Government shutdown: White House details consequences
- Thread starter Malibook
- Start date
CBS News made a point tonight that even if these radical GOPers and their teabagging knuckleheads shutdown the US Gov they will not be effected and these fiscal hypocrites will continue to draw full pay for doing nothing but say NO!....
The facts remain, the House has passed a budget, the Senate has not. The house has passed a continuing resolution to keep the government open and the troops paid, the Senate has not and the POTUS has threatened a veto.... what exactly are they doing (other than flying to NYC to suck up to Al Sharpton) to resolve this.... where are the proposals, the votes, the legislation? The Dems had from Sept - Jan to get this done with no need of GOP support - they did squat, now they are whining while they control one half of the legislative branch and the executive branch.
OTB
I think it's awesome the U.S government is shut down.Newt Boehner knows this will pay off dividends in two years when Barack Clinton gets taken to the woodshed by the American public.
Maybe all those bag squeezers won't miss government that much.If it gets shutdown money gets saved.Give it about a month of minimum services.
A nice strong taste of their "country being took back".I'd bet half those social retards don't even know what the federal government is responsible for.
I'm going in after they shut the lights out.Lemme know if you want anything while i'm there
Maybe all those bag squeezers won't miss government that much.If it gets shutdown money gets saved.Give it about a month of minimum services.
A nice strong taste of their "country being took back".I'd bet half those social retards don't even know what the federal government is responsible for.
I'm going in after they shut the lights out.Lemme know if you want anything while i'm there
The fact is once more they passed a bad/stupid/nuisance bill that will not pass to try and appear to idiots supporters that they're doing their job. Once more a waste of time and money.
Another example of GOP idiocy.; SAY WHA?
GOP pushing for military action in Libya; Obama stays cautious
10:07 am March 7, 2011, by Jay
From the WSJ:
“With no evidence emerging that Col. Gadhafi is about to fall, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky urged the U.S. to consider various moves that would mark a sharp escalation in American involvement.
Speaking on ABC’s “This Week,” Mr. McCain said the U.S. can help the rebels now by pumping in humanitarian assistance; by providing technical assistance, intelligence and training; and by declaring support for a provisional government. Mr. McConnell of Kentucky, speaking on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” said that “arming the insurgents” could be an option, citing as a possible model U.S. efforts against the Soviets during the Cold War.”
I understand the instinct to get involved in Libya. Gadhafi is a brutal, half-crazed tyrant, and it’s hard to sit back and watch while his military attacks his own people. But military experts have stressed the fact that implementing a no-fly zone isn’t as simple and straightforward as we would like to think.
As ABC News reports:
“There may be in the end cheaper and more effective ways to deal with the situation such as providing covert arms to the rebels,” said former deputy assistant secretary of state Steve Ganyard, who is a former fighter pilot who enforced no-fly zones.
“We can’t just go in and put airplanes over Libya. It’s going to take a campaign to take out these surface-to-air-missile systems, to bomb where the aircraft are being parked. It’s not just go in and establish a no-fly zone with no cost.
“We will have to blow things up on the ground in Libya if we want to establish a no-fly zone. It’s a two step process and it will take time and a significant military package to accomplish,” Ganyard said.
We also seem to have little idea who the rebel leaders are, or what kind of Libya they’re likely to create should they get power. Given how quickly all this has happened, they themselves probably don’t know the answer to such things. The British, for example, sent an armed diplomatic mission to make contact with the Libyan rebels, but the rebels arrested and evicted the team.
“The team went to Libya to initiate contacts with the opposition,” the British foreign minister explained. “They experienced difficulties.”
The British government is now experiencing difficulties explaining just what they thought they were doing, and the Libyan state press is using the incident as evidence of foreign involvement in the rebellion. So things are a little more complicated and mysterious than it might at first seem.
– Jay Bookman http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-bl...ilitary-action-in-libya-obama-stays-cautious/
THEN we have;............
GOP pushing for military action in Libya; Obama stays cautious
10:07 am March 7, 2011, by Jay
From the WSJ:
“With no evidence emerging that Col. Gadhafi is about to fall, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky urged the U.S. to consider various moves that would mark a sharp escalation in American involvement.
Speaking on ABC’s “This Week,” Mr. McCain said the U.S. can help the rebels now by pumping in humanitarian assistance; by providing technical assistance, intelligence and training; and by declaring support for a provisional government. Mr. McConnell of Kentucky, speaking on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” said that “arming the insurgents” could be an option, citing as a possible model U.S. efforts against the Soviets during the Cold War.”
I understand the instinct to get involved in Libya. Gadhafi is a brutal, half-crazed tyrant, and it’s hard to sit back and watch while his military attacks his own people. But military experts have stressed the fact that implementing a no-fly zone isn’t as simple and straightforward as we would like to think.
As ABC News reports:
“There may be in the end cheaper and more effective ways to deal with the situation such as providing covert arms to the rebels,” said former deputy assistant secretary of state Steve Ganyard, who is a former fighter pilot who enforced no-fly zones.
“We can’t just go in and put airplanes over Libya. It’s going to take a campaign to take out these surface-to-air-missile systems, to bomb where the aircraft are being parked. It’s not just go in and establish a no-fly zone with no cost.
“We will have to blow things up on the ground in Libya if we want to establish a no-fly zone. It’s a two step process and it will take time and a significant military package to accomplish,” Ganyard said.
We also seem to have little idea who the rebel leaders are, or what kind of Libya they’re likely to create should they get power. Given how quickly all this has happened, they themselves probably don’t know the answer to such things. The British, for example, sent an armed diplomatic mission to make contact with the Libyan rebels, but the rebels arrested and evicted the team.
“The team went to Libya to initiate contacts with the opposition,” the British foreign minister explained. “They experienced difficulties.”
The British government is now experiencing difficulties explaining just what they thought they were doing, and the Libyan state press is using the incident as evidence of foreign involvement in the rebellion. So things are a little more complicated and mysterious than it might at first seem.
– Jay Bookman http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-bl...ilitary-action-in-libya-obama-stays-cautious/
THEN we have;............
THIS......
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/1...lt-us-operations-in-libya-until-congress-acts
GOP bill would halt US operations in Libya until Congress acts
By Mike Lillis - 03/29/11 01:57 PM ET
Two House Republicans introduced legislation Tuesday to force an end to U.S. military operations in Libya unless Congress explicitly authorizes them.
Reps. Timothy Johnson (Ill.) and Justin Amash (Mich.), a freshman, say America's role in the international effort backing Libyan rebels against strongman Moammar Gadhafi is unconstitutional without Congress’s stamp of approval.
Their bill — dubbed the Restoring Essential constitutional Constraints for Libyan Action Involving the Military Act, or RECLAIM — would cut off all funding related to the Pentagon's intervention in the embattled North African country.
Last week, Johnson explained his criticism of President Obama’s decision to enter the conflict.
“Constitutionally, it is indisputable that Congress must be consulted prior to an act of war unless there is an imminent threat against this country. The president has not done so," Johnson said. “Our country has no business enmeshing itself in another country’s civil unrest. We were not attacked. Our national security interests are not at stake.”
Neither Johnson’s nor Amash’s office immediately returned requests for comment.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/1...lt-us-operations-in-libya-until-congress-acts
GOP bill would halt US operations in Libya until Congress acts
By Mike Lillis - 03/29/11 01:57 PM ET
Two House Republicans introduced legislation Tuesday to force an end to U.S. military operations in Libya unless Congress explicitly authorizes them.
Reps. Timothy Johnson (Ill.) and Justin Amash (Mich.), a freshman, say America's role in the international effort backing Libyan rebels against strongman Moammar Gadhafi is unconstitutional without Congress’s stamp of approval.
Their bill — dubbed the Restoring Essential constitutional Constraints for Libyan Action Involving the Military Act, or RECLAIM — would cut off all funding related to the Pentagon's intervention in the embattled North African country.
Last week, Johnson explained his criticism of President Obama’s decision to enter the conflict.
“Constitutionally, it is indisputable that Congress must be consulted prior to an act of war unless there is an imminent threat against this country. The president has not done so," Johnson said. “Our country has no business enmeshing itself in another country’s civil unrest. We were not attacked. Our national security interests are not at stake.”
Neither Johnson’s nor Amash’s office immediately returned requests for comment.
Then we have; http://www.edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/29/obama.libya.reaction/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
On the day after President Barack Obama gave a nationally televised speech on Libya, Arizona Sen. John McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, criticized him for refusing to overtly apply American military force in pursuit of the U.S. goal of removing strongman Moammar Gadhafi from power.
"When the president says it would be a mistake to use military force in order to take (Gadhafi) out of power, which is U.S. policy ... I think (that) is a serious mistake," McCain said on CNN's "American Morning."
"I think the president made a clear and convincing case for our military intervention," McCain said. "But the rebels still don't match up with the Gadhafi forces."
"To say we're not going to use military means to achieve a U.S. policy goal, in my view, is a contradiction," he said.
If "Gadhafi remains in power, it will be a stalemate," he warned, noting the decade-long no-fly zone previously imposed in Iraq. "It's not an acceptable solution."
"I think it's fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could," Obama told ABC. "We're looking at all our options at this point."
While McCain is criticizing Obama for failing to use stronger military force against Gadhafi, other Republicans have criticized the president for, in their opinion, failing to adequately explain the extent of U.S. involvement and when it will end.
"The American people need to know whether we will contribute to a prolonged military engagement with Libya, to what extent the alliance is contributing military assets, what the direct and indirect costs will be, and what the U.S. role in Libya means for our military already committed significantly in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere," Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said after Obama's speech.
Sure let's tell the bad guy what our strategy is, instead of keeping them guessing.
THEN;
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, complained that "the extent to which Congress has been bypassed in this process is breathtaking." White House officials insist they have fulfilled the congressional consultation requirements required under the 1973 War Powers Act.
Meanwhile, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, has led calls for a full accounting of the costs of the mission.
The United States has already fired close to 200 Tomahawk missiles in Libya. The cost of that alone is between $250 million and $300 million. By some estimates, it costs about $10,000 an hour to keep a U.S. fighter jet in the air, and U.S. jets have flown nearly 1,000 sorties, many of which lasted five or six hours.
Defense Department spokeswoman Cmdr. Kathleen Kesler said Tuesday that the Pentagon had incurred $550 million in Libyan operation costs so far. Munitions accounted for roughly 60% of those costs, she said.
Kesler added that while future costs are uncertain, the Pentagon expects to incur expenses totaling approximately $40 million over the next three weeks. Beyond that point, anticipated costs would total about $40 million per month, she said.
"The fact is that transferring this operation to NATO does not constitute an exit strategy, and ultimately means the United States is still shouldering much of the burden."
Sure, let's go get the bastards, but don't spend too much money.
Apparent the worlds Police Force, as one TERB member claimed, or the biggest baddest army, as another TERB member claimed, has an Achilles heel.
On the day after President Barack Obama gave a nationally televised speech on Libya, Arizona Sen. John McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, criticized him for refusing to overtly apply American military force in pursuit of the U.S. goal of removing strongman Moammar Gadhafi from power.
"When the president says it would be a mistake to use military force in order to take (Gadhafi) out of power, which is U.S. policy ... I think (that) is a serious mistake," McCain said on CNN's "American Morning."
"I think the president made a clear and convincing case for our military intervention," McCain said. "But the rebels still don't match up with the Gadhafi forces."
"To say we're not going to use military means to achieve a U.S. policy goal, in my view, is a contradiction," he said.
If "Gadhafi remains in power, it will be a stalemate," he warned, noting the decade-long no-fly zone previously imposed in Iraq. "It's not an acceptable solution."
"I think it's fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could," Obama told ABC. "We're looking at all our options at this point."
While McCain is criticizing Obama for failing to use stronger military force against Gadhafi, other Republicans have criticized the president for, in their opinion, failing to adequately explain the extent of U.S. involvement and when it will end.
"The American people need to know whether we will contribute to a prolonged military engagement with Libya, to what extent the alliance is contributing military assets, what the direct and indirect costs will be, and what the U.S. role in Libya means for our military already committed significantly in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere," Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said after Obama's speech.
Sure let's tell the bad guy what our strategy is, instead of keeping them guessing.
THEN;
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, complained that "the extent to which Congress has been bypassed in this process is breathtaking." White House officials insist they have fulfilled the congressional consultation requirements required under the 1973 War Powers Act.
Meanwhile, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, has led calls for a full accounting of the costs of the mission.
The United States has already fired close to 200 Tomahawk missiles in Libya. The cost of that alone is between $250 million and $300 million. By some estimates, it costs about $10,000 an hour to keep a U.S. fighter jet in the air, and U.S. jets have flown nearly 1,000 sorties, many of which lasted five or six hours.
Defense Department spokeswoman Cmdr. Kathleen Kesler said Tuesday that the Pentagon had incurred $550 million in Libyan operation costs so far. Munitions accounted for roughly 60% of those costs, she said.
Kesler added that while future costs are uncertain, the Pentagon expects to incur expenses totaling approximately $40 million over the next three weeks. Beyond that point, anticipated costs would total about $40 million per month, she said.
"The fact is that transferring this operation to NATO does not constitute an exit strategy, and ultimately means the United States is still shouldering much of the burden."
Sure, let's go get the bastards, but don't spend too much money.
Apparent the worlds Police Force, as one TERB member claimed, or the biggest baddest army, as another TERB member claimed, has an Achilles heel.
What a ignorant man.Has he not read anything in the last 10 years on the origins of the enemy that the U.S now faces in Afghanistan?
