For Dems only.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

But they were NOT presented as separate issues when the administration dismissed the Kerry proposal, nor when it defended it's position on keeping the troop strength at sattus quo back in June:

Translation: We don't need to increase troop numbers because Rummy's restructuring of the military makes current levels sufficient for our needs.

 

I have my issues plenty straight. It's the administration that has bundled them together.

 

 

Did I not just say that and do you not agree that reforms which would enable the military to get more capability from the same number of soldiers is a good thing. Its called efficiency. Mind you that the plan to transform the military predates Iraq by a couple of years. The 2 issues are not related.

 

You can debate till the sun goes down ( and I agree with you ) whether or not to increase the number of troops is a good idea or not but the need for reform was evident.

 

I find it ironic that someone with a leftward persuasion would deride a plan that reduces bloat in the military.

Edited December 20, 2006 by NUKE

[FlaSoxxJim]

Did I not just say that and do you not agree that reforms which would enable the military to get more capability from the same number of soldiers is a good thing. Its called efficiency. Mind you that the plan to transform the military predates Iraq by a couple of years. The 2 issues are not related.

 

You can debate till the sun goes down ( and I agree with you ) whether or not to increase the number of troops is a good idea or not but the need for reform was evident.

 

I agree with you on both counts. And I think that with Rumsfield gone we are starting to see those two separate issues unbundled as they should have been.

 

Temporary fixes like extending tours, Stop Loss orders, and Individual Ready Reserve recalls were presented as answers to meeting worldwide troop needs without having to actually increase troop levels – because according to the Bush 2004 campaign doing that would have made us "less safe." Increasing troop levels was presented as being antithetical to Rumsfeld's strategy for restructuring the military into a more modern force. You and I know these were separate issues, and now the White House is conceeding the point as well.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I agree with you on both counts. And I think that with Rumsfield gone we are starting to see those two separate issues unbundled as they should have been.

 

Temporary fixes like extending tours, Stop Loss orders, and Individual Ready Reserve recalls were presented as answers to meeting worldwide troop needs without having to actually increase troop levels – because according to the Bush 2004 campaign doing that would have made us "less safe." Increasing troop levels was presented as being antithetical to Rumsfeld's strategy for restructuring the military into a more modern force. You and I know these were separate issues, and now the White House is conceeding the point as well.

 

 

I see your point now. You were against the way the idea was presented to us but not the idea itself.

 

Fair enough.

 

Like I said before, I didn't exactly think too highly of the President when he and Rummy said more troops were not necessary and in that respect we totally agree and increasing force size was one of the select few issues I agreed with Kerry on back then.

[Balta1701]

The Lamont Campaign has been cleared of all allegations that it was involved in hacking Joe Lieberman's campaign page on the day of the primary.

[Damen]

This remark is fraught with ignorance.

 

Rummy's idea of a "modern military" was a lighter and more agile force that had less administrative fat and with equipment that was easier to deploy. The Cold War era force structure that existed before was too heavy and too slow to react to modern conflicts ( think of the 1991 Gulf War where it took 6 months to build up the necessary forces ). Nowhere was it implied that we were going to reduce troop levels. The idea was to contract out some support and administrative jobs and free up those slots within the authorized end strength for more "trigger pullers".

 

This idea was outstanding in every respect, especially when you consider that the next time we go to war we may not have the months of prep time that we have in the past.

 

I don't know if you can quite say it's been outstanding in every respect.

 

The Pentagon is still struggling to get a handle on the unprecedented number of contractors now helping run the nation's wars, losing millions of dollars because it is unable to monitor industry workers stationed in far-flung locations, according to a congressional report.

 

The investigation by the Government Accountability Office, which released the report Tuesday, found that the Defense Department's inability to manage contractors effectively has hurt military operations and unit morale and cost the Pentagon money.

 

"With limited visibility over contractors, military commanders and other senior leaders cannot develop a complete picture of the extent to which they rely on contractors as an asset to support their operations," said the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress.

 

According to the report, some 60,000 contractors are supporting the Army in Southwest Asia, a region that includes Iraq. That figure is compared to the 9,200 contractors used to support the military in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

 

This unprecedented number of contractors on the battlefield means loss of visibility, GAO reports.

 

Commanders are often unsure how many contractors use their bases and require food, housing and protection, according to the report. One Army official said the service estimates losing about $43 million each year on free meals provided to contractors who also receive a food allowance.

 

The military does not have enough personnel devoted to overseeing the implementation of contracts, GAO found. In one case, a single person was assigned to monitor compliance of a contract at 27 different installations throughout Iraq in just a six-month tour.

[mr_genius]

so you guys going to this?

 

https://www.dccc.org/contribute/events/celebration_concert

 

it's only $1000 per ticket

Edited December 21, 2006 by mr_genius

[FlaSoxxJim]

so you guys going to this?

 

https://www.dccc.org/contribute/events/celebration_concert

 

it's only $1000 per ticket

 

$1000 and no Phil Lesh?!? No thanks.

 

What is the deal there? Is Phil on the outs with the other Other Ones/Dead?

[NorthSideSox72]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061221/pl_nm/..._india_usa_dc_3

 

What part of the seperation of powers does Bush not get? For that matter, what part of his 35% approval rating and the rout of his party in the '06 midterm is not clear to him? Honestly, I have a hard time seeing how the man who took us into an unmitigated disaster in Iraq and who quite obviously doesn't acknowledge the role of the other branches of government, is not the worst President of our time.

 

This kind of crap, where he pretty much says he is a King, is awfully scary to me. And it ought to scare the Republicans on this board too, who are supposedly in favor of smaller government and true democracy.

Edited December 21, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[Balta1701]

Woman who spent her time posting on liberal blogs and attacking Democrats while pretending to be a left-leaning voter hired as the New Hampshire communications director for St. John McCain's campaign.

[NorthSideSox72]

Woman who spent her time posting on liberal blogs and attacking Democrats while pretending to be a left-leaning voter hired as the New Hampshire communications director for St. John McCain's campaign.

So, you're saying your a registered Republican, Balta?

[Balta1701]

So, you're saying your a registered Republican, Balta?

Apparently, if I was, I've got a good enough resume to work for the McCain campaign. Honesty and Integrity above all else, I tells ya what.

[Balta1701]

Let's see, here we go...Dept. of the Interior produces a study showing that sending billions of dollars in subsidies to oil companies to drill in the Caribbean doesn't produce much oil, the oil it does produce costs more than the going rate on the market right now ($80 a barrel), and that the oil companies make out like gangbusters in the deal.

 

And of course, in response to this study which showed beyond any shadow of a doubt that the U.S. was making a mistake in funneling tens of billions of dollars to those oil companies...the Bush Administration, in a totally unexpected move which I'm sure was done with the good of the American people in mind...covered up the report for more than a year.

 

Just another day.

[kapkomet]

Let's see, here we go...Dept. of the Interior produces a study showing that sending billions of dollars in subsidies to oil companies to drill in the Caribbean doesn't produce much oil, the oil it does produce costs more than the going rate on the market right now ($80 a barrel), and that the oil companies make out like gangbusters in the deal.

 

And of course, in response to this study which showed beyond any shadow of a doubt that the U.S. was making a mistake in funneling tens of billions of dollars to those oil companies...the Bush Administration, in a totally unexpected move which I'm sure was done with the good of the American people in mind...covered up the report for more than a year.

 

Just another day.

/rollseyes

[FlaSoxxJim]

/rollseyes

 

Now you've gotten with the picture, Kap.

 

We've been /rollsey-ing this admin for a wahile, but there's always room for one more.

[Balta1701]

The non-partisan Government accountability office has released an interesting study looking at the spending habits of the pharmaceutical industry and how it has changed over the last few years. Here is the executive summary, hosted at Henry Waxman's page.

 

* Research breakthroughs have failed to keep up with R&D funding. Between 1993 and 2004, pharmaceutical R&D expenses increased from $16 billion to almost $40 billion, a 147% increase. Over the same time period, the number of new drug applications (NDAs) has increased by only 3 8 %, and the number of applications for potential breakthrough drugs (new molecular entities, or NMEs) has increased by only 7%. In both cases, the number of applications has declined since 1999.

* The majority of drug applications are for non-breakthrough drugs. Only 32% of drug applications are for NMEs; only 12% of drug applications are considered by FDA to be “priority” NMEs.

* Patent law loopholes discourage innovation. The ability of drug manufacturers to easily obtain patents for minor changes to products, or to receive patent exclusivity for new uses of existing products, have reduced incentives to develop new drugs.

 

The panel of experts convened by GAO recommended increased collaboration among government, industry, and academia in the drug development proces and in the development of scientists who can translate scientific breakthroughs into practical results . The panel also indicated that the government could consider provid ing additional financial incentives — such as longer patent lives for innovative drugs and shorter patent terms for “me-too” drugs — to shape the drug development process.

In other words, a "hands-off" approach with regards to pharmaceutical research simply isn't working. 68% of the new products created by that industry are simply knock-offs of someone else's drugs, and are thus providing profit to companies at no huge benefit to the health of Americans. And while more money is going into research, because so much money is being spent on developing these knock-off type drugs, less and less is actually being spent on developing genuinely new products.

 

This situation is a boon to the pharmaceutical industry, as it allows them ways to profit without actually having to invest the time and money into actually helping a lot of people. You have a product that's about to go generic? Simply spend money on developing a slightly different version of the drug, make it a different color (Purple), then launch a large advertising campaign to convince people the non-generic version is somehow better when it's just more costly.

[kapkomet]

Now you've gotten with the picture, Kap.

 

We've been /rollsey-ing this admin for a wahile, but there's always room for one more.

 

Nice one!

[Balta1701]

The NY Times runs an entire article on a statement by Mr. Bush that he read a newspaper article.

[Balta1701]

See, here's why they don't let me write headlines and sub-headlines. Link.

Headline: Democrats pledge to stop Congressional abuses of power

Beyond the parliamentary issues, Democrats assuming control on Jan. 4 said they also wanted to revive collegiality and civility in an institution that has been poisoned by partisanship in recent years. In a gesture duly noted by Republicans, the incoming speaker of the House, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, offered Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, who is remaining in Congress, the use of prime office space in the Capitol out of respect for his position.

 

Mrs. Pelosi has consulted with the new Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, in developing initiatives for the year, including a task force to explore independent enforcement of ethics rules. That was in sharp contrast to two years ago, when Republicans — who only grudgingly consulted Democrats — pushed through a set of diluted ethics rules that they were later forced to rescind. Democrats also supported a severance package for senior Republican aides, but the spending was blocked in the last hours of Congress by conservative Republicans.

 

A statement of principles by House Democrats calls for regular consultation between the Democratic and Republican leaders on the schedule and operations of the House and declares that the heads of House committees should do the same.

Sub-headline: Republicans pledge to take full advantage of Democrats' good will.

But Republicans are hoping Democrats stick to their guns and allow the minority a stronger voice on legislation. The opposition leadership said it would take the opportunity to put forward initiatives that could be potentially troublesome for newly elected Democrats in Republican-leaning districts who within months will have to defend their hard-won seats.

 

“There are going to be days when we will offer alternatives in ways that are going to be very appealing to Democrats in districts the president carried just two years ago,” said Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, who will be the second-ranking House Republican in the 110th Congress.

[NorthSideSox72]

See, here's why they don't let me write headlines and sub-headlines. Link.

Headline: Democrats pledge to stop Congressional abuses of power

 

Sub-headline: Republicans pledge to take full advantage of Democrats' good will.

Headlines aside, that all sounds like good news to me.

[Balta1701]

Headlines aside, that all sounds like good news to me.

Oh, its exactly what the Democrats should do if they want to do the right thing, but unfortunately, the other side may be in such a mood where they'll take anything the Dems do that one would consider "right" and use it to try to make sure they get back in power in 08.

[NorthSideSox72]

Oh, its exactly what the Democrats should do if they want to do the right thing, but unfortunately, the other side may be in such a mood where they'll take anything the Dems do that one would consider "right" and use it to try to make sure they get back in power in 08.

I don't see that happening. What the GOP will be able to sneak through is stuff that moderates and independents are good with, just as the article states. But that won't cause some massive shift in momentum.

 

I like this not just because its "right", but because it promotes some of the bipartisan and apolitical causes I'd like to see moved forward.

[Rex Kickass]

I think the good news is that the Democrats see themselves intent on restoring at least some of the civility in the halls of Congress that seem to have been lost in recent years.

[EvilMonkey]

I think the good news is that the Democrats see themselves intent on restoring at least some of the civility in the halls of Congress that seem to have been lost in recent years.

By simply shutting their mouths they can increase the civility. It is amazing how much a few less Hitler comparrisons will do to increase civility.

[Balta1701]

By simply shutting their mouths they can increase the civility. It is amazing how much a few less Hitler comparrisons will do to increase civility.

The rule has been in place for 214 years that this is the way we confirm judges. Broken by the other side two years ago. And the audacity of some members to stand up and say, how dare you break this rule! It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying: I'm in Paris, how dare you invade me, how dare you bomb my city? It's mine.

 

I always new Rick Santorum was a Democrat.

[NorthSideSox72]

I always new Rick Santorum was a Democrat.

EM didn't refer to a specific party. I assumed he meant both.