My first Bush bashing - inauguration costs and DC

[elucidator]

That last for Random, of course…

[An_Arky]

Would someone from the right wing please specifically address the actual point of the OP, not inaugurations in general. The point is:

Is it fair for the Bush administration to force the District of Columbia to take money from their Anti-Terrorism budget to fund part the inauguration, when this has never been done before?

Cany you honestly say that this isn’t at all politically motivated?

If you are intellectually honest, please answer this question specifically. I don’t give a rat’s ass about who’s a Bush-basher or who’s a Bush-bot or anything like that. I just want a straight answer, politics be damned!

[Brutus]

@An Arky

Is it fair for the Bush administration to force the District of Columbia to take money from their Anti-Terrorism budget to fund part the inauguration, when this has never been done before?

Yes. Those are Federal dollars, not from the pockets of DClings. And since those dollars were earmarked to counter terrorism, and since there is a large terrorism concern at the inauguration (from domestic and foreign sources), I don’t see what the problem is. Not to mention all the other federal money that flows to the DC budget.

[An_Arky]

@Brutus

Yes. Those are Federal dollars, not from the pockets of DClings. And since those dollars were earmarked to counter terrorism, and since there is a large terrorism concern at the inauguration (from domestic and foreign sources), I don’t see what the problem is. Not to mention all the other federal money that flows to the DC budget.

Yes, I realize that. If, say, when the last budget was being worked up, there was going to be a mandate for inauguration support, that’s well, O.K. (we’ve known about the inauguration and the terrorist threats for quite some time!)

But throwing it at them at the last minute smacks of red vs. blue politics. I understand perfectly the “to the victor goes the spoils” concept, but it’s application in this instance is petty. Especially when seen in contrast to the huge spending seen on tax cuts and wars and stuff. Seriously, a few million for inauguration security is chump change to the Fed, but a serious blow to the DC budget, which is just now beginning to get more reasonably managed than before (being careful not to give too much credit there).

Hey, politics is politics and security is vital. But fair is fair, and this just doesn’t seem right.

[Antonius_Block]

@MsRobyn

Given Bush’s L’etat est moi attitude, if the constitutional amendment limiting the president to two terms is repealed to allow him to run for a third term, I am leaving the country.

MsRobyn, although I’m sure that we’re nearly 100% in agreement politically, I for one would welcome a repeal of the 22nd Amendment. However, I don’t think that GWB really wants the 22nd repealed.

In his Oedipal struggle with his father, he has:
[ul]
[li]Beaten Saddam Hussein.[/li][li]Become a two-term President.[/li][/ul]
The one thing that he could do to win the “Oedipus trifecta” is to beat “The Big Dog” in a Presidential election.

It’s probably the one thing that he’d really love to do, but as of now, despite being “called by God”, I don’t think that he really believes that he could do it. This, despite the fact that WJC is one of the most hated men (by some people) in the USA, and HRC is one of the most hated (by the same people) women .

As of now (January 2005), I don’t think GWB would dare run against WJC. By 2007 we may have people clamoring to repeal the 22nd, but they may be Democrats!

[Yes I’m aware that there’s an – as yet untested – way in which Bill Clinton could be POTUS again via the 25th, without repealing the 22nd, but the only way I could realistically see him being Prez again is via an election.]

[Steve_MB]

@Brutus

those dollars were earmarked to counter terrorism, and since there is a large terrorism concern at the inauguration

Given that there is a much cheaper solution available (hold a simple ceremony in a small secured room), the spending is unjustified to begin with, and taking the money from needed antiterror funds is doubly unjustified.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Brutus
those dollars were earmarked to counter terrorism, and since there is a large terrorism concern at the inauguration

As Jan. 20 Nears, Terror Warnings Drop

In April, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced that al Qaeda terrorists might strike during this week’s presidential inauguration festivities in Washington. The warning was part of a drumbeat sounded by U.S. officials throughout 2004 that terrorists were seeking to launch attacks both during and after the election season.

Nine months later, the threat level has been lowered, and Ridge, speaking at a news conference last week, said there is no evidence of a plot to disrupt President Bush’s inauguration. Previous warnings, Ridge explained, stemmed from threat reports tied to the elections – not to the inauguration more than two months later.

[Brutus]

@Squink

As Jan. 20 Nears, Terror Warnings Drop

Excellent! Now they can put those federal dollars to good use!

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

How is it good use to spend federal tax dollars on a garish, self-congratulatory fuck party and religious service for an incompetent civil servant?

There is no excuse to spend a cent of tax payer dollars on this thing. There is no need for a public ceremony at all, and it’s especially grotesque to do it when people are still dying because of that same civil servant’s prior dishonesty dishonesty and ineptitude. It shows an absolutely callous indifference to the lives of the soldiers he’s killed to party on their graves like this.

[Squink]

@Brutus

Excellent! Now they can put those federal dollars to good use!

Sure, they could use the cash to install heaters in the tidal basin, so that cavorting senators and their fan-dancing friends don’t get so cold during their midnight romps.

[Frank]

@Squink

Sure, they could use the cash to install heaters in the tidal basin, so that cavorting senators and their fan-dancing friends don’t get so cold during their midnight romps.

[nitpick]
Wilbur Mills was a member of the House of Representatives.
[/nitpick]

[Squink]

@This Year's Model

[nitpick]
Wilbur Mills was a member of the House of Representatives.
[/nitpick]

Or relocation camps for pedants!

[Frank]

@Squink

Or relocation camps for pedants!

Maybe I’ll change my name to Arrant Pedant.

[Yeticus_Rex]

@Miller

I’m opposed to pomp and ceremony on a purely non-partisan basis. I’m with both Liberal and Diogenes (and how often do you hear that?). The President is a bureaucrat, not a monarch. Let’s get back to treating him like one.

You mean like…Camelot?