Bush Supports $120 Billion Iraq War Compromise

[ewmayer]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Iraq.html

Related news analysis here.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said he supports a $120 billion war spending bill on track to pass Thursday, ending weeks of wrangling with Democrats on whether to end the war.

The bill funds the war through September as Bush wanted and does not set a date for U.S. troop withdrawals. In exchange for dropping restrictions on the military, Bush agreed to some $17 billion in spending added by Democrats to fund domestic and military-related projects.

Translation of the last sentence: "We don't have a veto-proof majority, so we sold our souls for pork."

I love that the proposed bill not only gives the president pretty much eveything he wanted, it adds even *more* military-related spending ... at the request of the Democrats!

To those who helped vote the Democratic majority in on Capitol Hill in last Fall: is this the kind of "tough action to lead the country out of war" you expected?

[xilman]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

To those who helped vote the Democratic majority in on Capitol Hill in last Fall: is this the kind of "tough action to lead the country out of war" you expected?

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for any of them.



Paul

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by xilman

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for any of them.

...he said, with a just-barely-palpable hint of British smugness.

"Ah, what are those silly ex-colonials up to now? We never any problems like this when *we* were in charge in the middle east..." ;)

[garo]

Ron Paul for president

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by garo

Ron Paul for president

I could never vote for someone where I wasn't sure which their first name and which their last. You just can't trust folks like that.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

I could never vote for someone where I wasn't sure which their first name and which their last. You just can't trust folks like that.

So RuPaul Charles doesn't get your vote, either?

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by garo

Ron Paul for president

Are you sure that you don't mean Rupaul?

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

I could never vote for someone where I wasn't sure which their first name and which their last. You just can't trust folks like that.

Forgot to add: can't trust men with women's first names (and versa vise-a), neither, e.g.

- Men named Pat, Sally, Nancy, etc^*. (Even John Wayne ditched the original "Marion", though I thought the Morrison part would've been a good keeper - "Wayne" is layin' on a bit thick, wouldn't you agree? Plus it just sounds a little too nasal-whistly peanut-butter-stuck-to-roof-of-your-mouthy for my taste in heroic movie action figures.)

- Women named Jules, Pat, Michael, George, etc.

(Despite its being incredibly banal and milquetoasty-sounding, "Pat" in particular seems to be a good weeder-outer of people with extreme views, cf. Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, etc. Note that people who insist on the gender-specific completion are usually OK, for instance Patrick Henry, Patsy Cline, and so forth.)

--------------

^*Note that "Leslie" is OK for a man, since there the spelling is distinct from the girlie version. Besides, I could never vote against the "Naked Gun" guy.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

So RuPaul Charles doesn't get your vote, either?

There, I'm not even sure if that *is* a real name or a made-up sound-effecty one, so that plus the firsty-lasty portion (i.e. ignoring the phony "Ru" prefix) says to me, "Run screaming in the opposite direction."

Still trying to decide on the complete Linnean classification of this one, though - any help would be appreciated:

"Barack Hussein Obama"

Where to begin? Let's see:

- First name: huh?
- Middle name: Oh yeah, that's gonna go over real well in Iowa
- Last name: Did you mean to say "O'Bama"? At least that would give you some Irish potato-eater street cred.

[Spherical Cow]

Rather than eliminating men with womanly names, or vicey-versey, I say we eliminate anyone with the name of a previous president- We don't need anymore Bushes, Clintons, Kennedies (Kennedi?), Reagans, etc. etc.

Besides, Carroll O'Conner would have at least made an interesting president.

Norm

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Spherical Cow

Besides, Carroll O'Conner would have at least made an interesting president.

That one falls under the same "distinct spelling" exception clause as Leslie, so would be OK.

I'm imagining CO in a presidential debate, reverting to Archie Bunker mode and calling his opponent a "dingbat."