Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
This one is my guess. Got rid of them, but could never admit this publicly, as it would not only demasculate him, but put him at risk of invasion from many sources.

On some blog yesterday, I saw the suggestion that Iraqi scientists got good in the 1990s at getting money from Saddam for WMD programmes, but that all of the money was getting diverted (embezzled/stolen/used for other things) and no WMD were getting developed. Seems plausible to me. Saddam thought he had something going on, but the scientists were as corrupt as the rest of his regime.

eta:

The blog was Kevin Drum's, and he was pursuing something that Kay said:

• ....After [about 1998], Dr. Kay said, Iraqi scientists realized they could go directly to Mr. Hussein and present fanciful plans for weapons programs, and receive approval and large amounts of money. Whatever was left of an effective weapons capability, he said, was largely subsumed into corrupt money-raising schemes by scientists skilled in the arts of lying and surviving in a fevered police state.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Another post from Kevin Drum, this one disturbing:


TERRORISM AND ELECTIONS....Apparently George Bush is now almost panicky in his desire to disengage from Iraq and get the UN in. The Washington Post reports today that at this point virtually any proposal from the UN will be entertained, but only under one condition:

• "The United States told us that as long as the timetable is respected, they are ready to listen to any suggestion," a senior U.N. official said.

In other words, anything goes as long as we're out by June 30. The occupation has to officially end before next year's elections.

There are, of course, many reasons that liberals generally didn't support the war in Iraq, but certainly one of them was the overwhelming partisan cynicism that the Bush administration brought to the task. Karl Rove made it clear that the war would be a perfect wedge issue for Republicans, Andy Card admitted that the "marketing" of the war resolution was deliberately timed, and now we discover that they really don't care much what happens to Iraq as long as we are officially out and can claim victory before November:

• In private conversations with the United Nations and its coalition partners, the administration has begun to discuss the viability of abandoning the complex caucuses outlined in the agreement and even holding partial elections or simply handing over power to an expanded Iraqi Governing Council, an old proposal now back on the table, U.S. and U.N. officials say.

Even simply handing power over to the IGC is now on the table. Anything, as long as it gets us out.

After 9/11 George Bush had a chance to build a bipartisan consensus about terrorism and how to respond to it. But he didn't just fail to do that, he deliberately tried to prevent it, and by transparently treating terrorism as little more than a chance to boost the prospects of his own party he has convinced everyone who's not a Republican that it's not really a serious threat. After all, if he quite obviously treats it as simply a political opportunity, it's hardly reasonable to expect anyone else to take it seriously either.

Treating Medicare or abortion as a partisan issue is one thing, but treating war the same way is quite another, and in the end it's George Bush who is largely responsible for convincing half the United States and most of the world that terrorism is little more than a GOP talking point. It's likely that someday we will pay a heavy price for this.

linky (with internal links I haven't bothered to copy over)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Another post from Kevin Drum, this one disturbing:

Nice spin.

I read that. Only use of the word "panic" was to say, no panic.

Story mostly driven by the internal Iraqi controversy about mechanism for formation of new Iraqi government. Many mullahs in Iraq are calling for full elections now, as opposed to Bush's ideas for coalition govenrment as a warm-up.

So, Bush is taking proposals. He's open to people's ideas. But, he's not willing to go with an idea that leads to a longer presence that what he was planning.

But, you present this as "panic".

Write another post about how I unreasonably never accept what your pundits of choice say.

[Atticus Grinch]

The Republican-controlled Virginia House of Delegates voted 98-1* last week to call on Congress to allow exemptions from the No Child Left Behind Act, calling it an "unfunded mandate." House Education Committee Chairman James H. Dillard II (R-Fairfax) said the fact that 100% of the GOP delegates voted for the resolution is proof that "the damn law is ludicrous."

Viva la federalism!

*Article is from the WaPost, so the vote tally is probably skewed. Damn liberal media.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The Republican-controlled Virginia House of Delegates voted 98-1* last week to call on Congress to allow exemptions from the No Child Left Behind Act, calling it an "unfunded mandate." House Education Committee Chairman James H. Dillard II (R-Fairfax) said the fact that 100% of the GOP delegates voted for the resolution is proof that "the damn law is ludicrous."

Viva la federalism!

I will maintain that the states' approval of the 17th amendment was the biggest giveaway of power vis-a-vis the federal government ever.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I've heard speculation to that effect since several months before we actually invaded; however, however stupid and inept the Syrians have recently proved in dealing with the US (OK, with EVERYONE), I would be shocked to discover that they are actually that stupid and inept.

Count that as one vote for the position "Iraqi WMD in Syria: highly unlikely."

Hmmm. I don't think Bilmore agrees with this. Therefore it must be spin.

On the other hand, he would be happy to interpret the party line for you (hint: the Syrian must be stupid; they don't vote Republican).

(Look at it this way, though - you now have more spinning hippie chick credentials).

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The Republican-controlled Virginia House of Delegates voted 98-1* last week to call on Congress to allow exemptions from the No Child Left Behind Act, calling it an "unfunded mandate

Just curious, as I haven't spent too much attention on this issue - how can education be an unfunded mandate when the fed ed spending under Bush has increased 60+%? Am I getting my figures wrong?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Nice spin.

I read that. Only use of the word "panic" was to say, no panic.

Story mostly driven by the internal Iraqi controversy about mechanism for formation of new Iraqi government. Many mullahs in Iraq are calling for full elections now, as opposed to Bush's ideas for coalition govenrment as a warm-up.

So, Bush is taking proposals. He's open to people's ideas. But, he's not willing to go with an idea that leads to a longer presence that what he was planning.

But, you present this as "panic".

Write another post about how I unreasonably never accept what your pundits of choice say.

Since you, and Kevin Drum, and I all agree that it would be a mistake for Bush to cut and run, the difference between you and him appears to be that he fears the worst, and you expect the best.

Instead of responding to the reported facts, you want to quibble about the word "panic." To which I will only say, (1) Drum said "Apparently George Bush is now almost panicky in his desire to disengage from Iraq and get the UN in." You are not engaging with his point. (2) When a newspaper like the Post prints an administration denial that there's any panic, that is tantamount to reporting that something like panic -- if not panic -- is happening. Nuance, apparently, is not your forte, though.

eta:

The important fact in the WaPo article is that administration is willing to discuss anything about how to turn over power, except when it will happen. That's non-negotiable, and has to be well before November. If they were more committed to fixing Iraq then to getting Bush re-elected, they would want to do the right thing, but these folks are not about making political sacrifices.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Just curious, as I haven't spent too much attention on this issue - how can education be an unfunded mandate when the fed ed spending under Bush has increased 60+%? Am I getting my figures wrong?

I don't know about those figures, but one major complaint about NCLBA is the local discretion you have to give up in order to receive modest funding. In return for a 1% point increase in total budget dollars obtained from federal grants, the feds say you have to spread that money across the entire student population instead of on the small minority whose programs were funded. So previously you had 6% of your dollars from the feds, and those grants were targeted toward special ed, for example. They bump you to 7%, but you have to spend the entire 7% on the entire student population. All fine and good, if each student consumed an equal amount of educational resources, but they don't, which means a net decrease in earmarked funding for programs previously funded by the federal government.

Someone who knows more about this should be posting. I admit to not caring enough when I first heard about this. Maybe you should be woodshedding the 98 people who voted the way they did, but keep in mind most of them are Republicans and worthy of your deference.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by bilmore
Just curious, as I haven't spent too much attention on this issue - how can education be an unfunded mandate when the fed ed spending under Bush has increased 60+%? Am I getting my figures wrong?

The funding increases could be earmarked for other projects. Or they might not cover the cost of complying with the NCLBA. But I haven't been following it either, so your guess is as good as mine.

Some districts (states?) have been seriously considering foregoing all fed educational funding and dumping all the Fed regulations because they would lose less money than they would spend complying ... no cite offhand but I read this quite recently somewhere respectable (Economist?). The percentage of school funding that comes from the feds is really pretty low, in the 'teens, often.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic

Some districts (states?) have been seriously considering foregoing all fed educational funding and dumping all the Fed regulations because they would lose less money than they would spend complying ... no cite offhand but I read this quite recently somewhere respectable (Economist?). The percentage of school funding that comes from the feds is really pretty low, in the 'teens, often.

That would be the ideal result in my book. Kill the Department of Education without firing a shot . . .

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That would be the ideal result in my book. Kill the Department of Education without firing a shot . . .

But, Club, who will educate the retards? If the retards don't get educated, there will be no one to apply to Hastings, and then there won't be enough state deputy AGs and criminal defense lawyers and . . . oh. Now I see your diabolical plan.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
When a newspaper like the Post prints an administration denial that there's any panic, that is tantamount to reporting that something like panic -- if not panic -- is happening. Nuance, apparently, is not your forte, though.

I'm going to charitably let you reconsider, and maybe re-phrase, this one. You can't have meant what the plain words say. "Nuance" doesn't mean "it's opposite day".

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
But, Club, who will educate the retards? If the retards don't get educated, there will be no one to apply to Hastings, and then there won't be enough state deputy AGs and criminal defense lawyers and . . . oh. Now I see your diabolical plan.

Say what you will about Florida Coastal School of Law, but those students work hard to raise the $$$, to cover the costs. They aren't looking for some handout.

http://www.fcsl.edu/students/photos/photos.asp

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Maybe you should be woodshedding the 98 people who voted the way they did, but keep in mind most of them are Republicans and worthy of your deference.

Can't. Like I said, don't know enough about the issue. But, you have made this sound like a good business decision, and thus explained the Republican vote to me.