only part of the US demands.
I seem to remember expulsion of all Al-Qaeda and dismantling of the training camps.
Yes. The US told the Taliban government (which was recognized as the governing body of Afghanistan by the UN) that they had to surrender OBL and Al Qaeda unconditionally and destroy the training camps, otherwise invasion. What did the TB say? "We'll try OBL in our Sharia court." Laughable.
Yes. The US told the Taliban government (which was recognized as the governing body of Afghanistan by the UN) that they had to surrender OBL and Al Qaeda unconditionally and destroy the training camps, otherwise invasion. What did the TB say? "We'll try OBL in our Sharia court." Laughable.
Actually I think the neutral court was in Saudi Arabia. Which I am sure we could have rigged to get a guillotine sentence[Beer]
Actually I think the neutral court was in Saudi Arabia. Which I am sure we could have rigged to get a guillotine sentence[Beer]
Taliban go to a "neutral" court? Sorry, I seriously doubt that. The original proposal submitted to the State Department was to try him in Kabul. Not sure if they amended or tried for somewhere else, but you don't try a murderer of Americans in another country, you try them here! That would be like me killing some people in France and then being tried in Poland.
Taliban go to a "neutral" court? Sorry, I seriously doubt that. The original proposal submitted to the State Department was to try him in Kabul. Not sure if they amended or tried for somewhere else, but you don't try a murderer of Americans in another country, you try them here! That would be like me killing some people in France and then being tried in Poland.
Actually in any court of law the only way that you can have any form of legitimacy the trial has have a neutral party arbitrate and judge. I don't think the US is neutral. Nor is the Taliban.
But regardless of all of this. I regret bringing it up. Because in reality, I have no issue with Bush going after him. I only wish I could have pulled the trigger myself on Osama.
mcantar18c
08-04-2011, 13:45
(Disclaimer: I didn't check to see if this was already posted)
Don't ya just love it when the libtards sneak things though with major bills (like Obamacare)?
Super Congress passed though with debt bill...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/aug/2/picket-lawmakers-remain-leery-super-congress/
a "super congress" as some are calling it, included in the debt ceiling bill, will be set up following the legislation's passage.
How about we solve the problems by passing a law that says every bill has to be paid for with raised taxes. So if we want a war, we have a tax to pay for it. If we want some new boondoggle of a agency, or a new airplane that shoots laser beams, we get a new tax. Medicare Part D means the Medicare Part D tax. The Stimulus project means the Stimulus tax. Lets see how far it gets then.
This would certainly make people in congress less apt to push through as many stupid bills...
H.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.