Resolved by the Pelican Parts BBS...

[jluetjen]

I'm just curious how the pelicans would vote given the chance, so -- here's your chance.

Debate is limited to one post per person (even Fastpat )

Congress, American People and Pelican Parts will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving, or have served bravely and honorably in Iraq and disapprove of the decision by President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more then 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

[svandamme]

i disagree with the wording, not with the message, because the questions as "as worded" i voted nay

poor punctuation , very vage statement that requires a lot of re-reading before one is 100% sure what it really says...
to many and's and or's in one sentence ( i always learned to not use to much and and and 's ) in one sentence

something like this, i would split up in a paragraph, multiple sentences
with bulleting and numbering

Congress, American People and Pelican Parts will continue to

support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who:
Are serving or have served bravely and honorably in Iraq
And disapprove of the decision by President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more then 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq

or something like that... i'm no English major, so don't go correcting it's validity , i'm just saying it's not readable as it is so i don't agree to the wording , and i would never use such wording , if i want people to understand what i mean.

[Nathans_Dad]

In other words:

"We disagree and want to get into the news, but we don't have the balls to actually do anything substantive."

[Jim Richards]

The neocon brain trust (I know, it's an oxymoron) have already lost the war that should never have been fought. Bring the troops home and work towards securing peace between the Israelis and the Palestineans. Until that's resolved, any measure of stability in the ME will never happen.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I agree that the wording is awkward and grammatically incorrect, but I get the intention and support the underlying message.

My own $0.02 is that it doesn't go far enough, however. Were it me, I'd also condemn the criminal acts of George W. Bush and his administration for deliberately misleading Congress and the American people in order to justify invasion and for the needless sacrifice of American lives and slaughter of innocent civilians at his behest, demanding a full and immediate investigation.

I'd also mention support of the pending House Resolution to remove all troops immediately from Iraq. It's obviously not going to pass in the Senate, but I'd mention support of it anyway. Those people don't give a damn about peace, they don't want it, don't want democracy and only want to keep slaughtering each other in the name of sect or religion like they have for centuries. I say let 'em. They're going to anyway, regardless of what we try to do otherwise. They want us gone? Fine. Eff 'em.

I'd also demand full restitution to the American people of all profits made by so-called "contractors", particularly those awarded as a result of "no-bid contracts".

[Lothar]

Simply put, if I were a Senator or Congressman, I would try to limit my involvement in meaningless activities.

The resolution is purely political and serves no practical purpose.

[lendaddy]

This is no different than denying them supplies or arms, this is what the General says they need....so give it to them. Or you can vote to actually pull out, since hamstringing your guys like this is unforgivable.

[RallyJon]

It might be relevent if they were actually sending in 20k fresh, well trained, well equipped troops. But the "surge" is just a mish mash of reassigning, delaying, and accellerating to make for the appearance of a strategy.

If the surge is just window dressing, why should the Dems make a fuss?

This is the beginning of the end. Every move from now on will not be about what the generals want, but about politics and posturing between the white house and congress.

[nostatic]

we're sending in Serge? Game over!

[Jim Richards]

"Oh, don't be stupid."

[Icemaster]

Whats the point?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own."

SSDD

[red-beard]

No

[Moneyguy1]

Give them what they need? I agree totally. Let's do precisely that. Make certain that every individual in the theatre is provided with the best and latest in personal armor, upgraded vehicles, and anything else they need in order to survive. In order to do that, the military should have its budget upgraded and carefully monitored, if the object is to "win". But, at the same time, this would require changes in tax policy in order to provide the billions necessary to rebuild the military. Anyone willing to spend a little more to provide both military and civilian programs with proper funding levels? The proposed budget guts specific programs domestically including veterans programs. How is that? Should there be a surge? There might have been a time, in my uninformed opinion, that such an action might have worked. I am not so certain now. Would 20k make a difference? Will the Iraqi military ever be prepared to take over essential services? Is there a real civil war fomenting? How involved are Iran and Syria? Where are the other Middle East countries when it comes to assisting in the actual "fighting"? They have a vested interest in stability yet not one, to my knowledge, has boots on the ground. Why? What role are Russia and China playing in all of this? FInally.....Are we in a position that, although different, is akin to the Soviets in Afghanistan without a clear path to resolution? What,specifically, are the desired goals in Iraq without resorting to such catch phrases as 'victory'? Where will be be re: the situation in a year? two years? five years?

So many questions......

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
The proposed budget guts specific programs domestically including veterans programs.

Really? What are those numbers?

[Moneyguy1]

There was an article in the paper recently (sorry, I did not keep it), but it outlined the programs with a comparison between the current and proposed budgets with changes stated in dollars and percentage change.

I realize I should have kept the figures, since so many here have a habit of questioning a statement that does not include absolutes. However, I am certain the info is on the internet if anyone is willing to look it up. If someone comes up with a viable non partsan site, I wouldbe grateful.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
There was an article in the paper recently (sorry, I did not keep it), but it outlined the programs with a comparison between the current and proposed budgets with changes stated in dollars and percentage change.

I realize I should have kept the figures, since so many here have a habit of questioning a statement that does not include absolutes. However, I am certain the info is on the internet if anyone is willing to look it up. If someone comes up with a viable non partsan site, I wouldbe grateful.

No, my point is that it's likely a decrease in the increase as opposed to a cut. I get very tired of that trick. So.......was it an actual cut or a smaller than hoped for increase?

[Jim Richards]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Really? What are those numbers?

From:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorites
February 8, 2007

PRESIDENT’S BUDGET CALLS FOR DEEP CUTS IN A WIDE RANGE OF DOMESTIC PROGRAMS: Cuts Start in 2008 and Grow Deeper Over Time
by Sharon Parrott and Matt Fiedler

[snipped out unrelated budget info]

Hospital and Medical Care for Veterans: The President proposes to increase funding for these programs by nearly $1.4 billion (or 4 percent) in 2008. But the increase would only be temporary. The President proposes to cut the programs in this subfunction in each subsequent year, from 2009 through 2012; in each of those years, the programs would be funded at levels below the amount provided for 2007, adjusted for inflation. In 2012, the cut would be $2.7 billion, or 7 percent.[iii]

Applicable endnote:
[iii] Note that the cost of providing health care to veterans is likely to rise faster than the overall inflation rate because health care inflation is higher than the overall inflation rate.

[lendaddy]

Don't let Pat see that Jim, he'll have to run out and get some W bumperstickers

But something tells me that's not the whole story.

[Jim Richards]

You could be right. We'll see.

[lendaddy]

Here are a couple of snippets:


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."

And finally:


"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"

The Bush team is likely guilty of playing with numbers for good press, but they are not and will not be cutting Veterans health care.