The Best We Can Do?

[Timber Loftis]

[quote]Originally posted by MagiK:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: [qb]By the way, I will note that you didn't manage to discredit anything I said...just criticized me for having said it. [img]smile.gif[/img] cheers!

And into my trap you fall. I was hoping you'd pick up on that - because it's exactly what I was accusing you of doing.

As for Jeffords weasely ways - why don't you ask the voters of Vermont how they feel about him? They're the ones he's accountable to. If his party is not pursuing his constituent's needs, he, IMHO, absolutely *must* switch sides (or pick no side at all). See, we have this thing called a representational republic - oh, never mind.

Suffice to say, as a resident of Vermont 97-00, I must chime in and say I'd bet they support him there. The willingness to do what tugs at his heartstrings rather than toe the party line is something that both the "true" Vermonters (10 generations of self-proclaimed stewards and common folk) as well as the "new" Vermonters (who fell off the Grateful Dead bus, bought suits and SUVs, and ended up controlling Chittenden County) would agree with - and possibly even the other "true" Vermonters (live in a trailer, beat their wives, and throw their beer bottles in the back yard) would support it as well. It's that very thumb-your-nose-at-the-institution-if-you-so-please attitude that is one of the few very romantic things beholden to most all Vermonters.

As to the merits of what Jeffords had to say, it's obvious and I see little need to repeat it. Regarding this confiscation of your money for education, need I remind you of Mr. President's own promises and stance on education? Waste in government - no sh*t? Does that mean we shut down the system? Quit building tanks (make no mistake $420 for a screwdriver for a tank is also governmental waste)? Corruption is always a part of managing any system (government or private business). Yes, corruption and waste is a problem to address. As my other half works for the State, believe me I see it every day and am disgusted. [img]graemlins/1puke.gif[/img] But the existence of that problem does NOT give us a reason to simply return to a laissez-faire state of nature with no governmental spending.

Unless you're a Malthusian, that is. And if that's the case, I hope your in that top 5% income bracket or your plan will end you as well as the rest of us plebes.

Originally posted by Neb: Cut some of the funding for the army and spend the money on schools and health care instead! Who's gonna invade the US, anyway? Canada? Mexico? Military spending is actually not the cause of the problem. Again you are making the mistake of buying into the idea that the problem is a "money" issue. If you spend $45,000 for a Yugo, spending another $45,000 is not going to make it a BMW. The oproblem is they are wasting truely MASSIVE ammounts of money, there is out right theft, there is wide spread fraud and no small amount of ineptitude involved. Do you truly believe the the US military ONLY protects the US from direct attack? Or do you advocate we become isolationists and desert all the nations and peoples of the world who actually depend on and desire our military presence. There is a rather wide spread stabilizing influence put forth by the US navy, would you wish us to tell everyone else to screw off, and disregaurd any other comittments? Oh by the way, Military budgets also fund a large portion of our intelligence efforts. Each Branch of the Military gathers quite a lot of data NSA is the clearing house/oversight, CIA handles things like direct spying, FBI the spying done within the US borders (ok officially they don't spy) and the Military is responsible for all the rest of the Intel. Any invading force from overseas could easily be spotted and destroyed before it arrived, I should believe. So less guns and more books and doctors! That's what I'd do, anyway, if I was in power in the US. MagiK, I don't believe that it's purely corruption that's keeping funds stuck in the system, and if it is, then Jeffords is right anyway. Something has to be done. Whether it's allocating more funds or cleaning up the "clogs" in the financial system. His central point is true even if some of his other points can be debated. Run the numbers X number of BILLIONS of Dollars divided by the number of schools. You might be shocked. Then there is the Billion dollar industry of Medicare and Medicade fraud. Yeah something needs to be done, but instead of doing anything about it Jeffords and the rest of the Capitol Hill gang act like a bunch of kids on the school yard and only trot out the issues when it is politicly expedient, once they get their votes, they then ignore the issue. It is NOT new. It has been going on as long as I have been alive. The problem is for me at least. It is the Dems who have one thought and one thought only...Take More Money from MagiK, to fix things. I repeat, throwing more money at it is not going to fix it. Usually Liberals are decrying the Republicans for throwing money at issues. Personally I think that there's no doubt that Georgey is attacking Iraq purely to boost his own votes, to draw away attention from other problems and to get more oil. I can't see how anyone can doubt it, and I wouldn't really have that big a problem with it, if George and his supporters would just ADMIT it. Instead of rambling about how they're removing a dangerous dictator and defending the US. Sure, they're removing a dictator. Okay, so he might be a threat to the US. But that isn't George's primary motivation.

I believe that from the start Iraq and half a dozen other countries were on the list of people we need to do something about before GW got into office. I also think he started talking about Iraq last year, not during this recent election cycle. So exactly how is he being disingenuous? I would also point out that the intel says that Iraq has stepped up its efforts in nuclear, biological and chemical weapons efforts and has access to Uranium out of Africa....should Bush wait till after election? what about if on election day they nuke washington with a man carried nuke? Who would you blame then? Ohh wait youw ould blame him for not stopping it sooner. So I see you putting him in a no win situation with your arguement. he is damned if he does, and doubley damned if he doesnt.

All in all Im just Happy I have access from work again [img]smile.gif[/img] WoooHoooo

[ 10-07-2002, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Neb]

Ah, right, throwing more money at the educational system won't help one bit.... How about if you BOTH throw more money at it AND make it more efficient at the same time? Using the money to make the change possible? Throwing money at it might not cure the problem. But it can definitely help.

[skywalker]

I believe that you don't know anything about Jeffords, MagiK. And that you are simply generalising just to make him fit the model of the dumb@$$ liberal politician. That's what I think.

Mark

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: [qb]By the way, I will note that you didn't manage to discredit anything I said...just criticized me for having said it. [img]smile.gif[/img] cheers! And into my trap you fall. I was hoping you'd pick up on that - because it's exactly what I was accusing you of doing. As for Jeffords weasely ways - why don't you ask the voters of Vermont how they feel about him? They're the ones he's accountable to. If his party is not pursuing his constituent's needs, he, IMHO, absolutely *must* switch sides (or pick no side at all). See, we have this thing called a representational republic - oh, never mind. Actually I heard quite a LOT of bitching and moaning about Jeffords from vermonters on every single talking head show on television and in the press...which is why I formed the opinion I did...what? you think I just pulled the opinion out of my ass? I don't speak for any or all Vermonters? Vermontans? Vermontonians? Vermin? I just base dthe opinion on the facts that I could easily gather. Suffice to say, as a resident of Vermont 97-00, I must chime in and say I'd bet they support him there. The willingness to do what tugs at his heartstrings rather than toe the party line is something that both the "true" Vermonters (10 generations of self-proclaimed stewards and common folk) as well as the "new" Vermonters (who fell off the Grateful Dead bus, bought suits and SUVs, and ended up controlling Chittenden County) would agree with - and possibly even the other "true" Vermonters (live in a trailer, beat their wives, and throw their beer bottles in the back yard) would support it as well. It's that very thumb-your-nose-at-the-institution-if-you-so-please attitude that is one of the few very romantic things beholden to most all Vermonters. Oh my god...your saying he is ....what are you? some kind of...never mind no name calling here... I cannot even begin to comment on how this part of your entry sounds to me. The words gag, vomit and puke all come to mind but don't really hit the mark. (I suppose I sound much the same about things I like) I also am agahst that you would trash decent honest people just because they live in mobile homes and assume that they all beat their wives swill beer. You might want to check out your own prejudices. Of course I have actually lived in the environment you have such a loathing for. For your information, I don't drink beer, can't stand the taste and don't/didn't throw trash in the yard. I think you are being totaly over the top here, glad your proud of your state, but I have been there, It ain't ALL that. Pretty in the Fall but it is not the grass roots promised land neither. As to the merits of what Jeffords had to say, it's obvious and I see little need to repeat it. Regarding this confiscation of your money for education, need I remind you of Mr. President's own promises and stance on education? Waste in government - no sh*t? Does that mean we shut down the system? Quit building tanks (make no mistake $420 for a screwdriver for a tank is also governmental waste)? You know, that $420 screw driver you talk about was $420 because your precious Mr. Jeffords and the rest of congres that run the congressional oversight comittees had idiot civilians writing government Mil Spec. stating that each screw driver must be exactly 4.00000000000000 inches long and weigh exactly 1.7598736453846627348 ounces, which caused the contractor to have to build a fabricating plant to specially manufacture these precise instruments...rather than buy them in bulk at sears. This also shows how out of date you are, now that the Military is allowed to purchase COTS (Commercial off the shelf) rathern than strict. Mil. Spec. these kinds of things are very RARE now. On the other hand Your Reresentative can't use regular office furniture, he has it all specially made at huge tax payer expense. I suggest if you want to dis the military get a more current issue. I will also state that it was the Democraticly controlled house and senate that were using these ridiculous Mil. Spec. standards to bring home the pork for their constituents (guess where those precise manufacturing plants were built) This whole issue is sooooo 70's and was rooted out and killed in the 80's. Untill the 80's it was against the law for the military to buy stuff from anyone but congressionally approved vendors. Corruption is always a part of managing any system (government or private business). Yes, corruption and waste is a problem to address. As my other half works for the State, believe me I see it every day and am disgusted. [img]graemlins/1puke.gif[/img] But the existence of that problem does NOT give us a reason to simply return to a laissez-faire state of nature with no governmental spending. As well educated as you may or may not be, you show complete ignorance of military matters (and spending) over and over again(noticed this in several other posts too). My earlier post to someone else says all I have to say about military spending. (why not cut out the welfare fraud and put that money toward schools?) You can throw money at your problems all you want, but quit stealing mine. I work damn hard to earn it and the way of thinking that you seem to revere, pisses me off in a serious way. You say Im not addressing the problem, I gave you A pure and simple solution and you ignore it and tell us to put more money in. I say actually DO soemthing about the problem not just speachify about it on the boob tube when you need a few votes, Attack the problem not the symptom. As for your snide remark about how I address each issue seperately as somhow invalidating my thoughts on the issues. I find that commenting on each issue in paragraph style helps to keep me on topic and not to ramble quite so much. So excuse me if I intersperse my points among the original post rather than write a huge bunch all at the end. Unless you're a Malthusian, that is. And if that's the case, I hope your in that top 5% income bracket or your plan will end you as well as the rest of us plebes.

I never said continue the status quo, and all you do with your post is try to imply that I did. I said fix the PROBLEM don't just keep throwing money at it. geeeeez!

[ 10-07-2002, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Originally posted by skywalker: I believe that you don't know anything about Jeffords, MagiK. And that you are simply generalising just to make him fit the model of the dumb@$$ liberal politician. That's what I think. Mark

Ahh I see we are back on hostile terms again *sigh*

I never said all liberals are dumbasses either by the way. I dislike Jeffords because of what he has done and howhe has acted that I know about. He may be a fine human being for all I know.

Heres some information about the US education spending, if you are actually interested.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Edu...258.cfm</font>

Here are some more Bush Education plan tidbits from the US Department of Education.

The President is requesting $44.5 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Department of Education in fiscal year 2002, an 11.5 percent increase in budget authority and an increase of $2.5 billion or 5.9 percent over the 2001 program level. The Department received the largest percentage increase in the President's 2002 budget of any Cabinet-level domestic agency.

Major increases in the 2002 request include $1 billion for Special Education Grants to States, $1 billion for Pell Grants, $614 million for the Reading First State Grants initiative, $459 million for Title I Grants to Local Educational Agenciesóof which $175 million will expand State and local assistance to low-performing schools, $375 million for the State Grants for Improving Teacher Quality proposal, $320 million to help States develop and implement annual reading and math tests for all students in grades 3-8, and $175 million for a new Charter School Homestead Fund to help increase public school choice for parents and students.

That is 44.5 billion in direct federal funding, which doesnt even bring into the picture how many billions each state puts into the education system. There are roughly 100,000 public schools in the USA. Each state also pumps several billion into its schools systems, and then there are the private contracts that the schools make money off of. The get money from coke or pepsi, from Pizza Hut and Uncle Bens. The number of dollars spent for our educational is stupendous and we get a third or fourth rate product for our money.

Numbers and facts gathered from several government websites. Funny how they don't make these numbers all available in one easy to find place...sounds like they are trying to hide something.

[ 10-07-2002, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

Magick:

I don't know what you think I called Jeffords in my hectic detail of the "3 kinds" of Vermonters, but it wasn't anything bad. I was simply stating that both "the good" and "the bad" ends of both the economic as well as the ideological scale in that State would IMO agree with Jeffords.

And if you think I'm trying to put down honest, hard working Vermonters, you're simply wrong. I was simply trying to define, in a mere sentence, three character types I see as representing the outside world's, and the Vermonters', view of Vermonters. You obviously know very little on this issue, and I'll leave it at that.

As for the problem you're ranting about and saying you want to solve, what is it exactly? You've been quite scattered on the issue. The original post seemed to define the problem as Jefford's desire to concentrate on or talk about problems. I thought you were just trying to slam Jeffords/ Dems/ and anyone else who says anything other than President Bush's sh*t smells like a bed of roses. So, I thought the goal you were seeking was to limit issues and NOT discuss things the current administration sucks at - or deflect the blame for those things. Come to think of it, are you a WhiteHouse staffer?

The only other big bitch I can see you having is that "Federal Income Tax" withholding line on your pay stub. How do you fix that? Simply lower taxes? If that's your solution, it shows a lack of even rudimentary socioeconomic understanding. Don't get me wrong, here. I do not deny that I hate every dollar taken from my payday - and I often has some choice things to say about where I see the money going. As well, I'll again agree with you on inefficiency in the government. But you define these broad problems, and then act like taking money from one program will fix everything, but you don't want to take any money from your precious defense budget. There is no logic in this. Just because National Defense is a NECESSITY, it does not logically follow that we allow an infinite amount of capital to be sucked in by it. I'll point out that there are other NECESSITIES our taxes pay for.

As for me not knowing anything about military spending, I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you trying to tell me there is no waste in military spending - no, wait, you're trying to tell me it's all the fault of Dems. Either way, excuse me while I proceed to ROFLMAO.

I try to stay politically unaffiliated, but you seem to push me there. So, I'll again point out, as most everyone can attest, we all had more money with the past administration, and with Democrat administrations in general for the past 50 years. Mr. President can keep his paltry refund check - I want him to come up with an idea to decrease unemployment.

Sometimes you add some interesting thoughts to the discussions herein. On this issue, however, you have simply wasted a lot of space and time on stream-of-consciousness rambling.

Jeffords was a bad target, my friend. As far as politicians go, he's got a lot of integrity. Even in his decision to leave the party, as most will attest. The only ones with bad things to say are staunch Republicans, who are obviously angered at losing the numbers game. It is no secret that Jeffords was a Vermont Republican, and Reps in Vermont are more liberal than Dems in most places, my friend. My favorite being, of course, my old neighbor in Tunbridge, Fred Tuttle.

[skywalker]

Tuttle, "The Man With A Plan"!

I'll tell you Vermont may not be "all that", but I love it here and I am loathe to live anywhere else.

And MagiK, don't sweat the "hostile terms"! You just happen to be pushing all the right buttons today!

Mark

[skywalker]

Here's another from the other Senator from Vermont:

An Address By Senator Patrick Leahy
On Iraq
Senate Floor
Thursday, Sept. 26, 2002

Mr. President, I am fortunate to represent a state whose citizens have long been involved in international affairs. Whether through military or diplomatic service, volunteering for the Peace Corps, studying abroad, or because we live on a great international border, Vermonters have strong views about these issues.

I was in Vermont this past weekend, and as always I had the opportunity to speak to many Vermonters from all walks of life. I can say, beyond any doubt, that Vermonters across the political spectrum are very concerned about our policy toward Iraq.

They are worried that we are shifting our focus away from ending the violence in the Middle East, eliminating al Qaeda, and rebuilding Afghanistan even though that herculean task has barely begun.

The President has sent to Congress a proposed resolution for the use of military force against Iraq. It would permit the President to take any action whatsoever to "defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region."

While I hope this is the beginning of a consultative, bipartisan process to produce a sensible resolution and to act on it at the appropriate time, the current proposal is an extraordinarily over-broad, open-ended resolution that would authorize the President to send American troops not only into war against Iraq, but also against any nation in the Gulf or Middle East region, however one defines it.

Mr. President, declaring war, or providing the authority to wage war, is the single most important responsibility given to Congress under the Constitution. As history has shown, wars inevitably have unforeseen, terrible consequences, especially for innocent civilians.

Blank-check resolutions, such as the one the President proposes, can likewise be misinterpreted or used in ways that we do not intend or expect. It has happened before, in ways that many people, including Members of Congress, came to regret. That is why a thorough debate is so necessary. And that is also why this Vermonter will not vote for a blank check for this President or any President. My conscience and the Constitution do not allow that.

The timing of the debate is also important. Congress is being asked to send Americans into battle, even though diplomatic efforts have not yet been exhausted. Nor do we have a complete assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies of the threat that Iraq poses to the United States.

I will have more to say when the debate on the resolution occurs. But I do want to take a few minutes to share some initial thoughts as we begin to consider this difficult question.

The question we face is not whether Saddam Hussein is a menace to his people, to his neighbors and to our national security interests. The Iraqi regime has already invaded Iran and Kuwait, gassed members of its own population, and repeatedly flouted international conventions against armed aggression. It is clear that Iraq has tried to develop a range of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, with which Iraq might threaten the entire Gulf region.

I would like to see Saddam Hussein gone as much as anyone. But the question is how immediate is this threat and what is the best way to deal with it, without undercutting our principal goal of protecting the American people from terrorism, promoting peace in the Middle East, and other important U.S. national security priorities?

Some Administration officials have suggested that to ask questions about going to war in Iraq is somehow unpatriotic, or indicative of a lack of concern about national security. That is nothing more than election year partisan politics at its worst. These questions are being asked by Americans in every state of the Union.

Until recently our focus has been, rightly so, on destroying al Qaeda and other terrorist networks. While that challenge has already cost billions of dollars and continues to occupy the attention and resources of the Department of Defense and the U.S. intelligence community, the Administration has suddenly shifted gears and is now rushing headlong toward war with Iraq.

Some have argued that Congress must act now to strengthen the President’s hand as the Administration negotiates at the United Nations.

But what we would really be saying is that regardless of what the Security Council does, we have already decided to go our own way. I contrast that with the situation in 1990 when the United States successfully assembled a broad international coalition to fight the Gulf War. The Congress passed a resolution only after the UN acted.

President Bush deserves credit for focusing the world's attention on international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. I have said this over and over again. But the process that has brought us to the brink of preparing for war with Iraq has been notable for its confusion.

The statements of Administration officials have been fraught with inconsistencies. They claim to speak for the American people, but average Americans are urging the Administration to proceed cautiously on Iraq and to work with the United Nations and the Congress. Our allies are confused and angry about the way this has been handled. Our friends in the Middle East are fearful of what lies ahead.

Fortunately, the President heeded calls to go to the United Nations, and in his speech to the General Assembly he described in great detail Saddam Hussein’s long history of deception and defiance of UN resolutions. I commended that speech. I am also pleased that it focused on enforcing those resolutions, especially concerning weapons of mass destruction.

But the American people need to hear more than generalized accusations and threatening ultimatums. They need to know the scope and urgency of the problem, Saddam's current and future capabilities, the options for solving the problem, and the short and long-term implications of each course of action, including the very real dangers of unintended consequences.

I agree with the President when he says that Saddam Hussein cannot be trusted and that disarming Iraq is the goal. But the first way to try to accomplish this is not through precipitous, unilateral military action. Rather, it is by building an alliance and working through the United Nations.

Earlier this week, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili, warned the Administration of the dangers of attacking Iraq without the backing of the United Nations:

"We are a global nation with global interests, and undermining the credibility of the United Nations does very little to help provide stability and security and safety to the rest of the world, where we have to operate for economic reasons and political reasons."

Working through the United Nations to readmit the weapons inspectors could be effective in disarming Iraq. Rolf Ekeus, the former executive chairman of UNSCOM, has stated:

"International weapons inspectors, if properly backed up by international force, can unearth Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs. If we believe that Iraq would be much less of a threat without such weapons, the obvious thing is to focus on getting rid of the weapons. Doing that through an inspection team is not only the most effective way, but would cost less in lives and destruction than an invasion."



A study by the Carnegie Endowment, co-authored by former U.S. military and United Nations officials, supports this view: "With sufficient human and technological resources, time, and political support, inspections can reduce Iraq’s [weapons of mass destruction] threat, if not to zero, to a negligible level."

There are distinct advantages to this approach. For one, if Iraq again refuses to comply with UN demands, there will be a much stronger case for more forceful action.

It would also help mitigate potential damage to our relations with other nations whose support we need to achieve other important U.S. goals, such as capturing terrorists or promoting peace in the Middle East.

Diplomacy is often tedious. It does not usually make the headlines or the evening news, and much has been made of our past diplomatic failures. But history has shown over and over that diplomacy can not only protect our national interests, it can also enhance the effectiveness of military force when force becomes necessary.

Many experts believe that, despite deception by the Iraqis, the UN inspection process destroyed much of the Iraqi weapons program, and new inspections could succeed in substantially disarming Saddam. However, the UN regime broke down when Saddam Hussein started blocking the inspections and the Security Council was divided on how to respond.

I support the unconditional return of inspectors backed up by an international military force. But, the world must not repeat the mistakes of 1998. We have already seen some troubling signs of diplomatic double talk from the Iraqis, particularly on the issue of unimpeded access for the inspectors. The international community cannot tolerate deception and defiance on the part of the Iraqis, and Secretary Powell is right to push for a new UN resolution.

Other members of the Security Council should join United States and British efforts to craft a strong new resolution with a deadline for Iraqi compliance. The UN has a responsibility to enforce its demands. If the UN does not act to ensure that the inspection regime is effectively structured, we will end up back where we were in 1998. Saddam will play the same cat and mouse game, the UN will look toothless, and we will not be able to destroy the Iraqi weapons program.

We need a strengthened inspection regime that has pre-existing authority from the Security Council to deploy military force to back up the inspectors if there is resistance from Iraq. I hope that the Administration works with the United Nations, not so much the other way around, to make this happen.

If Iraq resists the inspections, and the President decides to use military force, then the procedure is clear. He can seek a declaration of war from the Congress, and the Congress can vote. But voting on such a resolution at this time would be premature.

A decision to invade Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein should be based on a complete assessment of Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and the threat Iraq poses to the United States. What is the evidence – as opposed to assertions and assumptions – that Iraq is close to acquiring a nuclear weapon? What is the evidence that Iraq is capable of launching, or has any intention of launching, an attack against us or one of our allies?

And there are more questions that are as yet unanswered. What is the evidence that Saddam Hussein wants to commit suicide, which such an attack would guarantee? Why is containment, a strategy which kept the Soviet Union with its thousands of nuclear warheads and chemical and biological weapons at bay for 40 years, not valid for Saddam Hussein, a cold, calculating tyrant who cares above all about staying in power?

I am not sure how these questions can be answered without an updated National Intelligence Estimate. As the Washington Post has reported, there are conflicting views within the intelligence community on Iraq, and without this estimate, which pulls together the different assessments by various parts of the intelligence community, Congress is being asked to give a blank check without all of the facts. I am not going to write a blank check under any circumstances and I am certainly not going to do it with less than all of the facts.

We also must assess whether an attack could spin out of control and draw the entire Middle East into war. As Secretary Rumsfeld acknowledged, an Iraqi attack on Israel could spark a deadly spiral of escalation in which Israeli retaliation prompts responses from other Arab states. Israel has a right of self-defense, and Prime Minister Sharon has said that Israel would retaliate. At the very least, it would further inflame Arab populations whose governments are key to bringing lasting peace to the Middle East and reducing the breeding grounds for extremist Islamic fundamentalism and international terrorism. Some of those breeding grounds are within the borders of some of our closest friends in the region and we should not lose sight of that.

We also must fully assess the costs of a war. The Gulf War cost tens of billions of dollars, but ultimately other nations helped to defray those costs. The President’s Economic Adviser said that this war could cost as much as two hundred billion dollars, and that assumes it does not spread beyond Iraq.

As the combat in Afghanistan showed, once again, we have the finest fighting forces in the world. We can be confident that we would win a war with Iraq, but there would be American lives lost, especially if Iraq lures U.S. troops into urban combat.

We have to remember that it is one thing to topple a regime, but it is equally important, and sometimes far more difficult, to rebuild a country to prevent it from becoming engulfed by factional fighting. If these nations cannot successfully rebuild, then they will once again become havens for terrorists.

The President would need to show that a post-Saddam Iraq would not be a continual source of instability and conflict in the region. While Iraq has a strong civil society that might be able to become a democracy, in the chaos of a post-Saddam Iraq another dictator could rise to the top or the country could splinter into ethnic or religious conflict.

To ensure that this does not happen, does the Administration foresee basing thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq after the war, and if so, for how many years and for how many billions of dollars at a time when the U.S. economy is weakening, the Federal deficit is growing, and poverty is increasing here at home?

Is the Administration committed to investing the resources it is going to take to rebuild Iraq, even when we are falling short of what is needed in Afghanistan?

In Afghanistan, the Taliban was vanquished with a minimum of U.S. casualties, but destroying al Qaeda, which is the primary goal of our efforts in Afghanistan, is proving far more difficult. We are told that while al Qaeda’s leadership has been badly disrupted, its members have dispersed widely. Although there is a growing belief that Osama bin Laden is dead, we have no proof.

In addition, the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan is critical. There are thousands of homeless Afghans and a real threat of widespread hunger or famine this winter. There are families who lost loved ones or their homes were destroyed in the violence perpetrated by the Taliban, years of civil war, or from mistakes made during military operations by U.S. and coalition forces.

Yet the Administration, despite calls by President Bush for a Marshall Plan, did not ask for a single cent for Afghanistan for fiscal year 2003. In addition, $94 million for humanitarian, refugee, and reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan, which Congress added in the Supplemental Appropriations Bill, was not deemed an emergency by the President.

Some relief organizations have already been told that they may have to shut down programs for lack of funds. This is happening in a country that so desperately needs the most basic staples such as water, education and medical help. Afghans who have returned to their homes from outside the country may become refugees once again.

Many other nations have yet to fulfill pledges of assistance to Afghanistan, but if the President is serious about a Marshall Plan, and I believe he is right, then we need to do much more to help rebuild that country.

Yet, as we continue to face difficult challenges in Afghanistan and hunting down members of al Qaeda, not to mention a number of challenges here at home such as the economy, we are suddenly being thrust into a debate about Iraq. It is a debate that will have lasting consequences for our standing in the world as a country that recognizes the importance of multilateral solutions to global problems and that respects international law.

General Wesley Clark, who headed the successful U.S. and NATO military campaign in Kosovo, recently addressed this problem directly, when he wrote:

"The longer this war [on terrorism] goes on - and by all accounts, it will go on for years - the more our success will depend on the willing cooperation and active participation of our allies to root out terrorist cells in Europe and Asia, to cut off funding and support of terrorists and to deal with Saddam Hussein and other threats. We are far more likely to gain the support we need by working through international institutions than outside of them."



Mr. President, the world cannot ignore Saddam Hussein. I can envision circumstances which would cause me to support the use of force against Iraq, if we cannot obtain unimpeded access for UN inspectors or the United States is threatened with imminent harm.

But like many Vermonters, based on what I know today, I believe that in order to solve this problem without potentially creating more enemies over the long run, we must act deliberately, not precipitously.

The President has taken the first step, by seeking support from the United Nations. Let us give that process time. If it fails, then we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

But I am reminded of my first year as a United States Senator. The year was 1975, and there were still 60 or 70 Senators here who had voted for the Tonkin Gulf resolution a decade earlier. That vote was 88-2, and many of those Senators, Democrats and Republicans, spoke of that vote as the greatest mistake of their careers.

That resolution was adopted hastily after reports of a minor incident which may, in fact, not have occurred at all. It was interpreted by both the Johnson and Nixon Administrations as carte blanche to wage war in Vietnam for over a decade, ultimately involving over half a million American troops and resulting in the deaths of over 58,000 Americans.

I am not suggesting that the Administration is trying to deceive Congress or the American people, and I recognize that the situation in Iraq today is very different from Vietnam in 1964. But we learned some painful and important lessons back then. And one that is as relevant today as it was 38 years ago, is that the Senate should never give up its Constitutional rights, responsibilities, and authority to the Executive Branch. It should never shrink from its Constitutional responsibilities, especially when the lives of American servicemen and women are at stake.

So Mr. President, when we consider the resolution on Iraq, I hope we will remember those lessons, because under no circumstances should the Congress pass a blank check and let the Administration fill in the amount later. The Constitution does not allow that, and I will not do that.

Mark

[Timber Loftis]

Skywalker, I never knew the 4th Moon of Yavin was in Vermont. No wonder I liked it so much there.

Magick - and others, of course: here's a nytimes article from today echoing the need for Bush to address the economy - it's got opinion poll percentages. Jeffords is not the only one to have this bright idea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/07/politics/07POLL.html