| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
December 29th 03, 09:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#2
December 30th 03, 02:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
December 31st 03, 02:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
BB,
The First Rule of Politics is . . . It's Not Who Did the Work - That Gets the Credit or the Blame. It's Who Signs the Bill (Act of Congress) into LAW [.] So Give that US Congress and President the Credit or the Blame. One of Your American Freedoms = Freedom of Choice ! [ ] The President (The Man) [ ] The US Congress (House and Senate) [ ] "Both" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Concerning: Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Public Law 100-526 enacted by the 100th US Congress, 2nd Session, 1988 NOTE: In 1988 the President was R. Reagan " The original base-closing law was designed to minimize political interference. The statute established a bipartisan commission to make recommendations to Congress and the Secretary of Defense on closures and realignments. Lawmakers had to accept or reject the commission´s report in its entirety. On December 28, 1988, the commission issued its report, recommending closure of 86 installations, partial closure of 5, and realignment of 54 others. The Secretary of Defense approved its recommendation on January 5, 1989." http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ility/brac.htm Public Law 101-510 enacted by the 101th US Congress, 2nd Session, 1990 NOTE: In 1990 the President was GH Bush. " Since the commission approach adopted by Congress was successful, new base closure legislation was introduced which also relied on the services of an independent commission. Congress refined the process in 1990 with another law (PL 101-510) that charged the Defense Department with drawing up an initial list of bases for consideration by the commission. This commission, in accordance with a statutory provision, met in 1991, 1993, and 1995. The Defense Base Closure and Realignment of 1990 (1990 Base Closure Act), Public Law 101-510 established the process by which Department of Defense (DOD) installations would be closed and/or realigned." Please Note that there were Four (4) BRAC Events: http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/army.htm * BRAC 1988 was Accepted by the US Congress and Signed by President Reagan * BRAC 1991 was Accepted by the US Congress and Signed by President GH Bush * BRAC 1993 was Accepted by the US Congress and Signed by President Clinton * BRAC 1995 was Accepted by the US Congress and Signed by President Clinton Next BRAC will be 2005 ? http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/ bwdik ~ RHF = = = But, What Do I Know. .. .. = = = (Brian) = = = wrote in message . com... (RHF) wrote in message . com... NOTE: The "Down Sizing" (Peace Dividend) of the US Military in the 1990's was not the sole single act of the then President Clinton. It was an ACT of Congress. Daddy Bush got that one rolling, not Clinton. I was there. BB - And Where Was There ? .. |
|
#6
December 31st 03, 04:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael Bryant" wrote in message ... From: (RHF) The First Rule of Politics is . . . It's Not Who Did the Work - That Gets the Credit or the Blame. It's Who Signs the Bill (Act of Congress) into LAW [.] So Give that US Congress and President the Credit or the Blame. That's just silly thinking, RHF! If GH Bush did the bulk of NAFTA negotiations, blaming NAFTA on Clinton is just downright deceptive. The Republicans were the ones that initiated NAFTA and negotiated it. But many Americans are too blinded by political partisanship to see that their heroes were the ones that were responsible. You seem to have somewhat moderated your earlier post above on this same issue to which I responded--the one in which you incorrectly claimed that Clinton had signed NAFTA and made me wonder if you knew what you were talking about. But since you still seem bent on incorrectly making this an exclusively Republican issue, I'll repeat what I wrote: "The implication that NAFTA was entirely Bush's baby is equally incorrect. In fact, Clinton expended political capital and -actively- campaigned for its passage in Congress throughout the early part of his presidency, leading to the passage in November, '93--10 months into Clinton's first term. He was not in the least a passive participant in its Congressional approval, and, again contrary to implication above, was the most active of the past several presidents in supporting free trade. This is evidenced by his total support for GATT in 1994 and the creation of the WTO." In short, the passage of NAFTA was bipartisan. It likely would not have happened without Bush's negotiations; it likely would not have happened without Clinton actively campaigning for it's passage. Those whom who criticize for not seeing it as a "Bush issue" are no more wrong than those who are unable to see it as a "Clinton issue." |
|
#7
December 31st 03, 05:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thing of it is - there's nothing wrong with NAFTA. We just have to
compete better. It's not a fair playing field - I'll grant you that. But I bet you that we'll get do just fine. My faith is in free trade. On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:43:50 -0500, "T. Early" wrote: "Michael Bryant" wrote in message ... From: (RHF) The First Rule of Politics is . . . It's Not Who Did the Work - That Gets the Credit or the Blame. It's Who Signs the Bill (Act of Congress) into LAW [.] So Give that US Congress and President the Credit or the Blame. That's just silly thinking, RHF! If GH Bush did the bulk of NAFTA negotiations, blaming NAFTA on Clinton is just downright deceptive. The Republicans were the ones that initiated NAFTA and negotiated it. But many Americans are too blinded by political partisanship to see that their heroes were the ones that were responsible. You seem to have somewhat moderated your earlier post above on this same issue to which I responded--the one in which you incorrectly claimed that Clinton had signed NAFTA and made me wonder if you knew what you were talking about. But since you still seem bent on incorrectly making this an exclusively Republican issue, I'll repeat what I wrote: "The implication that NAFTA was entirely Bush's baby is equally incorrect. In fact, Clinton expended political capital and -actively- campaigned for its passage in Congress throughout the early part of his presidency, leading to the passage in November, '93--10 months into Clinton's first term. He was not in the least a passive participant in its Congressional approval, and, again contrary to implication above, was the most active of the past several presidents in supporting free trade. This is evidenced by his total support for GATT in 1994 and the creation of the WTO." In short, the passage of NAFTA was bipartisan. It likely would not have happened without Bush's negotiations; it likely would not have happened without Clinton actively campaigning for it's passage. Those whom who criticize for not seeing it as a "Bush issue" are no more wrong than those who are unable to see it as a "Clinton issue." |
|
#8
December 31st 03, 05:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#9
December 31st 03, 05:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: "T. Early" fenwick_island@yahoo.
In short, the passage of NAFTA was bipartisan. It likely would not have happened without Bush's negotiations; it likely would not have happened without Clinton actively campaigning for it's passage. Those whom who criticize for not seeing it as a "Bush issue" are no more wrong than those who are unable to see it as a "Clinton issue." Well, here's an interesting test: Would have NAFTA been passed if Bill Clinton had lost to GH Bush? Certainly, it had bipartisan support, as you so clearly pointed out. Remember, Clinton kept the Bush negotiating team, so we would've had the same treaty with either President. Based on the points you have clarified, it seems that you agree that anyone blaming NAFTA on Clinton simply doesn't understand the strong Republican support for neoliberal economic policies. Even GW Bush is striving the Western Hem Free Trade Zone, right? I used to support the vague notion of free trade. I used to believe that countries trading with each other were less likely to go to war. But the evolution of neoliberal trade policies as exemplified by recent free trade agreements seems like a race to the bottom, maximizing international corporate profits over environmental concerns, human rights, national employment foundations and livable wages. In this light, I think Clinton and both Bushes are guilty of placing trade concerns above other legitimate concerns. Bryant |
|
#10
January 1st 04, 12:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
= = = ojunk (Michael Bryant)
= = = wrote in message ... From: (RHF) The First Rule of Politics is . . . It's Not Who Did the Work - That Gets the Credit or the Blame. It's Who Signs the Bill (Act of Congress) into LAW [.] So Give that US Congress and President the Credit or the Blame. That's just silly thinking, RHF! =R= It is NOT My Thinking - It Simply the Reality of Public Perception. Most of the Credit or Blame should got to the US Congress [.] But it is easier for the Public (with the Help of the Media) to 'focus' on the One Man (NOT the Many) who they can Visualize and Single out in their minds and that MAN is "The President" [.] If GH Bush did the bulk of NAFTA negotiations, blaming NAFTA on Clinton is just downright deceptive. =R= But... Implementation happened on Clinton's Watch (Presidency) The Republicans were the ones that initiated NAFTA and negotiated it. =R= Actually NAFTA was negotiated by the Bush Administration. Then NAFTA was Accepted by a Republican Controlled US Congress. Finally NAFTA was Implemented by the Clinton Administration. TBL: The 'implementation' "The DOING" was done by President Clinton. But many Americans are too blinded by political partisanship to see that their heroes were the ones that were responsible. =R= With Most People - Feeling Are Facts And Feelings are in The HERE! & The NOW ! * If I am Feeling Good - Then Credit "The MAN" [President] * If I am Feeling Bad - Then Blame "The MAN" [President] FACTS AND THE ACTUAL HISTORY OF EVENTS BE DAMMED ! In The HERE & The NOW - It's How I Feel That Is Important. They need to grow up. =R= The Pubic simply needs to be 'educated' by the MEDIA. Every Vote on a Major Issue (Bill) by the 'local' US Representative and US Senators should be covered by the Local Media. But the failure of the Local Media is to Parrots of the National Media. So the 'national' Media reports "The President" did this today; and the 'local' Media reports "The President" did this today. The same AP, UPI etc stories read and re-read by both the national and local Media. IMHO: A FREE PRESS's Primary Job is to "Inform" the Electorate and the 'local' MEDIA is Failing in their JOB [.] BTW, thanks for your documentation proving that military downsizing actually began under Reagan! =R= Actually BRAC started with President Kennedy; then Presidents Johnson and Nixon did very little; and next President Carter tried his hand at it and was blocked by Congress. Finally building on Lessons Learned for President Carter; the Reagan Administration was able to get BRAC going effectively. (But the dirty little secret is that the original US Congress built-in a DELAY into the BRAC Process so their Vote would long be forgotten and "The President" would get the Blame. Bryant =R= wmcis ~ RHF .. .. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| The Conspiracy to "Silence" Rush Limbaugh = A Vast Left Wing Plot. | Shortwave | |||
| YOU PEOPLE QUIT PICKING ON RUSH!!!! Racist druggie Rush runs from the media | General | |||
| YOU PEOPLE QUIT PICKING ON RUSH!!!! Racist druggie Rush runs from the media | Shortwave | |||
| YOU PEOPLE QUIT PICKING ON RUSH!!!! Racist druggie Rush runs from the medi | Shortwave | |||
| Racist druggie Rush runs from the media | Shortwave | |||
Hybrid Mode
