SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: pompsander who wrote (756178)12/15/2006 12:43:08 PM
From: jlallen  Respond to of 769670
 
Yes...I think so but his current actions are less so....



To: pompsander who wrote (756178)12/15/2006 1:20:59 PM
From: haqihana  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
pomp, Only a few can be forgivable IMO.

Now, his commitment to Habitat For Humanity, is a good place for him to be, and a fine thing to do. He also did the nation a good favor by keeping Billy out of the lime light. That drunken baboon had no business being around the rest of the population.



To: pompsander who wrote (756178)12/15/2006 5:35:01 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™  Respond to of 769670
 
forgivable?

Of course, and with no hesitation... no one is perfect, especially when they're on the immediate spot to make decisions of the magnitude a U.S. President has to make...

BUT, I think his more recent comments and actions are not forgivable, he's turned himself into a complete "blame America first" jackass, his recent book doesn't even have the facts straight, he's now become an embarrassment to all of us...

GZ



To: pompsander who wrote (756178)12/17/2006 1:00:22 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 769670
 
Congress's Inaction Threatens Funding

Avoiding Spending Bills, Hill Causes Crunch

By Jonathan Weisman and Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 17, 2006; A01
washingtonpost.com

The Republican-controlled Congress's decision to adjourn a week ago before completing many of the spending bills that finance the federal government will reverberate in ways large and small, such as understaffed U.S. attorney's offices, delayed renovations at the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut and a scuttled global nuclear energy exchange.

Republican leaders left behind just enough spending authority to keep the government operating through mid-February, less than halfway through the 2007 fiscal year that began Oct. 1. Democrats have signaled that when they take control of Congress in January they will extend that funding authority for the remainder of the year based largely on the previous year's spending levels, which will result in many cuts in programs.

The Democrats also will do something that is certain to anger many lawmakers but cheer critics of excessive government spending: They will wipe out thousands of lawmakers' pet projects, or earmarks, that have been a source of great controversy on Capitol Hill. In the past, lawmakers have peppered individual spending bills with earmarks benefiting special interests. But the funding resolution the Democrats intend to pass in lieu of spending bills will be devoid of earmarks.

Among the casualties will be $3 million for AIDS and homelessness programs in San Francisco pushed by House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and $3 million to establish the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York, pushed by the center's namesake, the Democrats' incoming House Ways and Means Committee chairman.

Efforts championed by President Bush, such as "clean coal" technology, will take a big hit, but so will programs favored by Democrats. The federal judiciary would run out of money to pay lawyers for poor defendants by July, effectively locking up the wheels of justice because trials could not proceed without legal representation for defendants.

Democrats say they had little choice but to take this tightfisted approach after Republicans dumped so many unfinished spending bills in their lap. "We did not call the shots here," maintained incoming House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who said that with the fiscal year well underway and Democrats assuming power with a full slate of priorities, he will have little choice but to put the government on autopilot. "We will try to provide modest adjustments where we can, but a lot of people will be left short."

But some Republicans suspect that's not the full story.

"What the Democrats didn't say is that they probably intend to take the earmark savings and spend it elsewhere," said Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), who was hoping to get $3 million for a new autism research center at the Florida Institute of Technology.

The collapse of the budget process was a long time coming, with roots stretching back to the Republican revolution of 1994. But this year, the system finally buckled under the weight of the president's austere spending recommendations, a difficult election year and the Republican leadership's efforts to placate both its most ardent conservatives and its endangered moderates.

Congress was able to pass only two of its 11 annual spending bills, those that fund defense and homeland security. Republicans punted spending measures for virtually every one of the government's domestic programs to the Democrats who assume control Jan. 4. Then last week, Democrats announced they would punt, too. A joint House-Senate resolution -- rather than carefully tailored spending bills -- will keep the government open through the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30, largely at last year's levels.

The consequences will be substantial. At the Justice Department, officials said a resolution financing the government largely at 2006 levels would only worsen a severe staffing shortage at offices of U.S. attorneys around the country. The vacancy rate for federal prosecutors stands at about 10 percent on average, and House Democrats reported earlier this year that some larger offices have rates surpassing 20 percent.

The federal court system would not be spared, either. Operating at current funding levels would leave the judiciary with a $270 million shortfall for salaries and expenses, said Dick Carelli, spokesman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Furloughs, layoffs or attrition would be needed to trim the payroll by 7 percent -- or almost 3,000 probation officers, court clerk workers and pretrial service staff members -- by the close of the fiscal year, Carelli said.

The Department of Energy is looking at a 20 percent cut in its administrative budget and could be forced to lay off many of the 960 people who help manage the department -- secretarial aides, lawyers and human resources staffers, said Craig Stevens, a department spokesman.

New presidential initiatives for 2007, such as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, FutureGen, a clean coal initiative, and a health-care information technology program, are not likely to be funded, agency officials say.

Democrats will make some adjustments in the joint resolution to address the most pressing needs, especially in the Department of Veterans Affairs health-care system, which needs $3 billion more just to keep covering all the veterans it covers now, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which could lose 500 agents under current funding levels, said Tom Gavin, spokesman for incoming Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.).

What is certain is that thousands of earmarks will get nothing, at least until October, when fiscal 2008 begins. About $400,000 in hospital equipment for Perris, Calif., $1.5 million in biotechnology grants for the Illinois Institute of Technology, and another $1.5 million for bridge and street repairs in Columbus, Ohio, will be wiped out.

Budget hawks who have been crusading against such home-district projects hailed the Democrats' decision as an unexpected stroke of political bravery. Bush praised the move yesterday in his weekly radio address.

But the lawmakers who worked to get those projects into the now-dashed spending bills were left quietly fuming. Obey said Friday that he has fielded "a steady stream of calls from people in high dudgeon."

"I will work to reverse this decision," promised Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), who lost a transit center for Bridgeport, a waste-to-energy program for Stamford and a train station for South Norwalk.

It has been nearly 20 years since congressional failures left the government to be financed under spending guidelines and formulas rather than line-by-line policymaking. But to federal budget experts, this year's breakdown was hardly surprising. Not since 1994, the last year of Democratic control, has Congress actually passed all of its spending bills. Republican leaders almost ensured logjams by populating the House Budget Committee with conservative spending hawks whose views on the size of government were fundamentally different from many of the appropriators who would have to flesh out the committee's budget blueprints. Ultimately, compromises in those conservative principles have been laid at the feet of the Clinton White House, the demands of the post-Sept. 11 government, or a Democratic-controlled Senate, said Scott Lilly, a former Democratic staff director of the House Appropriations Committee.

But this year, conservatives dug in, backed by the White House and GOP leaders. Bush's domestic spending request for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 actually sliced $2.2 billion from the 2006 level.

Rather than face a public fight over the cuts necessary to meet that goal, House Republican leaders decided not to bring the largest domestic spending bill, funding labor, health and education programs, to a vote before the election. The Senate did even less. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) simply decided none of the domestic spending bills would get time on the Senate floor before the election.

"The breakdown of regular order this cycle -- indeed the failure to get our bills done -- should be squarely placed at the feet of the departing Senate majority leader," said outgoing House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.).

Staff writers Christopher Lee, Dan Eggen, Steve Mufson and Amy Goldstein contributed to this report.



To: pompsander who wrote (756178)12/18/2006 2:13:02 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Last Word: Jimmy Carter

Revisiting 'Apartheid'

Newsweek International

Dec. 25, 2006 - Jan. 1, 2007 issue - Former president Jimmy Carter has long been regard-ed as an elder statesman, using his political muscle to address issues like democracy and human rights. But he's also been a prolific author. Since leaving office in January 1981, he has written 23 books, on subjects ranging from American moral values to his childhood on a Georgia farm. His latest—and perhaps most controversial—offering, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," reflects his long interest in the Middle East. (As president, he personally negotiated peace between Israel and Egypt.) But it has also drawn fire for its use of the word apartheid to describe the current circumstances of the Palestinian people. While the book has shot up the best-seller list, the former president has been denounced for his criticism of Israel. He's also come under fire from former Carter Center associate Kenneth Stein, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at Emory University, who has raised questions about the book's accuracy. (Disclosure: NEWSWEEK's Christopher Dickey was one of the people asked to comment on an early draft of the book.) President Carter spoke to NEWSWEEK's Eleanor Clift. Excerpts:

Clift: You've created quite a stir. I suspect it was partly intentional.


Carter: Well, it was. One of the purposes of the book was to provoke discussion, which is very rarely heard in this country, and to open up some possibility that we could rejuvenate or restart the peace talks in Israel that have been absent for six years—so that was the purpose of the book.

The word apartheid—did you agonize about that?


Not really, I didn't agonize because I knew that's an accurate description of what's going on in Palestine. I would say that the plight of the Palestinians now—the confiscation of their land, that they're being suppressed completely against voicing their disapproval of what's happening, the building of the wall that intrudes deep within their territory, the complete separation of Israelis from the Palestinians—all of those things in many ways are worse than some of the aspects of apartheid in South Africa. There is no doubt about it, and no one can go there and visit the different cities in Palestine without agreeing with what I have said.

Why do you think you're under attack for the book and the title?


You and I both know the powerful influence of AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee], which is not designed to promote peace. I'm not criticizing them, they have a perfect right to lobby, but their purpose in life is to protect and defend the policies of the Israeli government and to make sure those policies are approved in the United States and in our Congress—and they're very effective at it. I have known a large number of Jewish organizations in this country [that] have expressed their approval for the book and are trying to promote peace. But their voices are divided and they're relatively reluctant to speak out publicly. And any member of Congress who's looking to be re-elected couldn't possibly say that they would take a balanced position between Israel and the Palestinians, or that they would insist on Israel withdrawing to international borders, or that they would dedicate themselves to protect human rights of Palestinians—it's very likely that they would not be re-elected.

In some of your interviews you've said that this is a debate that's out in the open in Israel, and it's only here that we feel inhibited.


Oh yes—that's correct. Not only in Israel—all over Israel, the major news media, every day—[but] obviously in the Arab world, even in Europe. In this country, any sort of debate back and forth, any sort of incisive editorial comment in the major newspapers, is almost completely absent.

You're obviously aware of your main critic, Mr. Stein, who used to be with the Carter Center.


Thirteen years ago! He hasn't been associated with the Carter Center for 13 years.

He says that he was a third party in some meetings and that his notes don't jibe with yours.


He was a third party in some of the meetings, I can't deny that. And a lot of those meetings took place when I was still president and an exact transcription was kept and it's in the official files. So the reports that I gave in the book are completely accurate.

He also accuses you of plagiarism, saying you took from other sources.


The only source that I took anything from that I know about was my own book, which I wrote earlier—it's called "The Blood of Abraham" ... Somebody told me [that Stein] was complaining about the maps in the book. Well, the maps are derived from an atlas that was published in 2004 in Jerusalem and it was basically produced under the aegis of officials in Sweden. And the Swedish former prime minister is the one who told me this was the best atlas available about the Middle East.

© 2006 Newsweek, Inc.

URL: msnbc.msn.com

© 2006 MSNBC.com