Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

[Phanatic]

This just brings up the whole shifting objective bit.  When exactly can we say "we're done"?  First it was WMD's, then we had to get Saddam out, then we had to set up a puppet government, now we have to convince them to actually run the country.  When does it end?

The US was left holding the bill patroling the no fly zones all through the 90s. Our troops were there anyway even if in a lesser presence. Had we not invaded we would be there patroling the no fly zones one way or another or Saddam would have taken his shot most likely. He had WMDs in the early 90's and we didn't go in and do anything about it because it was a "quagmire". So says Cheney in 94.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

Now what caused Cheney and Company to change their minds about Iraq and if they knew it was a quagmire back in 94 why in the hell would they think they could occupy the country with so little? It's baffling.

[MDS]

[mpmcgraw]

There really are two parts to this thing and what he said makes sense. Army to Army it was an easy victory. As far as occupation our troops weren't trained for it and there weren't enough troops on the ground to pull it off. Hense the surge. Rumsfeld was convinced that he could do everything on the cheap.

Everywhere the troops have gone they have done their jobs. 

The problem isn't training it's sheer numbers and resources. 

[Phanatic]

There really are two parts to this thing and what he said makes sense. Army to Army it was an easy victory. As far as occupation our troops weren't trained for it and there weren't enough troops on the ground to pull it off. Hense the surge. Rumsfeld was convinced that he could do everything on the cheap.

Everywhere the troops have gone they have done their jobs. 

The problem isn't training it's sheer numbers and resources. 

The troops do what they're trained to do and do it well. Just because they were not trained to occupy and deal with an insurgency at first in no way demeans them. It's more of a case where the government tried to use a hammer on a wood screw. Wrong tool for the job. For example the national guard troops in Iraq were known to be easy marks because they were dressed in green fatigues and stood out. Their vehicles were not as heavily armored and were susceptible to road side bombs. Because the military does such a fine job all these things have been adjusted and accounted for, however someone would have realized all of this beforehand.

[Phanatic]

I should also say that right now they are all well trained in these things. I just think that it was a harder road then it should have been and I really put all of that on the shoulders of the Pentagon and not the troops.

[ice grillin you]

yeah ive read in many places that traning has been a pretty big problem

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

So, they need troops with better VORT?

[mpmcgraw]

Yes either VORT or you know better vehicles than humvees than can actually stand up to small arms fire.

You know either or. 

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Hail Mary

Awful ad in every way.

[ice grillin you]

mccains look at the end of the ad is priceless...i also like how they cleverly dont mention his first name a single time

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

mccains look at the end of the ad is priceless...i also like how they cleverly dont mention his first name a single time

Obama is basically like "Madonna" or "Sting" at this point.  It's not like anyone hears "Obama" and has any question that it's Barack.

Plus, while you love to drum up the arab fear angle, I think it's a non-factor in that commercial's awfulness.


Also, how stupid is Ludacris?

How could he possibly think that writing that shtein would HELP Obama?

[ice grillin you]

its purposely done and is the main reason for the ad as the rest of it is either ludicrous (showing brittney) or mis leading (the fact that being against off shore drilling has anything to do with the high gas costs)

[ice grillin you]

nice op-ed in the post today re: the housing bill...i dont expect it to change anyones mind but it highlites some of the reasons why i really like the bill

When Congress Works
By David S. Broder
Thursday, July 31, 2008; A19

If you were to ask Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd -- the principal architects of the massive housing bill signed yesterday by President Bush -- which of its many features pleases them most, the answer would surprise you.

It is not the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the embattled mortgage giants, or the aid the bill provides for thousands of homeowners struggling to afford their subprime loans in a faltering real estate market.

Instead, it is the section creating the National Housing Trust Fund, a creative way of meeting the chronic shortage of affordable low-income rental units -- a huge problem in cities and rural areas across the country.

Dodd, a senator from Connecticut, told me, "That is the part that will have the greatest long-term impact." Frank, a Massachusetts representative, said in a separate interview, "That's what I'm most proud of."

Their views are echoed by two other legislators without whom this legislation would never have made it to the White House. Democratic Sen. Jack Reed brought his passion for affordable housing with him from Rhode Island and never gave up on pressing the cause. And Richard Shelby of Alabama, the former chairman and now ranking Republican on the relevant Senate committee, gave the measure the bipartisan backing it needed.

Even with Shelby's help, Dodd notes, the bill had to survive several cloture votes and the threat of a presidential veto, later withdrawn.

The lobbying campaign that supported this effort began in 2001 and involved hundreds of local governments and social service agencies. Sheila Crowley, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition -- the person who coordinated the campaign -- kept hammering home the basic numbers: 9 million extremely low-income households in the United States and only 6.2 million units of affordable rental housing.

The bill addresses that imbalance by creating a new program within the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. The National Housing Trust Fund does not depend on annual appropriations by Congress, which might never arrive, given the size of the federal budget deficit, the costs of two wars and runaway health-care programs.

Instead, it taps a portion of the profits that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac make on their mortgage loans, estimated to yield at least $300 million a year and perhaps as much as $700 million.

Fannie and Freddie have had a rough time in the current housing slump, but all the sponsors of this legislation told me they are confident the two big lenders will survive. In one of the compromises that cleared the way for passage of the bill, next year the profits of Fannie and Freddie will be held in reserve to offset any losses the government incurs in helping seriously strapped mortgage-holders. So it will be 2010 before funding of the trust begins.

Each year, as the money comes in, the trust fund will distribute it to the states using a formula that measures the seriousness of their low-income-housing needs. At least 90 percent of the funds must be used to construct or rehab rental units. All of the benefits are ticketed for very low- or extremely low-income households.

For far too long, the federal government has been shirking its responsibility to help the neediest Americans meet their basic housing needs. Food stamp allocations have been increased repeatedly to combat hunger, in part because the farm lobby values the additional markets for its products.

But Crowley says this bill is "the first low-income-housing production program passed by Congress since 1990 and the first that specifically serves extremely low-income families since 1974."

That legislation of this scope and potential has passed Congress would be worth celebrating at any time. That it has happened now, when Congress is so mired in partisan battles and so paralyzed by the unmet challenges of energy, education, immigration and fiscal irresponsibility, is almost a miracle.

The public has registered its disgust with the performance of this Congress, and I have been equally harsh in my judgment. It is a particular pleasure, therefore, to salute a rare action that shows both professionalism and conscience in the lawmakers.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

So, the bill increases the Federal backing for Fannie and Freddie, but then takes a chunk of their profits to create a new government program for low-income housing?  That seems counter-intuitive.  Plus, all it actually does is increase the need for Fannie and Freddie to get better terms and make more profit, in the long term, to make up for the reduced margin.

The thing that's hilarious is the justification that it's not using government dollars to create the fund, but really it absolutely is.  It's just a little sliver of Socialism.

That said (and brace yourself for this), it's probably one of the best investments of government to help people have an acceptable place to live.  I just wish a program like that wasn't wrapped up in the same bill as all the bailout money.

[ice grillin you]

the bill itself helps fannie and freddie not go under but im not sure what you mean by it increses federal backing...it doesnt...its a quid pro quo of sorts...the fed will bail you out here but in exchange for that x amount of your profits are going to this excellent program

and it wont cause freddie and fannie to raise their rates because no one is going to go to them if they arent competitive...as always the market will set the rate


as for the bundling in this bill thats just how congress works...sounds like your complaint is more with them than with this particular bill