Arkansas Blog

Congress sucks. They can'teven write a bill that one can understand much less is effective. they all suck.

Do your jobs damn it! Maybe actually solve a problem or two.

Or at best don't make it worse. There you go. That's an idea. Baby steps.

So Rep. Snyder is walking with Dennis Kucinich now. I'm not sure I'd be bragging about that.

I'd have voted for this less-than-perfectly-worded bill and hoped to replace it with a better bill later. I certainly wouldn't have voted against it. At least it was moving us in the right direction.

Like I said before. I respect Snyder's vote even if I might not agree with it. More thinking went into Snyder's statement than the White House has done in a couple of months.

Interesting that Kucinich also voted "no." Dennis ain't exactly "Liebermann Lite."

Why support a meaningless "fluff" bill? We KNOW who opposes the reign of George II...

i trust vic snyder. he has proven himself.

or,

fourth, I'm from Arkansas and I'm afraid I can't get reelected if I vote for this bill.

That's really OK. Unless you are going to vote Green or Libertarian, that is what you get.

Spirit I respectfully disagree with your suggestion that backing a worthless bill becasue it would be a move in the opposite direction.

Bush/Cheney would be highfiving this bill in the White House.

This would give them 4 months to do NOTHING then reduce troops by "as Snyder said," 100, 20, or five.

Bush Cheney are so damn arrogant they would reduce troops by one. Then claim they are meeting all requirements set forth by Congress. They would claim that their hands are tied.

As evidence I submit the USAPATRIOT Act. Bush Cheney got wording passed that allowed the Pres to bypass Senate approval (if not in session) for appointing US Attorneys under the guise that if the capital was attacked and the Senate was massacred, the Pres could appoint attorneys as interim.

Who could argue with that need? But the working made it LEGAL to wait till the Senate recessed and appoint UA Attorneys with no constitutionally required Senate approval.

This bunch in the White House needs EXACT, UNAMBIGUOUS wording spelling out exactly that we are to get out.

Do not trust this bunch to do the right thing even if the right thing was easier to do.

As my grandfather would have said, "This bunch would rather climb a tree and tell a lie than to stand on the ground and tell the truth."

Kucinich has never voted for any bill that allows for any war even when it is a "reduction" in military use he still considers it condoning extended wrong use of force... Kucinich will only vote for complete withdrawl..at least that is my short take on Kucinich's reasoning and his voting record is very consistent with this.

Snyder, for one thing, is saying give Petraeus a little more time (Kucinich would never say that under these circumstances)... time asked for that according to this bills wording do not conflict with each other.. the time frames do not cross.... 120 days from now is long after mid September reporting from Patraeus is due. Also the pre reporting from Petraeus suggests complete failure of the surge goals..and goes further with suggestions of additional years in Iraq to "complete the mission."

Snyders third point
<<<<<
"Third, it is vital that we as a nation focus not just on troop strength, but also on what is our strategy in the region; and by strategy, we must mean more than occasionally sending Secretary Rice on a belated trip to the Middle East.
<<<<<<<<<

Yes sir, the strategy from the beginning was based on lies... any thinking person knows this. Should it be the strategy of the USA to use lethal force in taking over other counties which were no threat to us in order to steal their natural resources..and if so, shouldn't we all be honest about it?

Also it is simply impossible to expect Bushco or Conde to conduct diplomacy... they have only contempt for the very idea of diplomacy and cannot be expected to change or conduct it well.. Clearly no foreign leaders would take them (Bushco) seriously when offering to talk openly and honestly or allow themselves to think peace was any true intention of the US republican party. (Or most Democrats, truth be told.)

I share disappointment with the undefined wording "limited presence" but we all know how important it is to keep the D's in the Senate armed with forceful tools such as this legislation in order to keep the pressure on those Senators who are ready to stay in Iraq for decades and or attack Iran and Syria. [fail forward]

If Snyder is suggesting he supports ideas such as keeping "peacekeeping forces" in the region for the foreseeable future... For one thing he is helping neo cons keep the door wide open for needless war with Iran.

Snyders intentions may be well placed (though this looks to be a stretch in relation to continued occupation) but doesn't seem to be to clear the real enemy is US right now.. The neo cons have knives out and far to many Democrats are fighting back with feather dusters.

Damn. If it were not for the terrible consequences of having to live in Central Arkansas, it would almost be worth moving off the mountain to put myself in position to cast a legal vote for Vic Snyder.

As memory serves, on a Friday when I've given myself the afternoon off, Rep. Vic, the Honorable Mr. Snyder, Sir, was among the few (none now a Candidate) who had the courage to point out the absence of the Emperor's clothes and the consequently apparent shortness, when it came time for a federal vote on the 'war' back in '03. (Being opposed in Illinois was rather less risky.)

From up here at the edge of the cliff, Vic Snyder is a total anomaly. He has time in uniform (don't know if he heard incoming fire), enough geekiness to earn both a MD and JD (don't know if he collected money from real patients or clients), the good sense to marry a Methodist and the bad sense to volunteer to be Caesar's wife by marrying a pastor. Despite all his virtues, he's managed to get himself elected six times to Congress by a majority of the type of voter who resisters in Central Arkansas.

If Vic Snyder, who does this for a living, says this is a bad bill, that's all I need to know.

I've never gone wrong thus far by trusting what Snyder has to say on an issue. I may sometimes disagree with his position on a subject but I've never seen him lie about why he votes the way he does.

I'm with Zonker: I trust Vic. In fact, he may be the only politician I DO trust.

A vote to get re-elected? Man, you must not be familiar with some of the things Snyder has supported and some of the things he has opposed. Not real vote getters on a number of positions. He does what he thinks is right. Which may be why some *Republicans* vote for him - they admire his guts to vote what he thinks best even if it's not the "get re-elected" thing to do.

silverback, vic was a marine in nam and as i understand saw plenty of fire. he practiced medicine. i am not sure of the law. he has earned his liberal credentials with me and if he wants to vote on a war bill that he says is bad then he is probably right. i have never met the man but i am very proud that he represents our district. he seems to study the bills more than the average congressman, i have heard that he actually reads some of them. he is a good man and i wish i would have the chance to vote for him for senator. the state and country would be better off if he would. his wife i understand from members of her church is an excellent pastor and her church is lucky to have her also.

As much as I hate this war and wish it was over tomorrow morning at 8 am sharp, I'm with the trust Vic crowd.

The one thing I can agree with 100% is given unclear language, the Cheney neo-cons will make it their bitch. You can bet they'd pull some troops home that were scheduled to come home anyway and call the rest "limited presence". Hell they might just bring home some dead bodies and call the rest "limited presence".

We know they'd rather crook us than do the right thing. It is a horrible reflection on Congress that no one can come up with a bill in clear terms and force the end of the US presence in Iraq. That is my aim....not a cotton-picking US soldier left on their soil.

I don't like walking or sitting in the dark, but I'd rather do that than see eternal war in order to steal the Middle Eastern oil. Those in power today believe in their hearts the US MUST have that oil at all costs. The only problem is they expect us to bear the "all cost" part of that deal and to them I say go FK yourself.

I hope like hell that Vic Snyder goes back to work to bring a bill forward that will end this war as soon as possible. Waiting on Petraeus means 200 to 300 more dead American soldiers.

That's one hum-dinger of a price to be paying. Forced deployment of the children of Congressmen might make me feel a tad better about it...but no....I deplore the loss of all life.

We're sure our White House is crooked. We're sure this war is bogus. We're sure we can't win this war at any price. So why the damn pussy-footing around?

Congress.....DO YOUR JOB and that includes the silent Lincoln and Pryor too.

I don't think Vic's reasoning is a stretch, by any means. Given this administration's disastrous record, you can't give them even a fraction of an inch, because they'll turn it into a mile quicker than you can turn around.

I've met Vic and heard him speak on several occasions. He's one politician who can handle a question--any question--with grace and clarity and even humor.

I'm glad to have him serve and represent us.

As he always has, Vic makes another reasoned and insightful decision. If congress were filled with more like him we wouldn't be in this mess.

Well...Golley, Vic should be running for President Y'all!!!

"More thinking went into Snyder's statement than the White House has done in a couple of months."

Ummmm . . . can we amend this to "than the White House has done in, say, over six years"?

OK, all of us smart folks agree.

I'm still not moving off the mountain.

On more thing. Vic voted and we yelped. Vic then explained his vote in detail, openly and honestly. Though I'm not tickled pink, I do appreciate his explanation of his vote on this important issue.

Why 4 can't Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln do the same thing? I was mad at Vic Snyder this morning...now I'm not...because he respected us enough to explain his vote.

Maybe I'd get off Pryor's hind end if he'd take 10 minutes out of his day to explain why he voted with the Republicans on such and such issue.

I know we're not very important but supposedly we're the ones that vote these people into office. Supposedly we can vote them out.

So.....being thrown a bone now and then keeps us a little happier. It's what I do if I was in Congress or State government too, for that matter.

We're like little tiny distant wives....if you come home at 4 am or vote with the enemy...ya have to tell us something...even if it's a lie.

Thanks Vic Snyder for the explanation. Though I still think Cheney will be the dead of us all....I do feel a little better now.

This House vote along with this weeks Senate vote 97/0 for the Lieberman amendment.. is what horifies me about Iran... I would really like to know what information Snyder and other good congressman are relying on to vote this way... (Notice only two representatives voted no, Kucinich and Paul)

(House bill info at my name)

The Senate version (Lieberman amendment was based on poor reporting of intel if one reads the actual text of the bill)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...0:SP02073:

and follow the link to pages 9035-36.

If your read the facts part of it, you will note that most of it is based on releases by the military's PR spokesmen Bergner and Caldwell. Most are from Bergner who recently was working at the White House. The infamous and largely discredited February 11 Baghdad briefing is also referenced. In other words it is still the largely unsubstantiated case it ever was. It is truly scandalous that Senators continue to buy into this stuff unquestioningly. They should be telling the military and intelligence communities to put up or shut up. Real evidence, guys, not the made up stuff.

Also if they are going to call out Iran, how about similar treatment for our good buddies the Saudis and Pakistanis. Saudi money continues to go to the Iraqi insurgency and radical madrassas everywhere. The Pakistanis continue to back the Taliban against the Karzai government in Kabul.

These bills suggest to me we are going to war with Iran, 75 million more people...for oil.. not because of Iranian Nukes.... and the entire congress is easing us towards it as we live and breathe... without telling us why. Again.

I must applaud and second Citizen Home:

"Bush Cheney are so damn arrogant they would reduce troops by one. Then claim they are meeting all requirements set forth by Congress. They would claim that their hands are tied."

And most of you folks are a pleasure to read. Good redemption Vic. Excellent points DBI on doing some 'splaining' to the folks back home. Our two senators are way too arrogant until election time.
.

dbi i guarantee that pryors explanation would not be as measured or reasoned as vic's. vic is an old fashioned educated liberal. he served his country, he is highly educated and he still believes in the people. pryor i am afraid still thinks he is the smart one. he listens to his ole buddy joe and alberto flatter him and he thinks he is really important. i am afraid that is what you get from being brought up in washington thinking you are important. it is really too bad because he seems like a nice kid and might have made a decent senator but he has become such a sellout to whoever flatters him that he is pretty worthless compared to what he could have been.

zonker, we can nip Pryor in the bud come November after next. I notice on the front page of my FS paper today that Pryor hauled in a bunch more money.

Well.....looking at his voting record, I have to wonder whose given him millions? His ability to raise quick money points to being bought off as much as it points to being popular. And we know he's not so popular within the state of Arkansas.

There is an African-American gentleman in the Pryor wood pile somewhere. Wonder what would happen if Vic Snyder ran against him in the primary? Hmmmmmm.

It's impossible to agree with anyone on everything...

If Vic says it's a bad bill, then it must be...I trust him...

Now I am off to change a poopie diaper and enjoy some Browning's...

That didn't come out right...

HA!

LOL! rosso. I thought the same thing as I read it.

I see you are a traditionalist when it comes to Arkansas Mexican food. When I was in high school, people drove all the way from Russellville and back for a Mexican dinner at Browning's. Most exotic food in the state. It was a special night out, in those days. For anniversaries, even.

Wow.

Just. . . wow.

Is that a positive presponse to Vic's reply, TAP, or maybe just to the fact that he actually gave us one? Or are you somehow aghast?

I thought you lived in his district (although I'm not sure I remember whether you've said where you live--and not to imply that I even know the boundaries of his district; I just know I live there).

widj,

I have a very positive response to Vic's response. He was that way in law school--direct and measured.

I am proud he's my Congressman. The followng quote makes a lot of sense, especially since the Sunnis and Shiites, and Turks and Kurds, may make the mess we've made even messier:

"Third, it is vital that we as a nation focus not just on troop strength, but also on what is our strategy in the region; and by strategy, we must mean more than occasionally sending Secretary Rice on a belated trip to the Middle East."
------

My "wow" related to something else.

As we were discussing in the other thread, Vic's idea is probably not at all related to President Bush's "let's keep pouring troops in until up is down and black is white" approach.