So is this a common politician tactic?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spoid @ Mar 30 2007, 01:52 PM) [snapback]415098[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Mar 30 2007, 12:39 AM) [snapback]414707[/snapback]</div>

Citations on the interweb, including wikipedia, are a crap shoot. However, determining if Byrd or Stevens is the king of pork doesn't require primary sources. It's all pigmeat. In MY opinion, Byrd is the godfather of pork and Stevens should stick to regulating the intertubes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spoid @ Mar 30 2007, 04:52 PM) [snapback]415098[/snapback]</div>

The circumstances of the Valorie Plame case prove that Bush knew his information was wrong.The Plame case points directly to the Whitehouse as the source of the outing.
The Whitehouse was spreading false information about WMDs in Iraq.The Yellowcake from Niger story was a lie and Bush expressed that lie in his state of the union address.
Because Joe Wilson exposed the lie ,the Whitehouse retaliated by outing his wife Valorie Plame..
Bush knew the information was wrong and tried to stop the flow of truth from Wilson ,which would expose Bush's deceit.
There is no other intelligent explanation for these turn of events.Do you have a different explanation?

 

I do think that Congress, including the Dems who went "sheepishly" along, is also to blame. There were lots of us out here that were saying "Show us the proof. Not speculation and conjecture, but proof, of WMD." At no point did the adminstration do that, and I was disappointed that few in Congress called the administration out on it.

Everyone was still so raw from 9/11. The adminstration certainly played on that in selling the war in Iraq to Congress and the public at large.

As for getting rid of pork? I'm all for it. I don't dig on swine. I would say that the line-item veto needs to come back (against the courts, I know, but it could be made into an amendment). However, I would NEVER trust this President with that power.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RonH @ Mar 30 2007, 05:46 PM) [snapback]415135[/snapback]</div>

I made sure the wikipedia articles had citations and were not flagged for review or questionable.

Did you bother to read who is backing Citizens Against Government Waste (corporations including Exxon/Mobil) or how Porkbusters defines "pork" (Katrina relief in a highway bill)?

I don't consider putting Katrina relief in the Iraq funding bill to be pork because it should have been done, hasn't been done, needs to be done and this seems to be the only way to get it done. The Bridge to Nowhere, on the other hand oinks to the high heaven. Porkbusters doesn't seem to make the distinction.

CAGW sounds good, but is dirty below the surface. Too close to corporations. And sending letters from dad people? Gee, are they headquartered in Chicago?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Mar 30 2007, 07:35 PM) [snapback]415268[/snapback]</div>

Which is exactly why NO president should ever be given it. I used to think Nixon was the absolute nadir - then Reagan got put into office and proved the nadir could be repeated or even surpassed, and I thought if this country survives Reagan it will have survived the worst that could happen to it politically - now of course we look at the Cheney/Rove sock puppet as the worst political figurehead since King John and I realize it's naive to think we've actually seen the worst; something more vile still could be lurking in the wings, awaiting special appointment by the Supreme Court in 2008, or 2012, or 2016 if the electorate proves too squeamish to do the deed itself. No, sir, keep the line item veto OUT of a president's hands - our destiny should never be that tightly gripped by a single pair of grubby hands.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Mar 30 2007, 07:35 PM) [snapback]415268[/snapback]</div>

It is my view that the Congress, and especially the Dems, knew perfectly well that the "intelligence" for war was falsified. Plenty of voices on the left were pointing out the flaws, and the international inspectors were saying that, in spite of some obstruction by the Iraqis, they were doing their job and had found no evidence of WMDs.

It is my belief that Congress went along with the falsified information and voted for war because they saw the nation in a war fever, and felt their personal political careers would be better served by war-mongering than by speaking common sense. A few did vote against the war.

But Congress is spineless, and is composed of self-serving criminals. They share in the blame, and they knew, or could easily have found out if they wanted to know the truth, that there were no WMDs.

However, Bush and his cronies are the ones who actively manipulated and falsified information.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Mar 30 2007, 07:35 PM) [snapback]415268[/snapback]</div>

A line-item veto would give the president more power than he already has, and at present he has far too much. A line-item veto would strip from the Congress the ability to make compromises among its members.

A line-item veto would not eliminate pork. It would only assure that the president could have his pork, while denying pork to the opposition. Do not make the mistake of imagining that giving the president this unprecedented power would solve anything. It would merely throw the balance of power further over towards the executive branch. (And BTW, the prez has never had a line-item veto. We're not talking about "bringing [it] back," we're talking about a power that has never existed before.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Mar 30 2007, 10:01 PM) [snapback]415283[/snapback]</div>

No. Googling "Byrd pork" brings 451,000 citations. Surely they can't all be in the on the payroll of evil corporations and libertarians. ("Stevens pork" gets 833,000.) I don't consider it necessary to search out primary references to show the obvious. But that's just me. Did you challenge the original Stevens citation, or does sourcewatch get a bye?

And didn't you say earlier on this thread:

"Personally, I think bills should be homogeneous; if it doesn't have anything to do with the "theme" of the bill it's dropped. You want a something for salmon fishermen? Put it in a bill about fish or ecology or enviromental renovation. I think restoring the Klamath and bringing back the salmon is very important. But it doesn't belong mixed in with the War."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 31 2007, 11:11 AM) [snapback]415445[/snapback]</div>

Yes he has. Not this prez, but Clinton had line-item veto, and used it several times.

You notice I went on to say that this one shouldn't have it. It is a lot of power, but it can help stop pork. It did in the 90s.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Apr 2 2007, 04:52 AM) [snapback]416357[/snapback]</div>

Oops. You're right. That happened while I was living in Mexico, and not paying a lot of attention to U.S. news. The Supreme Court eventually declared the law unconstitutional that gave him that power. (I.e. it would require a Constitutional amendment.)